Homosexual Adultery is NOT Grounds for Divorce!

UnDisfellowshipped

Quote from The Watchtower January 1st 1972 Issue, Pages 31-32:

Questions from Readers

Do homosexual acts on the part of a married person constitute a Scriptural ground for divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry? - U.S.A.

Homosexuality is definitely condemned in the Bible as something that will prevent individuals from gaining God's approval. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10) However, whether an innocent mate would Scripturally be able to remarry after procuring a legal divorce from a mate guilty of homosexual acts must be determined on the basis of what the Bible says respecting divorce and remarriage...

...While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual "one flesh" with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate.
-----------------------------------------------

Any comments on this one?

Elsewhere

So if a married woman only give anal to her lover, does that mean they did not commit adultry?

Elsewhere

What about head? Does the same apply to giving head?

DJ

Hi Undis,

I became aware of that stupid teaching thanks to this forum. I also learned that sex with animals wasn't considered adulterous either. I'm sure that you will find that info, thread wiz that you are! Run a search under beastiality, I guess. UNBELIEVABLE> I think that these two things have since gotten new light. Dj

p.s. I don't know if I spelled the beast word right. It's not my thing.

target

I was studying with the JWs at the time that was written and I still remember it because it made no logical sense to me. Years later Iwould read an article on the front page of the Milwausee newspaper about an apostate who said that back then his wife was in a lesbian affair and he divorced her and he got disfellowshipped and she did not. Then new light came along and he was no longer a wrong doer.

This was just one of many things that I filed away in my "something is wrong here" file.

target

Inkie

Greetings Undisfellowshiped and All: The substance of that article was retracted in one of the December issues of that same year (1972). If you have the 1972 Watchtower volume you can check out the January issue in contrast to the December issue. (Not sure whether the December issue was the 1st or the 15th.) The Society received so many many letters because of the January doctrine that by the time December came around they changed the doctrine to where divorce is okay. Most interesting.

Inkie

back2dafront

Yet again.....if they were spirit-directed, do you think they'd need to retract ANYTHING? If they're following God's direction, why change something a month later when the ranks don't like what you said?

Not to say they shouldn't have changed it - they definitely did the right thing by correcting it. It just never should've happened to begin with.

If it's not grounds for divorce, then there must not be anything WRONG WITH IT!

Geez man...I swear....

mamashel

I read about this in Crisis of Conscience. He told about a man in another country, that he had anal sex with another woman, and his wife went to the elders about it, and she divorced him, and was df'd for remarrying. I believe it was the same with another situation that a womans husband was having sex with animals, and she told the elders she could no longer live with this man, and they told her she had no scriptural reasons for leaving him, and was df'd. The other situation with the anal sex, the wife was told that they did not become one flesh and that it was not in a way that could result in child birth.

UUUHHHH, i think anal sex would be considdered one flesh, since flesh is touching, (scratching her head)

wouldnt it???

Just sickening.

mamashel

jimbob

Just for everybody's info.....the retraction is in the December 15th 1972 Watchtower, pages 766-768. Can't believe it took them almost a year to pull their heads out of their asses........!

Here's a quote from that article:

"A thorough study of the matter shows that porneia refers to all forms of immoral sexual relations".

So what they're saying is that they didn't do a thorough study the first time, so now through new light, and deeper study, they're wrong. Of course, this has been par for the course over the years!

Edited by - jimbob on 6 October 2002 21:12:49

Inkie

Why would a spouse NEED a divorce when the Mosaic Law stipulated the death penalty for all of these offenses? No, they didn't do their research well enough!

Inkie

Homosexual Adultery is NOT Grounds for Divorce!

Share this