Homosexuality and religious.

[Brian2]

So let's get this straight, you don't have any negative attitudes towards homosexuality - but you agree that homosexuality is a shameful sexual aberration, an immoral evil that is against nature that should be purged from the world.

Trailblazer said: "I do not have a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality.
I agree with the Baha'i Laws regarding homosexuality, that is all."

Can you see that if Trailblazer agrees with Baha'i Laws that all she means is that she would not engage in homosexual activity?

 

[Brian2]

So why is homosexuality "immoral"?
Is this just one of the things that you blindly accept without doubt, even if it makes no sense?

Also, that group of "immoral" things seems a bit odd. Three types of consensual adult sex, and child abuse.
Still not looking good.

I would say that loverofhumanity has a different way to judge what is immoral behaviour than the way you use,
and "consensual adult" has nothing to do with it.

 

[PruePhillip]

Wrong. The argument isn't that something currently illegal cannot become legal in the future "because it is currently against the law" (or vice versa). That's just daft. It is because evidence and arguments change.

Sex with prepubescent children will not become legal because of the medical problems, issues of consent, etc.

I put it to you that another generation, hating our generation as we hate previous generations, will show its contempt by legalizing things considered taboo today - including pederasty. They could say, 'What is wrong with a 40 year old man marrying two 12 year people, a girl and a boy, for a singe weekend marriage? What is wrong with their age if they consent? Don't dare say 'young' because that's ageist. Don't call them children when they are just little people. What is wrong with gay marriage if the boy consents? What is wrong with polygamy?"
I can see it. I am old enough to remember when it was scandalous to smoke dope, and having a child out of wedlock would destroy your reputation. To tell activists back then what is happening today they would call you out for 'exaggeration.'

 

[Aupmanyav]

So maybe Baha'is isn't as homophobic as you have assumed then.

Though Bahaollah was. Not his fault. Allah told him so.

 

[KWED]

I noticed you didn't cite a passage where the world was to be purged of homosexuals.

Yes I did. Pay attention.
(And it was "homosexuality", not "homosexuals")

 

[KWED]

I put it to you that another generation, hating our generation as we hate previous generations,

Who hates previous generations? I certainly don't, nor do none of my friends.

will show its contempt by legalizing things considered taboo today - including pederasty.

Ah, I get it now.
You are butthurt because homosexuality is is now legal and acceptable, and you think this generation did that just to get back at a previous generation, not because there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Do you think civilised society abolished slavery just to get back at a previous generation?

They could say, 'What is wrong with a 40 year old man marrying two 12 year people, a girl and a boy, for a singe weekend marriage? What is wrong with their age if they consent? Don't dare say 'young' because that's ageist. Don't call them children when they are just little people. What is wrong with gay marriage if the boy consents? What is wrong with polygamy?"

I can se you have trouble with some basic concepts like "free, informed consent".

I can see it. I am old enough to remember when it was scandalous to smoke dope, and having a child out of wedlock would destroy your reputation.

Those things have become acceptable through reason and evidence.
What is your "reason and evidence" to support child abuse?

To tell activists back then what is happening today they would call you out for 'exaggeration.'

No they wouldn't. They would say "Fantastic! And about bloody time!" and give me a hug.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Those things have become acceptable through reason and evidence.
...

Since you use an "and", I will for now just ask for evidence.

 

[KWED]

I can understand your confusion. Homosexual acts are forbidden, but in the Book of Laws of Baha'u'llah there is no prescribed penalty for such. It is up to the Universal House of Justice to decide what that is sometime in future.

So at some point in the future, homosexuality could have the death penalty.

Not only that, but what is decided by the Universal House of Justice can be changed again later on. That is the way the Baha'i Faith adjusts to conditions changing over time.

But it can't decide to make homosexuality acceptable , can it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So at some point in the future, homosexuality could have the death penalty.

But it can't decide to make homosexuality acceptable , can it?

We are playing social constructs, unless you can give evidence. Still waiting.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can understand your confusion. Homosexual acts are forbidden, but in the Book of Laws of Baha'u'llah there is no prescribed penalty for such. It is up to the Universal House of Justice to decide what that is sometime in future. Not only that, but what is decided by the Universal House of Justice can be changed again later on. That is the way the Baha'i Faith adjusts to conditions changing over time.

In other words, even though homosexual acts are forbidden there is no prescribed penalty for such. May I ask what types of penalties are imposed, if that's the right word, on those practicing things that are forbidden, if any penalty is imposed at all.

 

[PruePhillip]

No they wouldn't. They would say "Fantastic! And about bloody time!" and give me a hug.

No they wouldn't. Period.

In the 1970's here in Tasmania there was a push to 'DECRIMINALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY'
Homosexuality was a crime.
The proponents of the measure assured the press, govt depts and public forums that decriminalization will not lead to gay marriage or promoting homosexuality in schools - gays just want to be left alone. Fair enough, most of us bought into the relaxation of the rules.
SOON AFTER.... the SAME PEOPLE were pushing gay marriage and teaching homosexuality in schools.

What's the problem? Loss of trust.

Second. Euthenasia advocates in Victoria PROMISED that any euthenasia law would be quite strict - for terminally ill patients and people suffering from untreatable pain. Fair enough? Yeah... suppose. But didn't we have these promises with other issues before? Pulling out the goal posts of not doing harm to any patient and moving them is a serious issue - what about the abuse?

There will be no abuse, they said.

SOON AFTER... the SAME PEOPLE who promised no shifting of the goal posts a second time want the euthenasia law to be 'relaxed' for anyone who wants assistance in dying, for whatever reason. In other words, abuse.

What's the problem? Loss of trust.

Now, we hear 'Marijuana is not a gateway drug'
So here we go again.

So back in the 1960's and 1970's NO-ONE SAID '"Fantastic! And about bloody time!"

 

[YoursTrue]

That's right. In the case of adultery, there is a fine in the Book of Laws, and the Universal House can't change that one. I probably confused you again.

A fine?

 

[YoursTrue]

I can understand your confusion. Homosexual acts are forbidden, but in the Book of Laws of Baha'u'llah there is no prescribed penalty for such. It is up to the Universal House of Justice to decide what that is sometime in future. Not only that, but what is decided by the Universal House of Justice can be changed again later on. That is the way the Baha'i Faith adjusts to conditions changing over time.

In order to have a case put before the House of Justice, does a person need a lawyer?

 

[PruePhillip]

Who hates previous generations? I certainly don't, nor do none of my friends.

In Australia we had a public holiday on Thursday for the Queen's Death.
This was an occassion for activists to do-their-thing with riots, demonstrations against the Queen, Britain, colonialism rah rah rah.

Meanwhile security guards at the Russian embassy could have a holiday too - after all, no-one is going to ever demonstrate at the Russian embassy, even if Putin nuked Ukraine.

Why the hate of the Queen and not Putin?
The queen is us, our past, our traditions, our history, our culture, our memory

... and we hate it. Sexist, homophobic, Capitalist, colonial, invaders, murderers, narrow minded Victorian, hierarchy etc etc etc etc
Pure Marixst claptrap, spoke from an ideology who did all the above and a lot worse.

It goes back a long way. Jesus said that 'Every generation is right in its own eyes.'

 

[ppp]

I believe that Baha’u’llah was sent by God and what He teaches is best for us. Morality and immorality for me is defined by the God Who created us.

You are retreating in to recitations of sound bites. Not a single one of those sentences was on topic.

 

[ppp]

I’ve always primarily cite God. That’s my main reason. God knows more than you or I so I defer to Him in situations like this and He is very clear in this regard.

Unless you are claiming that your god is a mindless object or process, you are not being responsive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are retreating in to recitations of sound bites. Not a single one of those sentences was on topic.

Well, that is not unique to religion. To me it is a sound bite to claim morality using reason and evidence just as it is using God.

 

[ppp]

Well, that is not unique to religion. To me it is a sound bite to claim morality using reason and evidence just as it is using God.

I don't know what that means

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what that means

Morality is in effect without reason, evidence and/or God. Some people claim God. Others claim reason and evidence. But that is not how morality works.

 

[ppp]

Morality is in effect without reason, evidence and/or God.

How do you come to that conclusion?