Pointing out that one bad thing is not as bad as another bad thing is not the same as saying the first bad thing isn't bad. This piece of logic seems very obvious to me.
@Cofty
Yes that logic is obvious. However without wanting to copy and paste what you wrote for a third time, that is not what you said. You attempted to excuse the WBTS from the label of homophobic by implying the label homophobic should only be applied to those shoving homosexuals from tall buildings. This piece of logic seems very obvious to me.
Sexism, racism and homophobia are all on a spectrum
The acts which demonstrate sexism, racism and homophobia could be placed on a spectrum. However, the terms sexism, racism and homophobia are NOT spectra.
To add another ism to the pot... if you discriminate or demonstrate hatred against Jewish people because they are Jewish, you are an antisemite. It does not matter if you pushed them out of line queuing for a coke or shot them dead with a gun... you have committed an antisemitic act. This piece of logic seems very obvious to me.
Given the example above, following your flawed reasoning,it takes us to a place where: I call the person that pushed a Jew out of line because he's Jewish antisemtic... but you interject saying "You can't call him antisemitic, it's not like he shot him dead with a gun". It should be totally clear, antisemitism is not a spectrum, but an act of antisemitism could be placed on a spectrum of vileness.
With your two examples of sexism, you said:
Are both of them sexist? Well strictly speaking they are but the same word hardly seems adequate for both of them.
Yes the term sexist applies to both men. It is ill thought to use expressions like "he's a little bit sexist". Does that sound right with my example... "he's a little bit antisemitic". How does this sound... "He's not a really racist, he's just a little bit racist".
Maybe I am doing you an injustice and I have the Cofty racism, sexism and homophobia spectra all wrong? How do you express it? "Oh, he's not really a racist, he's a nice racist"... how about "average racist". Do explain how we codify these so called spectra you have made up in your head.
At one end we have people who genuinely think god disapproves of gay sex but they don't allow that to affect how they relate to gay people
So I can only assume that you believe your quote above applies to the WTBS and IMO that is total BS pure 'n' simple. For example, would the society allow two openly gay brothers to enjoy a strictly platonic relationship or either of them to become an elder? Would the society attempt to 'encourage' them to keep their sexuality quiet or allow them to be themselves? Would the parents of a young adult encourage or discourage association with another young brother they knew was gay? To suggest that JW's do not allow their homophobia "to affect how they relate to gay people" is complete crap.
I am not sure why we would use a definition of homophobia from an interest group like the ADL, but whatever floats your boat. If JW's do not 'fear' homosexuals why are they encouraged (directly or indirectly) to keep their sexuality a secret? Do you know of any openly gay elders, CO's or GB members? If there's nothing to fear we would expect to see some. Oh wait, perhaps would they be scared or 'fearful' of the consequences of actually accepting homosexual people in the organisation.
Given that they believe the bible is authoritative in this matter what would you have them do or say?
I expect them to change their interpretation of the bible.
Once again, I'll ask rephrased for clarity. 'Cofty, STRICTLY SPEAKING (ie using the widely accepted definitions of homophobia) do you think the WBTS (falls into the BINARY homophobia spectrum (where 0 means not homophobic and 1 means homophobic) that would lead you to decide the organisation) is a homophobic organisation (or do you continue to excuse the WBTS from the label as they fall on your imaginary homophobia spectrum towards the "nice antigay" end'? A simple yes or no will do.
