Love UniHateExams, it is obvious that to the watchtower, Metrosexual and gay are very close, if not, the same. And of course, not all gays look gays. But this position clearly shows that the WT hate gays, not just the sexual conduct.
StephaneLaliberte
JoinedPosts by StephaneLaliberte
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
-
-
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
-
-
StephaneLaliberte
I thought that the watchtower’s view on gays was that they could not have sex, as simple as that. Hence, if you would have a gay and a straight-yet-single man standing next to one another, the both of them would be equal to God.
Now, with this directive, they are actually ruling against simply looking gay!
Thinking that they went back on what they had previously published, I made a quick search in the WTLib. They wrote that they
“disapprove of homosexual conduct, not the people themselves”. - Young People Ask 1, chap. 23. p. 170
Back in the days, when I read this, I thought this meant the sexual conduct. However, with the directive from yesterday, it is clear that it is the overall conduct of the individual. In that case, I don’t see the difference between disapproving between the conduct and the people themselves!
I have nothing against you, it’s just that I hate everything about you, the way you walk, talk, dress, smell or even look at me...
They are worse than I thought they were.
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
-
-
StephaneLaliberte
They never prevented anyone from the ministry for wearing mini skirts. They would disfellowship for "brazen conduct" someone like that before taking the right to go door to door. -
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
-
-
StephaneLaliberte
You know, they are implementing that rule, but I am sure this will have to be published in a watchtower soon.
Here is why: I once told an Elder off; he made a big deal out of something that the WT never wrote about and thus, he was running ahead of the org, being abusive towards me in the process. Then I said I was going to be entertained by what would happen once I complained to the other elders and our CO about it. He stopped pressuring me at once.
Now that this directive isn't formally published anywhere (COs will simply talk about it... its not even in a BOE letter), I would expect some resistance from the great crowd. :)
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
-
-
StephaneLaliberte
Simon: Sorry for replying so late.. I took an afternoon nap.
This directive trivializes their ministry: Up to now, there was no official reason why someone would remain a JW and yet not be allowed to participate to the ministry. Hence, participating in the ministry was a fundamental right for which JWs fought all over the world, serving prison terms and some with their very life!
That is why I made the comparison to the pedophiles as even those never lost their right to go door to door. Yes, the ministry was a fundamental right taken away from no one!
That is, until they brought up that directive. Now, if you don’t act or dress properly, you can loose that "fundamental" right and yet, remain a JW!
You could dress like a model JW for the ministry, fit for a picture in the watchtower. And yet, they could withhold that right and say: "When we saw you at the restaurant, me and my wife, we thought you looked a little gay".
So, the ministry is not fundamental anymore. This is a big deal. Huge deal. Worthy of a lot of attention.
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
-
-
StephaneLaliberte
Simon, you haven't addressed that I believed this was news worthy due to the fact that it trivialized their ministry, which, up until now, I thought was fundamental to being a JW. It is definitely news worthy. -
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
-
-
StephaneLaliberte
The reason I am bringing in the pedophiles topic is that I always thought that NOTHING could take away the right to share in the ministry while remaining a JW.
Up until yesterday, I believed that their ministry was a fundamental right, they acquired that right by fighting for it all over the world. Countless went to jail and many even died for that right!
You know when you want to prove a point and use extremes to prove it? Well, I would say: Not even pedophiles loose that right! Its fundamental!
Well, they changed that: It's a fundamental right, but if you look gay... than that's too much. Think about it: You could dress like the model JW for the ministry, fit for a picture in the watchtower. And yet, they could withhold that right and say: "When we saw you at the restaurant, me and my wife, we thought you looked a little gay".So, with this in mind, my "extreme" example to prove that the ministry is fundamental no longer applies. By outlining the directives in the way that they have done, they are demonstrating that the ministry is not a fundamental right to them.
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
-
-
StephaneLaliberte
Where I think that DD has it right is that this letter goes beyond of what people are supposed to look like in the field ministry. It points to what they are in their day to day activities. This is nothing short than high control and abuse.
Now, a gay who likes to dress like a metro sexual is simply not allowed to fell pretty - EVER. Can you imagine what that is like? To not be allowed to feel good? And can you imagine looking at every little things you do for fear that they will OUT you as a gay?
That is abuse.
But again, what infuriates me even more is that they dare to highly control the personal lives of gays, and yet, have no issues letting Mr. Pedophile go door to door. This is absolute none sense.
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
-
-
StephaneLaliberte
Simon, I understand what your saying and from that angle, you are right, it is defensible. However, I see it as a major problem in that they vigorously protect the right of pedophiles to share in the ministry, and, yet, have no issue taking that right away from someone who "looks" gay.
They want to start regulating who can share and who cannot? They better start with the pedophiles. Otherwise, this shows me that they are more terrified of what they look like rather then actually protecting kids!
-
20
No longer qualifies to share in the ministry?
by StephaneLaliberte ini heard that co's were provided with a talk outline in which people who dress and act too "gay" could eventually "no longer qualify to share in the ministry", should they not change the way they look!.
has anyone else ever heard of any other reason for which someone would be disqualified from the ministry?.
-
-
StephaneLaliberte
But seriously, do anyone know of any way to be disqualified from the ministry? Even pedophiles have the right to keep preaching...