Posts by Frenchy

42

Homosexuality and Social Policy

by Perry in

jw
friends

post jw life requires us to think as members of the larger society as we look at issues from the perspective of a member of a participatory government.

unlike jw life, we get to have a say in what kind of life we experience for ourselves and our children.

i will present a series of issues that require our judgment, that we as former jehovahs witnesses were prevented in having a say in and may not have ever given much thought to.

Frenchy

John, you make some good points. Thank you for your input. Joel, I appreciated what you said as well. For those here who do not know me and have not already guessed, I am not gay and when I speak about homosexuality I understand that it is similar to a Catholic explaining to his Baptist neighbor what a Jehovah’s Witness is.

Joel makes a good point in saying: “I do believe that homosexual relationships should be requested for what they are, valid but different. We need legislation to provide us with specific legal mechanisms that track with our relationship needs. We do not need to march around saying that we demand that our relationships be called a marriage. “ I think that this is one of the biggest problems straight people have with gay unions. Those of us in the mainstream don’t know exactly what that is. To begin with, most heterosexuals are somewhat hesitant to talk about it at all and the ones that I have spoken to about it tend to view it as a mimic of ‘normal’ family life. If it’s not that, then what is it and what protections are being asked for and what responsibilities do these unions feel toward society?

20

What should I do??? Help!!

by Delite2k in

i'm a non-jw dating a jw male ( for three months now) and he treats me like a woman should be treated.

he's the best i've ever been with...ya know what i mean?

!......we have sex when and where we can (receintly at the job

Frenchy

Delite2K:
First, welcome to the board. Some of us are reluctant to answer such questions because of having been ‘baited’ with them so often in the past. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take you at your word since that is what I would want.

There have been some good points made here by other posters. It’s difficult for one who has never been JW to understand the level of commitment that is involved. It is impossible for one who was never a JW to understand the mindset of those in the religion. (I was in it for forty years.) So please pay close attention and dwell very carefully on the things you read here.

I would suggest that you do talk to him about his religion. I would ask him outright if his religion condones extramarital sex. He will probably be very uncomfortable being confronted with this but he will have to deal with it sooner or later and it’s better that he does it sooner. Ask him if he believes that he will be saved at Armageddon and ask him what he thinks will happen to you then. Ask him if he would like for you to join his religion and then ask him if you could be baptized and still be doing what you are doing. Ask him if he asks God for forgiveness for what he’s doing. These questions will be very uncomfortable but will force him to face what he is pushing out of his mind for the time being.

Of course, your religion condemns extramarital sex too. Perhaps you disagree with that particular teaching of your religion and for the most part your religion will pretty much turn a blind eye to it. HOWEVER, such is not the case with JW’s. A Witness must accept the ENTIRE body of teachings of the faith. It’s an all or nothing situation and herein lies the important difference. He KNOWS that there is no salvation for him as long as he continues this type of conduct.

One more word of caution. Even if he should suddenly deny his faith and formally withdraw from the religion (it’s called disassociation) there is always the possibility that he will return, so deep is the indoctrination. As a matter of fact, a file will be kept on him and once a year there will be an effort made to contact him to see if he would like to return.

Good luck to you.

52

WT U-Turn on "Great Crowd" (May 1, 20...

by stevieb1 in

the following is taken from questions from readers p.31 of the my 1, 2002 watchtower.

it is the wt response to the question: "when john saw the "great crowd" rendering sacred service in jehovah's temple, in which part of the temple were they doing this?".

quote.

Frenchy

Little Toe:
Thank you for your reply.

52

WT U-Turn on "Great Crowd" (May 1, 20...

by stevieb1 in

the following is taken from questions from readers p.31 of the my 1, 2002 watchtower.

it is the wt response to the question: "when john saw the "great crowd" rendering sacred service in jehovah's temple, in which part of the temple were they doing this?".

quote.

Frenchy

I was wondering if you still feel a part of an elite group chosen to go to heaven.

42

Homosexuality and Social Policy

by Perry in

jw
friends

post jw life requires us to think as members of the larger society as we look at issues from the perspective of a member of a participatory government.

unlike jw life, we get to have a say in what kind of life we experience for ourselves and our children.

i will present a series of issues that require our judgment, that we as former jehovahs witnesses were prevented in having a say in and may not have ever given much thought to.

Frenchy

I think that ‘normal’ is applicable here. Here is one dictionary’s definition: “Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.” Homosexuality can hardly be described as typical or standard or the pattern of behavior for mankind (or animals) in general. There is no word to which no one will object. On the subject of subjectivity, I stated from the beginning that this is my opinion. I don’t think one can get more subjective than that.

As for natural, that is, of course your prerogative as a substitute for the word I used. Please note, however, that the word ‘natural’ is not without its pitfalls as well. Note one of the definitions of the word: “Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death” . I think it can be successfully argued that homosexuality is not the ordinary course of nature.

There are a lot of things that occur in nature that would not be considered ‘natural’ behavior for humans. Incest is one of them. Killing for sport. Infanticide is another. Cannibalism, robbery, suicide, the list goes on. All these things and more occur in nature and yet are recognized as abnormal behavior for humans.

But ONLY if you just look at the first level of the onion. If you just think 'if everyone were gay we'd die out', you are missing the lesson nature had for us, that homosexuality and procreation are two different things.
If you accept that, then the fact we have had, do have and will have homosexuals is completely understandable.

I AM trying to look at the whole onion. To say that homosexuality and procreation are two separate things is really stating the obvious. The fact that two homosexuals can raise a child together does not make the situation ‘normal’ or ‘natural’. Chickens will incubate duck eggs, dogs have been known to nurse kittens, and people have been raising other people’s children since there have been people. The ‘natural’ course is for parents to raise their offspring, in the human as well as the animal world.

42

Homosexuality and Social Policy

by Perry in

jw
friends

post jw life requires us to think as members of the larger society as we look at issues from the perspective of a member of a participatory government.

unlike jw life, we get to have a say in what kind of life we experience for ourselves and our children.

i will present a series of issues that require our judgment, that we as former jehovahs witnesses were prevented in having a say in and may not have ever given much thought to.

Frenchy

Quote: “such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

To the end of experts there is no end! Interesting observation but I always get a little skittish at absolutes. There are those who would not PRACTICE homosexuality for fear of how society would react but the urges and feelings would be there nonetheless, I believe, even without the environmental factors.

Perry:
I didn’t know it was a multiple choice. Not one of your statements in their totality represent my view on the matter. (a) Legally, gays should be given the same status as married couples IF…if the they follow the same rules about being legally married and legally divorced. Genetics should have nothing to do with their legal status anymore than if a person should choose to remain single (unmarried) so the last part of (a) is not applicable to what I believe. While we’re on the subject, if people (gays or heterosexuals) choose to live together and want the benefits (like being able to file for spousal support when the union breaks up) they should be legally married. This palimony crap is just that.

(b) How do you assign or delgate or legislate social status? If a person chooses to buck the standards of the society where they live, they should not cry about the resistance they will meet. I grew up in an area where my cultural background put me in the minority. I did not scream for the society around me to change or run to the legislature and demand laws that would make me acceptable to them. I adapted, changed where I felt I should, and stood my ground where I felt I must. In the end I was accepted and I gained something in the process, strength of character and integrity.

(c) Again, how would you be able to enforce upon society “the gay relationship as an equal societal ideal to that of married heterosexuals?”

Abaddon:
I appreciate your reply. You are a reasonable person I don’t take offense at your replies, on the contrary, I look forward to them. You said: “I'm not arguing that genetic traits or fetal development is the ONLY influence on a person's sexuality.” I understand that and I agree. If I understand you correctly you are saying that certain areas of the brain can make, let’s say a boy, act like a girl and yet have nothing to do with his sexual preference. Okay, I suppose that could be the case and then it would indeed explain the ‘tom boys’ and men who act effeminately and yet, sexually, are true to their physical gender. In that case there would be no conflict in their lives.
At the very beginning of my post I stated: “I believe that homosexuality is, like most other things, not a simple matter. I think that it is, in most cases, partly genetic and partly environment, and partly personal preference.” What I have read since then only confirms this view. I also said (the statement with which you take exception): “I don’t believe that any intelligent person today would seriously argue that some males are born with very effeminate qualities and that some females are born with very masculine qualities, emotional, mental, and physical.” Even if we discount a portion of these (those whose other gender behavior is purely physical and not emotional or sexual) there are still those left with the other two, namely: emotional and mental. (And many of these do walk, talk, laugh, gesture, etc. different from their physical gender) There are persons born with the genitalia of one sex while they are emotionally and mentally of the other sex. Some persons born with a penis think and feel as a woman would. This is what I meant.

In summary, people are not necessarily gay just because they WANT to be and they are not necessarily gay because they HAVE to be but I do not know where that line is and so I would never presume to say that any given individual has CHOSEN to be what he or she is. I hope I have been a little clearer on the matter.

42

Homosexuality and Social Policy

by Perry in

jw
friends

post jw life requires us to think as members of the larger society as we look at issues from the perspective of a member of a participatory government.

unlike jw life, we get to have a say in what kind of life we experience for ourselves and our children.

i will present a series of issues that require our judgment, that we as former jehovahs witnesses were prevented in having a say in and may not have ever given much thought to.

Frenchy

Ah, this can get very sticky. I will offer my opinions but no judgments. (Some people cannot differentiate between the two!)

I believe that homosexuality is, like most other things, not a simple matter. I think that it is, in most cases, partly genetic and partly environment, and partly personal preference.

I don’t believe that any intelligent person today would seriously argue that some males are born with very effeminate qualities and that some females are born with very masculine qualities, emotional, mental, and physical. I know several men who might be mistaken for homosexuals but they lead heterosexual lives and, to my knowledge, would not have it any other way. I know a few women (we used to call them tom boys) who lead (and apparently seem very content) heterosexual lives. I’m speaking of individuals who walk, talk, and gesture in a manner attributable to the ‘other’ gender.

Would environment have ‘swung’ them the other way? I don’t know. What I am led to believe is that they prefer being of the gender of their physical bodies. To what extent they work at this, if at all, is not known to me.

I know of one family where there are at least two homosexual men and one lesbian. That would lead one to believe that genetics are at play here. There is not the slightest indication of any of the others (this is a large family) being so. As a matter of fact, the family seems to have a very high sex drive, the women in particular. One member of the family (arrested several times for indecent exposure and lewd acts) was convicted of child molestation, including at least one of his daughters. Is this genetic? I think partly so given the heightened sexual drive of the rest of the family. Was this also due to the promiscuous activity of his sisters and brothers and cousins? I think that had some bearing on it as well. Could that…desire, drive, craving…been worked out of him by therapy? I don’t think so. He did this all his life. (He died in an accident some time back) Please note that I am NOT equating this person’s behavior with homosexuality but merely pointing out that the heightened sex drive may have been a contributing factor to his acting on his desires.

We are told that there are those born with a desire to steal. (Kleptomania) Do all who are born with that desire do so? I would think not. But if that person is in an environment where stealing is common, then I should think that this person would find it virtually impossible to resist doing what he or she is bent toward doing. The same would be true for those who are prone to be alcoholics, etc.

We must also remember that there are those who are not genetically inclined to steal or to gamble or to drink alcohol and yet they do so. Why? Personal preference…they just like it. They do it not because of a natural inclination to do so or because of social pressure but because they simply like to do so. Again, I am not equating homosexuality with those specific behaviors anymore than I equate the alcoholic with the pedofile. I am citing behaviors that are outside what generally considered ‘normal’. The following will elaborate on this.

I believe that homosexuality is very similar to the situations mentioned above in that (1) It falls outside what we call normal behavior (most people are NOT so inclined) and that (2) It can be attributable to one or all three (perhaps even something else which has not been mentioned) of the factors noted previously.

By stating what I have please believe me when I say that it is not with the intent to demean or in any way insult homosexuals per se. If you have a specific question for me or wish a clarification of something I have said here, I would be happy to accommodate.

I do not consider homosexuality normal behavior. I do not view it as a disease or necessarily a perversion (although it certainly can be, in my opinion) but rather an aberration. Some might take offense at that last word but please be assured that I do not use it in a demeaning manner. The primary function of sex is for reproduction. Homosexuality is a dead end there. For those who would argue that this type of behavior is normal I would submit to them that if all of society practiced it, humanity would end in one generation. It is NECESSARY for the survival of the species that heterosexual relationships exist. Homosexual relationships are NOT necessary for the survival of the species. They mimic what the bulk of mankind practice. Does that make homosexuals bad people? Certainly not.

I’ll stop here because I’m sure there will be a bombardment of questions (which I welcome) as well as a barrage of attacks (which I will ignore).

42

Homosexuality and Social Policy

by Perry in

jw
friends

post jw life requires us to think as members of the larger society as we look at issues from the perspective of a member of a participatory government.

unlike jw life, we get to have a say in what kind of life we experience for ourselves and our children.

i will present a series of issues that require our judgment, that we as former jehovahs witnesses were prevented in having a say in and may not have ever given much thought to.

Frenchy

I will answer the questions posed by the originator of the post first then I will post my views on homosexuality:

(a) give the same status of gay relationships to that of married couples because of an evidently strong genetic link? - (rights of the individual)
(b) Deny gays the same social status as heterosexuals because homosexuality can evidently be socialized or not socialized in many cases? – (will of the majority)
(c) Protect every individual right of the gay person but fall short of equating the gay relationship as an equal societal ideal to that of married heterosexuals? – (constitutional/legal interpretation)

a) : Legal status should be given to homosexual relationships. This has nothing to do with genetic links, just human rights.
b) : Social status cannot be dictated, at least not in a free society. You cannot legislate acceptance of certain lifestyles, races, creeds, cultures in people’s minds.
c):Everyone’s rights should be protected. Homosexuals should not be persecuted (or ridiculed) anymore than they should persecute (or ridicule) others.

20

What should I do??? Help!!

by Delite2k in

i'm a non-jw dating a jw male ( for three months now) and he treats me like a woman should be treated.

he's the best i've ever been with...ya know what i mean?

!......we have sex when and where we can (receintly at the job

Frenchy

How many of these things have we seen already?!?

If you're seriously asking a question (and I seriously doubt it) then I suggest that you consider the fact that your lover has a serious character flaw, i.e., lack of integrity. He is living two lives. That's always dangerous to anyone who has a relationship with such a person. He is both willing and able to carry on deceit for a prolonged period of time and that's not a good thing.

BTW, what was the purpose in your being so graphic about your lovemaking? Would not have simply saying that you had a sexual relationship have been sufficient? Also, you spoke of religious differences, what is your religion?

52

WT U-Turn on "Great Crowd" (May 1, 20...

by stevieb1 in

the following is taken from questions from readers p.31 of the my 1, 2002 watchtower.

it is the wt response to the question: "when john saw the "great crowd" rendering sacred service in jehovah's temple, in which part of the temple were they doing this?".

quote.

Frenchy

Little Toe: I will seriously consider it. I was interested to learn that you are (were?) of the anointed.

Justin: That part of JW history is foggy to me inasmuch as I was not around at the time. What one reads from the literature has been carefully 'dressed'in such a manner that it's difficult at times to say what really happened. I appreciate your comments and what you say does make sense with what I already know.

Every religious organization needs an elite, ruling class. And, of course, of what value are rulers if you don't have someone to rule. That distinction between the shepherds and the sheep has to be maintained in order for the organization to function. I don't see the society changing that.

Given their past record, they will ride the horse until it drops and then pretend that either it did not exist or that it really wasn't a horse at all!