• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Homosexuality and religious.

Brian2

Veteran Member
Why?
Surely a genuine and sincere love and desire for a mutually respectful and fulfilling relationship is more important than a piece of paper.
Some people get married in order to obtain a work permit, but you respect them more than people in a lifelong, monogamous, devoted, loving relationship?
You don't have a clue, do you?

It certainly made more sense in the past when vows were respected and marriage was a legal contract which offered mutual support and security for 2 people and some security for any offspring of the marriage.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Yeah, and the people who treat sex like a handshake usually don't end up that well off.
No one does that though.

They're usually have psychological issues, unplanned pregnancies, end up with diseases. Drug problems tend to go with it.
Jeez, you don't get out much, do you?

I've known many promiscuous people. My opinion is formed from experience and knowledge about those things.
Clearly isn't.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
The Baha’i Faith condemns all forms of immorality not just homosexuality but adultery, pedophilia and others.
Comparing homosexuality to child abuse is always a good look.

But anyway, so you admit that Bahaism is prejudicial towards homosexuals, despite your claims that it isn't.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
So, you admit that god is homophobic but if his followers are homophobic they are going against god?
Yeah, that makes sense.

It's just your ridiculous definitions that are doing that. But you should be able to see past your definitions to what is really being said.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
No one does that though.

Jeez, you don't get out much, do you?

Clearly isn't.
Wow, you sure showed me. :rolleyes: Clearly you're the one who doesn't get out much if you don't know people like that. The person I was responding to appears to have that mindset, themselves. Why don't you pay attention?
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
I did answer, you just didn't understand it.
If you "don't like" something, you are taking an active, negative position to it.
Your problem here seems to be thinking that the activity of "lifting weights" is comparable to "being homosexual" or "being black".
Lifting weights is a choice. Being black is not.
I did answer, you just didn't understand it.
If you "don't like" something, you are taking an active, negative position to it.
Your problem here seems to be thinking that the activity of "lifting weights" is comparable to "being homosexual" or "being black".
Lifting weights is a choice. Being black is not.
I'll ask again....
I did answer, you just didn't understand it.
If you "don't like" something, you are taking an active, negative position to it.
Your problem here seems to be thinking that the activity of "lifting weights" is comparable to "being homosexual" or "being black".
Lifting weights is a choice. Being black is not.
I'll ask again.

If i say i dont like lifting weights am I "judging" lifting weights or judging the weight lifter?

-semantics
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
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.
Way to avoid all my points.
Just repeating meaningless platitudes does not answer anything. Although I understand it does work a bit like sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nernernerner...."
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
I'll ask again....

I'll ask again.

If i say i dont like lifting weights am I "judging" lifting weights or judging the weight lifter?

-semantics
So who are these people who are born lifting weights, for who lifting weights is not a choice but an innate part of who they are? Who have faced a history of persecution for being born lifting weights, and many still do today.

If there were such people, and you told them that lifting weights was a vile perversion, then yes, you would be weightliftophobic.

(I suspect you still won't be able to understand)
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@Trailblazer ,

Here's the source of the "purge from the world" quote. It comes from a "previously untranslated tablet" from Baha'u'llah.

Homosexuality

There are a couple of ways to apply apologetics to the quote, and since Baha'i are permitted to individually interpret scripture, I don't see a problem with diminishing the negative implications in this way IF one is only concerned ONLY with what Baha'u'llah said and wrote about homosexuality.

However, if one reads the entire "compilation of homosexuality" (link above) from the UHJ it is repeatedly and clearly stated that the Baha'i position is that homosexuality is unnatural, abhorrent, and destructive to society. They recommend counseling, doctors, praying, and focusing on Baha'i scripture as a way to address homosexuality as a "handicap".

They also prohibit a platonic homosexual relationship, so, it's not just the act of intimacy which is against God's Law. The loving commited partnership is deemed wrong as well.

All of this indicates that the UHJ advocates an anti-gay agenda. Even if individual Baha'i in practice are tolerant and equitable towards homosexuals, that does not overrule the UHJ position and assertions that being gay, in one's heart and mind and body, is a flaw which needs a remedy. That's an anti-gay position, it doesn't foster unity and a future world where every human being is treated as equal.

I was glad to see in the linked baha'i-library document confirmation that the prohibition only applies to Baha'i. It is, indeed, explicitly stated. But this is not emphasised enough in the document, imo. The over-all impression I get from it, is that homosexuality is perceived to be a global problem which harms society. This matches the statement by Baha'u'llah that "evil passions" should be "purged from the world". Because of this, it's difficult for me to feel better about the Baha'i position just because at the end of the document there is the moderation that the prohibition only applies to Baha'i. But that's just my opinion. Based on what I'm reading in the document, it sounds like Baha'u'llah was probably anti-gay regardless of whether or not the Law applies only to Baha'i. The anti-gay statements in the majority of their position are more impactful.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
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.
What the?
You provided a source for the "homosexuality is a shameless sexual aberration" quote yourself!
You really have no idea what's going on, do you?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
It certainly made more sense in the past when vows were respected and marriage was a legal contract which offered mutual support and security for 2 people and some security for any offspring of the marriage.
So you accept that in modern society where unmarried relationships are not vilified as immoral, marriage is not as important as commitment.

BTW, marriage is still a legal contract. Also, you can have legal contracts covering unmarried relationships and their offspring.

So all in all, I guess you are no longer so opposed to unmarried relationships?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
But as I said in the previous post, how would the HOJ know what people were doing behind closed doors? And the Law is the Law so if they were going to fine homosexuals for having sex they would also have to fine anyone who is having sex out of wedlock. I think the HOJ would be collecting a lot of money in fines.
Can homosexuals be fined for kissing in public?
Can unmarried straight couples be fined for kissing in public?
If the answers are yes to the former and no to the latter, then there is your prejudice and discrimination.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Now you are getting Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha muddled. It was 'Abdu'l-Baha who talked about the ten good qualities, not Baha'u'llah.
Firstly, the page you cited was titled Bahaullah...
Second, it is irrelevant which one of them wrote those words, you posted them as a doctrine worth following.

Here's some more words from 'Abdu'l-Baha in regards getting the appropriate balance between loving anothers and how there are exceptions;

It is not advisable to show kindness to a person who is a tyrant, a traitor or a thief because kindness encourages him to become worse and does not awaken him. The more kindness you show to a liar the more he is apt to lie, for he thinks that you know not, while you do know, but extreme kindness keeps you from revealing your knowledge.
So he contradicts himself. Not uncommon for "messengers", "prophets" etc.

What is dangerous is when one deliberately misrepresents the faith of others so as to propagate misunderstandings and hatred.
You posted a quote from your religious teachings that said
"To look always at the good and not at the bad. If a man has ten good qualities and one bad one, to look at the ten and forget the one; and if a man has ten bad qualities and one good one, to look at the one and forget the ten."
Are you now agreeing with me that he was talking nonsense?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Yes that’s true. But not just homosexuality. Any form of sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman is considered immoral. So the law applies equally to all except that marriage can only be between the opposite sexes.
So a man and a woman cannot hold hands, hug or kiss in public if they are not married?
Yikes,, that's pretty North Korean!

As a matter of interest, cam onlookers tell if the kissing couple are married? If so, how? If not, how can they tell it is immoral?

All are entitled to be treated with dignity.
Calling someone's personality "a shameful sexual aberration", "an affliction" and "against nature" is hardly treating them with dignity.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Without an unambiguous declaration from the Universal House of Justice saying as much there is no guarantee of this in a future Baha'i society.

What Trailblazer thinks as an individual Bahai is of little relevance, for in a hypothetical Baha'i society what she thinks could easily be over-ruled by the Universal House of Justice.
Nobody knows what the UHJ is going to rule on until they rule on it. There is no future Baha'i society yet.
Of course, what I think as a Baha'i is of little relevance....
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Yes they follow the religious teaching
Ah, so if a religious person does something good in the name of their religion, it is because they are following the religious teaching, but if they do something bad in the name of their religion it is because they are not following the religious teaching.
Convenient. :rolleyes:

It's like those footballers who always thank god when they score, but never curse him when they miss.

Surely we must look at what the religion actually says about what they are doing rather than just assuming something by default? I know it might sound a little crazy to you, but trust me, it's the logical, rational approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp
Top