Homosexuality and religious.

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why, exactly? Why is having sex so very, very different from sitting down and having dinner together? You don't have to be married to do that, do you?

What a bizarre comparison. You're not sharing your body and fluids with people you're sitting down to dinner with. You can have dinner with anyone, too - obviously you wouldn't and shouldn't be having sex with just anyone. Some things are to be reserved for one person alone or set aside as special. I don't understand people who view such intimacy as being on the level of a handshake.

 

[Brian2]

Have you read the Bible? It has a few things to say about homosexuality. None of it pleasant.

Yes we all know that God does not want the Jews to do homosexual acts and similarly with Christians.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think, Because if people have sex before they actually know each other well for marriage, they get too attached to each other, and may run into a wrong marriage.

I think that's a bit silly. People have sex all the time, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it makes them anxious to come back, sometimes to find a quick way to just get out.

And what is a "wrong marriage?"

But if they first get to know each other's characters without sex, they can see each other's personality more clearly free from attachments and can make a better choice. This breaking up from other's can cause emotional problems and depressions. So, it is wiser to get to know each other first, and only when ready to make a commitment for marriage, then have an intimate relationship.

The fact is, you never get to know anybody perfectly -- often not even very well. We change, we grow. What we once thought we wanted becomes something we'd rather not have anywhere near us.

The fact of the matter is, you really only need to stay together long enough to get your offspring out of the house.

[Plus, it is not a good idea for foundation of families in a society that people can easily have sex without marriage. When people in a society realize sex is only possible with marriage, they would make more effort to keep their marriages and families.[/QUOTE]
That's very silly. People have sex easily all the time -- in the cities, in the 'burbs, in the country. And they do it with all sorts of people they're not married to.

You might do well to spend an hour or two studying actual human nature.

 

[Brian2]

No.

I agree, the dichotomy is extreme.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What a bizarre comparison. You're not sharing your body and fluids with people you're sitting down to dinner with. You can have dinner with anyone, too - obviously you wouldn't and shouldn't be having sex with just anyone. Some things are to be reserved for one person alone or set aside as special. I don't understand people who view such intimacy as being on the level of a handshake.

That's not obvious, that's just your opinion. The world has a history of billions of us not doing anything of the kind. Yet, we're still here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ot may be different with different people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's not obvious, that's just your opinion. The world has a history of billions of us not doing anything of the kind. Yet, we're still here.

Yeah, and the people who treat sex like a handshake usually don't end up that well off. They're usually have psychological issues, unplanned pregnancies, end up with diseases. Drug problems tend to go with it. I've known many promiscuous people.

My opinion is formed from experience and knowledge about those things.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So you confirm that Bahaism calls homosexuality a "shameful sexual aberration" that should be purged from the world - yet you also claim that Bahaism forbids being intolerant or prejudiced towards people.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

The Baha’i Faith condemns all forms of immorality not just homosexuality but adultery, pedophilia and others.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Of course it is voluntary, but once you volunteer to be a Bahai, you are obliged to accept whatever Bahaullah says - even if it is nonsensical.

However, the problem here is with the nasty homophobia promoted by Bahai teachings. You said that you "love his teachings", so therefore you love the nasty homophobia (as well as the sexual discrimination and the barbaric punishments).
If a member of the KKK said they love its racist teachings and it takes them happy, would you think that's ok? Do you think that people who don't like organisation that promote racism should just walk away because the racists are happy with it?
Of course not.
So why do you think I should do the same with the homophobia in religion?

I accept the teachings of Baha’u’llah because I believe they are from God. And I believe God knows more than you or I about what is best for us as humans. And in His wisdom He has said that marriage between a man and woman is what is best for humanity so I do not consider myself more knowledgeable than God and have been happily married to a wonderful lady for about 43 years.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The world is divided into those who realize that they have no reason to disesteem homosexuality and those who have been taught otherwise. You've made the same error that the anti-choice people make when they call pro-choice people pro-abortion. No, they're pro-choice, and don't have much interest in which option a person chooses.



No. But if you consider homosexuality a moral defect and homosexuals somehow violating some natural or God-given law, then that constitutes homophobia. Bigotry need not feel like hatred. Bigots can feel constructive in their bigotry of low expectations, as when one objects to women in the military because it violates his idea of what a woman is capable of and what is good or harmful for her. I call this cold bigotry. It occurs when one unwittingly serves as a vector for somebody else's hot bigotry - the kind where one feels antipathy for the target of the bigotry.



If the deity depicted is homophobic, then yes. This is classic cold bigotry. Whoever wrote the words attributed to that god wants homosexuals persecuted and oppressed. If a god wrote them as believers believe, then that god is homophobic. How could one be more homophobic than to declare homosexuality an abomination in the eyes of a god that is said to be a "just and good judge of the world," fit for eternal suffering for having same-sex sexual relations.



Agreed. What we have here is a man in search of way to live and rules to follow who has found a holy book with a value in it he doesn't share (he is not homophobic), and who deals with the cognitive dissonance by distancing himself from the issue and not taking a stand. He frames this unwillingness to pass judgment as a virtue, not recognizing that to others, it is seen as defense mechanism.



I disagree. He understands you, Tagliatelle understands you, and I understand you. Why do you see yourself as difficult to understand? You've been in search of a religion for years, and the latest one has at least one principle that you reject. You are not homophobic, but the latest religion is. You have a strong aversion to disagreement and have chosen to deal with it by saying that unlike this deity, you don't judge anybody. If you disagree, please say where and why.



Is that what you thought he did? I don't. He's pointing out the inconsistencies in your position. He probably doesn't care if you continue to think that way. He's telling you how he thinks and why.



Disbelief? LGBTQ is not an ism to be believed or not. The correct word is disapprove. If you disapprove of homosexuality, you are homophobic. It's not about whether you feel hatred. It's about holding irrational and destructive beliefs that harm an entire demographic of largely law-abiding people just trying to be good neighbors and pay their bills as they go about their lives. That's destructive. It diminishes lives. It leads to gay bashing, discrimination, self-loathing, and suicide. Humanists among others consider it immoral to hold such ideas, and worse to express them even in ways that seem loving to the bigot.



Unfortunately, all you have are the words of men speaking for gods. It is by faith that you believe they are of divine providence.



I don't think that's the attitude. Hold an irrational and destructive view about every member of a law-abiding demographic just for belonging to that demographic and you're a bigot. If one agrees that homosexuals are immoral or somehow less than heterosexuals, he's homophobic and a bigot even if he feels no hatred.

I believe in God that He knows what’s best for us. God’s knowledge is above human academics and theories and so I defer to an All Knowing Providence on these matters than the finite, limited and error prone mind of men.

 

[Brian2]

The world is divided into those who realize that they have no reason to disesteem homosexuality and those who have been taught otherwise. You've made the same error that the anti-choice people make when they call pro-choice people pro-abortion. No, they're pro-choice, and don't have much interest in which option a person chooses.

When it comes to homosexuality I am pro choice but still say that God is not in favor.

No. But if you consider homosexuality a moral defect and homosexuals somehow violating some natural or God-given law, then that constitutes homophobia. Bigotry need not feel like hatred. Bigots can feel constructive in their bigotry of low expectations, as when one objects to women in the military because it violates his idea of what a woman is capable of and what is good or harmful for her. I call this cold bigotry. It occurs when one unwittingly serves as a vector for somebody else's hot bigotry - the kind where one feels antipathy for the target of the bigotry.

If God is not in favor of homosexual acts and I and others, as Christians, believe that, does that make us homophobic? Does it make you a Christianphobic?

If the deity depicted is homophobic, then yes. This is classic cold bigotry. Whoever wrote the words attributed to that god wants homosexuals persecuted and oppressed. If a god wrote them as believers believe, then that god is homophobic. How could one be more homophobic than to declare homosexuality an abomination in the eyes of a god that is said to be a "just and good judge of the world," fit for eternal suffering for having same-sex sexual relations.

The Bible God does not want homosexuals persecuted and oppressed, so God is pro choice for homosexuals.
The Bible God does say that those in the Kingdom of God will not be practicing homosexual acts there.
It is a practice that God does not want people to do in this life and which is totally outlawed in the next, in His Kingdom.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Baha’u’llah teaches chastity outside of marriage which is tough on heterosexuals in this age but this is the highest of standards that He is calling the world to. That’s why we love Baha’u’llah so much because He doesn’t compromise on anything.

He is My true follower who, if he come to a valley of pure gold, will pass straight through it aloof as a cloud, and will neither turn back, nor pause. Such a man is, assuredly, of Me. From his garment the Concourse on high can inhale the fragrance of sanctity.... And if he met the fairest and most comely of women, he would not feel his heart seduced by the least shadow of desire for her beauty. Such an one, indeed, is the creation of spotless chastity. Thus instructeth you the Pen of the Ancient of Days, as bidden by your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Bountiful.

Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 118

 

[Trailblazer]

Why, exactly? Why is having sex so very, very different from sitting down and having dinner together? You don't have to be married to do that, do you?

People have dinner with lots of people, family and friends.
Would you have sex with everyone who you would have dinner with? I hope not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yeah, and the people who treat sex like a handshake usually don't end up that well off. They're usually have psychological issues, unplanned pregnancies, end up with diseases. Drug problems tend to go with it. I've known many promiscuous people.

My opinion is formed from experience and knowledge about those things.

So is mine. I was a sex worker our of necessity, I was young and did all that stuff -- and I have been with my lover faithfully and happyily for over 30 years. You'd be surprised how things can work out.

Sex is natural. If only we didn't get so flipping fussed about it all. It shouldn't be scary. It can also be useful and fun. And for people who are infected with religion, it can be filthy and sinful.

I'm sure you can figure out which side of all that I come down on. Those religious types are welcome to despise themselves for their horrible carnal desires as much as they'd like. I enjoy them. Guess who is happier?

 

[Brian2]

So you sacrifice your moral compass in favor of blind obedience.

I'm just making a distinction between having homosexual leanings and acting on those leanings, between having heterosexual leanings and acting on those leanings.

Indeed. This is how you get otherwise reasonable people to engage in attrocities.

Engaging in the atrocities would actually mean to go against how God in the Bible tells us to treat people.
Religions might want people to commit atrocities for the sake of God and the religion etc, but the Bible God does not want that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

People have dinner with lots of people, family and friends.
Would you have sex with everyone who you would have dinner with? I hope not.

I've been fellated under the dinner table. It was kind of fun, actually.

 

[Trailblazer]

So for example Baha'i Houses of justice should not fine people who engage in homosexual sex acts neither now or at any stage in the future?

I'm not sure. Maybe one of the other Baha'is might know.
My good friend @Truthseeker would know more about that than I do, he knows so much.

But unless that committed those acts in public how would anyone know? The Baha'is are sure not going door-to-door checking on people.

 

[PruePhillip]

William Penn is not law. In democratic countries, law is established by the representatives of people. People may have different views about what is right and what is wrong.

What I meant - you can't hide behind law.
For instance, it's said our society won't accept homosexual marriage because 'it's against the law'
... later....

And, 'We won't ever accept pederasty because it's against the law.' (sex with consenting pubescent minors)
Well, once it's acceptable the laws will change to reflect this.

 

[Trailblazer]

@KWED it is incumbent on you to provide a specific citation or admit that you were only paraphrasing from memory if you are truthful.

In my opinion.

Or admit that he never even saw such a citation so he was simply embellishing for effect.

I gave that an Optimistic because you are very optimistic if you think KWED is ever going to admit he was wrong. I have never seen it happen. Some people are never wrong.

 

[danieldemol]

I'm not sure. Maybe one of the other Baha'is might know.
My good friend @Truthseeker would know more about that than I do, he knows so much.

But unless that committed those acts in public how would anyone know? The Baha'is are sure not going door-to-door checking on people.

Why should they have to hide? Should you keep your love for your husband and any evidence thereof (which could potentially involve children etc) a secret behind closed doors?

Should gays be scared to try and find a partner because public expression of gay love is forbidden?

Should gays be unable to produce movies of a suitable maturity rating in which gay sexuality is portrayed because that would publicly out them etc?

In my opinion.