Alcoholism is a disease. Being gay is not.

Where's the religious freedom in that?

Not that I agree with most religious standpoints on homosexuality, but that's not a black and white distinction that will do much good in making progress towards tolerance.

The only difference between defining alcoholism as a disease vs. homosexulaity as not is your perception that alcoholism is harmful and being gay is not. Otherwise, they are both conditions that affect the mind and/or body. "Negative effects" are the only thing that defines a disease (if we're talking about genetic disease) as different from any other genetic trait. So to someone who believes that homosexuality IS negative, it IS a disease.

Again, I obviosly don't hold that opinion, but in the idological battle, defining something as "a disease" or "not a disease" is as meaningless as worrying about what is and isn't a planet.

We were very hardcore JW's. I started public speaking within the congregation at six and was baptized by eight. I was a pioneer (someone who makes a huge time commitment to the public ministry) at nine. I always knew we were different though. My mom emphasized that as the best part of the religion. She felt that being different from everyone else was desirable (as everyone else sucked in her opinion).

I'm sure my experiences were shaped by my parents as well, but I'm pretty sure that who my parents were was largely shaped by the religion. I'm sure there would have been much less assholery without it.

Quote:

There were no parties, no real friends, and no social stuff like going to the movies. Dating was out of the question. Collage was out of the question. Etc. etc. I could go on but...

I'm lucky in that by the time I was a teenager my parents were divorced and way less strict. Michel and I dated in secret, but the stance on college was way relaxed by the time I was in high school. Although, from the time I was tiny I was told I would never even go to high school because armageddon would come. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Anyway, I stopped going and soon after my parents divorced. The JW's gave my mom serious problems to the extent she had a restraining order on them. My dad is still very active and can not get thru a conversation with me or my sisters without "preaching" to us.

Lol, I was the only one that went for a while after my parents divorced. Funny how things turn out.

Quote:

I don’t' consider the JW's a religion really but more along the lines of a Cult. Its extremely narrow minded, bigoted and very self important IMHO. But, like what was mentioned before, there are some good people I've met and I think try to do "the good thing" I guess. I think any religion where ultimate control is the focus point of its teachings is just wrong. IMHO religion is about one's mind, ideas, beliefs and what they believe to be right, not someone else telling them what to believe or think and that's pretty much the main point of the JWs.

I see what you are saying, but I don't consider them a cult. I consider them the same as most fundamental religions. They all think they are right based on different opinions of the same book. My distaste for the JW religion is increasing, though, as I see them relying more on fear and obscure prophecies. They take in members at a high rate, but lose members at just as high a rate. I predict the end of the religion within the next hundred years.

Here is an email my dad's wife sent me. This is a prime example of the fear and obscure prophecies that I was referring to. This is also rare for anyone that isn't a JW to actually see. So, uh, "enjoy" it? :p

The dates quoted were dates that JW's originally predicted the end of the world to occur at. They are masters at glossing over, so I'm guessing that's why they've added those to the list of dates that something prophetic happened in. Then they can say they were right about the dates, but wrong about what happened on them. Notice the reliance on their governing body. They see them almost as a prophet. Their word is law.

So happy to be free! Thanks for sharing Borneio!

I agree that my point is meaningless if you believe that being gay is wrong, but in scientific terms, that is the case. But, religion and science are often at odds.

Actually, my point is that in scientific terms, it's not the case. Just as, in scientific terms, it matters not at all whether Pluto is called a planet or not, because in the end, it's just a ball of dirt circling a star, not fundamentally different than millions of others that happen to be smaller.

In scientific terms, alcoholism, depression, homosexuality, my distaste for tomatoes, high intelligence, etc., etc. are all equal. "Disease" is a subjective term with no scientific basis for distinguishing what is and isn't a disease. The only distinction is a sense of what is "beneficial" and what is "harmful"

Well, gee whiz, I like you JW :D

Thanks... At least there's one.... ;)

I guess all this “JW” talk has got me paranoid… ;)

Not so sure about that. Alcoholism has been classified as a disease while distaste for tomatoes has not been classified as one. In my own terms, alcoholism is something that happens as a result of a change in the body's ability to deal with a substance. You aren't necessarily born an alcoholic, but become one as your body ceases to be able to deal with the substance. It may be genetic predisposition or it may be more like cancer (which can also have a genetic pre-disposition). Is being gay a genetic predisposition? I'm not sure that question has been answered.

To me, they are very different things. You don'e become gay over time like you do with alcoholism.

And Pluto has been classified as a dwarf planet while other similar objects in the Kupier belt have not, and when it used to be a planet. People decide on these classifications for conveneince sake, but in the end, it's an arbitrary call. One with some practical purposes that I won't argue against, but the point is, using such a term in a discourse against gay bigotry is, in my opinion, pointless because it doesn't impart anything new into the conversation. "Gay is not a disease" is synonymous with "Gay is not harmful", and that tack certainly hasn't worked.