No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Pistoff

  I'm trying to understand what you expected to happen differently. How would it ever have been a good experience being a gay JW in a community that so demonizes homosexuality.

  I don't know what Magotan's experience was like; it took me a long time to get over the idea that I really was in the truth.

  I didn't wake up one day and say, Oh, I am a free thinker, it is reasonable for them to reject me.

  More like years of internal struggle for my real self to come out, in the meanwhile the characteristics of my real self, independent thinking and rational analysis of what they said, were ridiculed from stage, leaving me to think I may be rejected by God.

  This is the crux of the matter; those still in, whether elders or the people they will be picking on, think this is from God.

  If they were all self aware, they could dismiss it as LUHE and Simon do, as being just what shitty fundy cults do.

  It is more complicated than that for those still 'in'.
  
• 

  nicolaou

  Homosexuality is a sin.

  Hmmm, can't tell if I'm reading attempted humour or bigoted stupidity . .
• 

  Simon

  why are you giving the WT a pass, allowing that this is OK for them?

  I'm not. I'm just interested to hear what people expect or think would be an alternative to the situation they are in. Through no fault of their own they are born gay to parents who happen to belong to a religion that is anti-gay. What outcome do we expect other than they will feel isolated / conflicted and eventually driven out, probably having a miserable existence unless and until they wake up to the impossible position they are in.

  Some seem to be suggesting that the WTS should have some kind of don't ask / don't tell policy but I don't understand why they think that would ever be likely. Until society continues it's shift in opinion so that such discrimination is so blatantly outdated and looked down upon I don't see religions like the WTS changing their beliefs and these sorts of groups will be one of the last to change.

  Is it that I'm discussing this from a pragmatist position rather than an idealist position that is throwing you off? I would love for the WTS to be very different in many ways. But I don't think it's realistic.

  Sure, the society should to this and shouldn't do that - we could all create a perfect model of how we think a religion should work but that won't make it happen any more than praying for it will.

  Is that not what this site is about, for us to air our grievances about the WT?

  Yes, but having a grievance doesn't mean we need to be unbalanced and obsessive and unreasonable. There is a tendency to look for fault when none exists and find fault no matter what. I don't think this blame-obsession is healthy for people.

  I think our message and criticism of the WTS is strongest when it's on solid ground and I think the argument many are making are based off more than is in those instructions.

  I don't know what Magotan's experience was like; it took me a long time to get over the idea that I really was in the truth.

  I didn't wake up one day and say, Oh, I am a free thinker, it is reasonable for them to reject me.

  Is it reasonable to imagine that complete abandonment of a very opinionated belief system would ever be easy and conflict free? Yes, the WTS is to blame. But the WTS is a collection of people - who are the specific people to blame? The GB? The people who pass the message on? Our parents who brought us up under that belief system?

  I know it's taken me a long time to 'get over' the WTS experience and we never cease to be impacted by it in some form or another. But clinging to the anger doesn't ultimately help.

  Yes, it was painful to leave but I am glad I went through that for my kids. Everyone has choices to make and that includes whether you stand up for your kids and accept them regardless of their beliefs or sexuality. In an ideal world we would all have great parents who make the right choices but we sadly don't. Likewise every religious group would be loving and kind and allow people to join and leave freely, but we don't.

  That isn't defending the behavior of either when things don't happen as we'd like or would best suit us, it's just recognizing the reality of the situation.
• 

  TakeOffTheCrown

  Homosexuality is a sin. Governments may declare the practice of homosexuality legal. But is it legal (not a sin) in God's eyes? He says not. Those who do such things, are you hoping that God will remember you when you die and resurrect you?

  Why take the chance? DO NOT practice it.
• 

  Oubliette

  Is that because they are gay or because they are effeminate / metro-sexual?

  Yes.
  

  How do you define "adversely affected"?

  Seriously? If I have to explain it then you wouldn't get it.
  
• 

  Simon

  Why take the chance?

  Ah, the old & tired "what if you're wrong" argument (not really an argument).

  Well, what if you're wrong and your god doesn't exist? You have wasted the one life you get on a fantasy. What if you're wrong and you've worshiped the wrong god? He's gonna smite you up something bad.
  
  
• 

  _Morpheus

  Sigh.... A sin only in the eyes of a petty bronze age goat herder god.

  Free your mind totC. All we can do is show you the door. You have to walk through it
• 

  Simon

  Yes.

  So gay then? (I presume both given that it was an 'or' question).

  Seriously? If I have to explain it then you wouldn't get it.

  There was a point to the question - what sort of "adversely affected" matters, how can it not?

  If it's "made to feel bad for being gay" then how does this new ruling change things? Those beliefs don't change. Won't anyone who is gay in the WTS always be feeling bad until it becomes unbearable and they leave?

  If it's that they will only be identified because of clothing then ... it's about clothing isn't it? How does being closet gay alter the negative effect of the WTS anti-gay stance?

  Could forcing someone to make the decision earlier actually be better for them given there is no immediate outlook for any change in conservative christian beliefs about homosexuality ... otherwise someone could be looking at 20+ years of misery "waiting for Jehovah to come and fix them".
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  If they were all self aware, they could dismiss it as LUHE and Simon do, as being just what shitty fundy cults do.

  It is more complicated than that for those still 'in'

  I can see your point.

  But what if this new restriction (gay JWs refraining from getting a same-sex partner isn't enough, now they mustn't be effeminate at all!) helps wake up more gay JWs - and other JWs - than would normally be the case. Wouldn't that be good?

  Or would you prefer the WT to ease up on acting effeminate so that gay JWs are more likely to stay in, not live how they naturally are, and waste their lives on this cult?
• 

  Pistoff

  Simon: it seems your take is that we should not be surprised, ho hum, just a fundy nuthouse.

  This info was leaked from high up; obviously even insiders were shocked at the extreme nature of the material.

  I don't accept that because they are a 'conservative christian religion' that this is just more of the same.

  Simon, is there comparable material out there about mormons targeting effeminate behavior? I doubt it, but would be interested to know; in the LDS, same sex attraction is recognized as a thing and talked about. They don't tolerate homosexuality, but as far as i know they haven't targeted behavior that seems 'effeminate'.
  

  You imply that I am being obsessive; hilarious, I am relaying information about Tony's Morris' fixation on tight clothing and gay fear/bashing, right down to managing how tight people's clothing is as a possible gauge of sexuality and spirituality, three years running now (the talk in Italy, the AGM and now the insider info to elders) yet I am the obsessive one for pointing out the absurdity and harmful nature of it.

  LUHE: you ask what I would want done it, would it help more gay people leave?

  Maybe, but in the meantime those who aren't gay, just have 'mannerisms' that are objectionable to elders, are targeted.
  

  I wish they would just leave them alone.
  

  If men and women with 'gender blurring' characteristics are going to the hall, how about just leave them alone?

  They obviously want to be there, is that not enough for elders or do they need to drive off everyone who is not exactly like them?

  If they want to leave, they will; if they want to stay, nothing we say will make any difference.

  And about anger: sure, I am angry, maybe I'll get over it someday.
  

  Nickname is Pistoff, after all.