How Jehovahs Witnesses Feel About The LGBT Community
[ad_1]
In this video, I answer a quesiton posed by a voicemail caller’s father: a jehovah’s witness. they are opposed to gay marriage for some… interesting reasons.
[ad_2]
How Jehovahs Witnesses Feel About The LGBT Community
Consent. That's the line. Full stop.
Can adults who are related consent? Yes? Then why is incest illegal? I don't think it should be
Enthusiastically consenting adults. Consent isn't enough as it can be coerced. I'm just nitpicking because it's obviously implied, but someone's bound to come up with insane scenarios just to strawman us.
I always find it interesting that people who ask “Where do you draw the line?” always use examples that imply they see marriage as some sort of contract between a man and something he wants to have sex with. Instead of, you know, a partnership between equals which would necessitate that those partners be in a situation that allows for enthusiastic consent. Having sex with animals and children is illegal because they cannot consent; the fact that some people don’t realize ability to consent is where we draw the line concerns me.
"The political and religious system is a trap designed to control the mind and body of man"
Agreed 100% telltale
"It's nobody's business"? Well hold up a second, what about the turks? I had been informed that it was nobody's business BUT The Turks.
It is in 8 I'd Really Rather You Didn't from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster "Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity" In short do what ever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody or animal. #4. "I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change."
Of course they don't like me! Why would they like me?!
I do like that consent demarcation. It's not complete or absolute, but if we need a line I think that's a good place to put it.
Conservative Christians would likely disagree, as their basis of morality is structured from sin concepts.
The Christian nationalists are apparently trying to impose their biblical sin criteria onto our justice system to control peoples behavior by force. Rather than following their own teachings to convert people on a voluntary basis. Or respect the constitution for that matter.
If I was on the conversation with that guy, I'd like to ask him precisely what line he was referring to. Because it implies a moral control stricture that could be personal, societal, religious, or government. And those are not identical to say the least.
This is one of my biggest criticisms when it comes to religion, even when I was still a hardcore Christian evangelists, I fully believed that two consenting adults should have the right to marry or do whatever they want and that people shouldn’t judge others because they don’t fit the “approved” paradigm.
I dont know why these people try so hard to change people. They already dont think everyone will make it to heaven, so why do they bother trying to change everyone else?
If you use the slippery slope fallacy, stop using it.
A good example is: If we start eating less meat we'll all become vegan.
Humans can do things without taking it to the extreme
I've always said that you draw the line at whether you can enter a legal contract. I think that's essentially the same thing as a consenting adult. Dogs and children cannot enter legal contracts.
I'd also argue that they probably want as many heterosexual couples breeding new additions to the faith as possible.
Well there's still a flaw left over in the "consenting adults argument" nature didn't intend sex just for adults only, that restriction is unnatural and unrealistic, it's a societal construct which is now out of date, it might be an idea to review the book "Harmful To Minors the perils of protecting children from sex" by author Judith Levine!
This is the dumbest argument ever. The whole slippery slope thing. You evaluate each argument on it's own merit. Two adults of the same sex can consent to being together but an animal cannot consent. A child cannot consent. It's all about informed enthusiastic consent
where do you draw the line? fucking right there, right before the weird shit.
Slippery slope arguments are so feable and flimsy.
I was fired from Hollywood Video because my boyfriend came to pick me up after work one night. Another employee, a Jehovah's Witness, saw us hug each other. Apparently she made a complaint, and I was told about it the next day, and let go.
Consenting adults FTW!
I use the phrase "informed consent".
And if we ever genetically manufacture a dog that can offer informed consent, we will revisit the dog question for this guy's dad.
overly intoxicated people cannot give informed consent. Children cannot give informed consent. Animals and furniture cannot give informed consent.
You know informed consent when you get it.
So I agree with what you said, I'm just offering this as a more clear way to say it.
The JW’s may have many scriptural points wrong however just like every other Christian group (not so much pop culture Christianity but rather authentic Christians) they are absolutely correct in their rejection of homosexuality. It matters not about what men think about this matter – it has everything to do about what God says about it. There are boundaries which need to be adhered to. It’s a choice pure and simple. Lust at best – not love. Do what you want and choose who you will – but do not call yourself a ‘ Christian’ – if your ‘gay’ you are NOT Christian. That’s a cold hard FACT.
A good response is the marriage slippery slope counter argument.
If allowing a man to have sex with another man is a slippery slope to eventually allowing them to sleep with young boys and dogs, then we need to stop the slope of allowing a man to marry a woman in case he slips into sex with young girls and then cats! I mean: that's their logic with homosexuality.
https://youtu.be/GYMSNjS1FjA worse here.
I'm not surprised they don't understand the concept of "consent".
I think John Oliver has the best quote ever on this argument: “You draw the line, where you fucking draw the line! You don’t let you kid use black tar heroin just because you gave ‘em twizzlers”
(I forget it was an LGBTQ+ topic or some other topic people use this same “slippery slope” argument for)
There were most likely a lot less homophobes in the stone age…
„Sanctions" are NOT ENOUGH in Australia (and everywhere). Revoke the charity-/Tax exempt Status is FAR NOT ENOUGH (specially for a profit-oriented ORG like the Watchtower, which only pretend to be non-profit).
The public prosecuters ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED open CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS against the criminal Watchtower-Bandidos.
It needs urgently international ARREST WARRANTS for the governing
Watchtower-Criminals and other leadings functionaries like for example Phillip Brumley, Shane Brady, Robert Ciranko, Paul Gillies, Yaroslav Sivulsky, Mike Swan, Tom Pecipajkovski, Jarrod Lopes, Gajus Glockentin, Thomas Fiala, Bryce Hemmelgarn, Armin Pickl, Wolfram Slupina, Rodney Spinks, Terrence O‘ Brien and Anthony Carvalho.
To be fair
What religion condones homosexuality?
I know of none