Homosexuality and religious.

[Sheldon]

It is part of a person's animal nature, not a part of their spiritual nature.

That's because the former exists as an objective fact, whereas the latter is woo woo superstition. Being gay, or having sex solely for the physical pleasure is not harmful in any practical way. Denying or suppressing harmless sexual desires is harmful in and of itself.

At least two adherents of your faith can see nothing wrong in the facile comparison that raping children and homosexuality are both bad. That type of blind repetition of human prejudice, is more edifying about your religion's origins than all the vapid platitudes, and unevidenced assumptions I've read from adherents on here.

 

[Sheldon]

So what? Lots of things can be observed in humans, good and bad.

And being gay, or having sex for pleasure, is being labelled as bad based on an arbitrary subjective belief that the original peddler of this homophobic guff, was relating a message from a deity. The claim is too risible to not notice the origins of such prdjudice and bigotry is entirely human.

 

[KWED]

It might fit into other body parts but that does not mean it was designed by God to fit in them.

How do you know? Seems like a bit of o coincidence.

No, oral sex between a man and a woman is not forbidden in the Baha'i Faith.

So putting your penis where it isn't designed to go isn't a problem then.

Ask God.

More blind acceptance then

 

[KWED]

but only in those species.

But you accept that it isn't something "against nature".

 

[KWED]

To over simplify the Word of God is a mistake many make.

Well maybe god should take more care with what he says?

What makes a word Homophobic is only one's own attitudes and frames of references.

No. What makes a statement homophobic is when it expresses negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality.

You are trying to fit them into a very narrow agenda and that will never work,

The "narrow agenda" is to challenge intolerance, discrimination and prejudice based on a person's sexuality.

I will offer my wife and I have a son who has a male partner and we Love and support them both.

But at the same time, you believe their innate nature to be a shameful aberration, an evil passion, a handicap, against nature.

Your posts are only insulting narrow minded bigotry.

 

[KWED]

Then why did he make certain things feel good? Guys often like when you put your finger in their booty.

As a test, so we can deny ourselves them. God is a bit of a twat, after all.

 

[KWED]

"But through the advice and help doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap."

This is describing "conversion therapy" which is illegal in some countries, and the number is increasing (it has been promised by the UK government).
So ironically, Bahai teachings promote illegal activity in order to "overcome" something that is legal.

Ouch!

 

[KWED]

Maybe God made them feel good so we could practice giving up what feels good and turn to Him instead.

If helping others god feels good, are you supposed to give that up as well? What about playing music or loving your spouse, or eating and drinking nice things?
Sex feels good. So Bahais should give up sex, yes?

 

[KWED]

Thank you for that dybmh.

The law will stand, the law can not be altered. The fundamental structure of the family unit has been reconfirmed for this dispensation.

It only has to be considered by those who wish to become Baha'i. The laws on chastity apply to all that are not legally married and marriage is to be between a man and a women.

Regards Tony

So when Bahaullah said that a religion that causes disharmony should not exist (he also said that people should leave such religions), he didn't mean it.
Are there any other infallible revelations from Bahaullah that should be ignored?

 

[KWED]

No. Any sex outside marriage is an evil passion and immoral.

But you claimed that the Bahai position on homosexuality contained elements that are unscientific and outdated, so how do you determine that all of it isn't as such?

Using the codewords "shameful aberration" or just "aberration", I couldn't find "shameful aberration".

"Bahá'u'lláh has spoken very strongly against this shameful sexual aberration" Homosexuality

I do believe it is a handicap because in the Baha'i Faith marriage is between the two sexes only, and the gay or homosexual person then would have to live a celibate life, which is difficult to do, if they are to be faithful to the teachings of the Baha'i Faith, unless they marry the opposite sex.

This is just question begging. It is only a "handicap" in the context of the Bahai intolerance of it. If Bahaism accepted it, it would not be a "handicap".
I someone owns a company and will not employ red-haired people, that doesn't make red hair "a handicap", it just makes the employer an intolerant idiot.

It is against nature in my view because the reason for sex is to produce children. That's how nature usually works.

Your ill-informed opinion is irrelevant. Homosexuality occurs an many species, so it is clearly not "against nature" but very much a part of nature.
Humans have evolved (or god designed us, if you prefer) in such a way that sex is very pleasurable and we have the urge to move sex even when the female is not ovulating. Therefore it is not only about procreation.

 

[KWED]

I noticed you didn't quote why I thought this was ridiculous.

But I explained why such an idea is not ridiculous, and gave a real-world example. Just saying "it wouldn't happen" is not a valid response.

 

[KWED]

Love is spiritually based at it's best. It is eternal love. A famous person said “When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.”
― George Bernard Shaw

Ditto.

Not sure how any of that answers my question.
Why is love based on some deeply shared passion not real love?

Also, that Shaw quote contradicts your claim that love is eternal. He specifically states that it is fleeting.

 

[Sand Dancer]

As a test, so we can deny ourselves them. God is a bit of a twat, after all.

I guess we knew that when he made this amazing fruit, then said not to eat it. Bad parenting.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Yuck.
But hey, whatever.

Well, yeah, but it's a thing.

 

[ppp]

As for convincing you about common ground. It is not certain that either of us need that.

It is necessary if you want to communicate your position to me. If that is not what you are trying to do, then I have no interest in discussion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, speak for yourself. That is what you deny you do, yet you do it regardless. You claim something universal about humans, which can be done differently individually.
And yet you will deny you have done it, because you claim you accept individuality.
It is not your opinion, because you treat it as a fact.

It is in my opinion, that is why I said Imo at the bottom of my post.
I have a right to my opinion, just like everyone else does.

If it sounds to you as if I am treating it as a fact, I have no control over that.
I have repeatedly said that these are my religious beliefs and they can never be facts, because they can never be proven.

 

[ppp]

If it sounds to you as if I am treating it as a fact, I have no control over that.

How would your actions be different if you were treating it as a fact? And, if so, how?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you admit that Bahai texts do refer to homosexuality in those terms.

How is it "misrepresenting" it? The sentiments are exactly as claimed. They clearly show negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality. You have even admitted so yourself, so not sure what your point is.

All that is true, but so what? I have presented my position and you have presented yours many times over. I have a religious belief and you have a contrary personal opinion, and never the twain shall meet.

Calling Baha'is homophobes is just as judgmental as judging homosexual behavior.
I guess it doesn't matter who you hurt, as long as you disagree with them.

 

[Trailblazer]

How would your actions be different if you were treating it as a fact? And, if so, how?

If I was treating t as a fact I would say I think this is a fact, but that is not what I say; I say it is just my opinion or my belief. Just because 'I believe' x or y is true that does not mean I am stating it as a fact.

Facts require proof, and religious beliefs can never be proven, so they can never be factual. e.g., It is not a fact that God exists and it is not a fact that God sends Messengers, those are beliefs. It is not a fact that humans have a soul, or that there is an afterlife, those are beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

But that's the point - words can and do hurt people.

That's right, calling people homophobes can hurt people.