Homosexuality and religious.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

On the contrary, what I see in this thread is this particular person who is not a Baha'i depicting our position is the worst light.

I don't think he is referring to adherents as much as doctrine, and he has said nothing with which I disagree nor anything that has been refuted by any Baha'i. If you think his depiction is unfair and want to convince critical thinkers that you are correct, you'll need to make an evidenced argument. You would need to show words of his that he is doing that with, and explain why they are wrong or unfair. I understand your words to mean that you don't like what he's saying, not that he's inaccurate.

It is not about being gay, it is engaging in homosexual relations.

I'm sure that there are older or even religious gay couples that no longer engage in sexual relations but are still gay, but those two things mean essentially the same thing to me.

we are to help, advise and sympathise with people within our faith community who do this. The person who is gay within our faith is not encouraged to think badly of themselves.

That's to your credit, but it's irrelevant to the discussion, because it doesn't scrub the doctrine of its homophobic nature, which continues to inform its adherents that homosexuality is some kind of aberration or defect.

"No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong.

And your reason seems to be because somebody said that a god told him that. To me, holding a belief for that reason is wrong.

As a believer, I find it understandable that those who are not religious don't understand that people who engage in homosexual acts harm themselves spiritually.

But they don't. I know many such people. I live in an expat community, so they are all retired and older. They are indistinguishable from the straight community except in their sexual preference. They are just as kind, happy, and generous as anybody else. Most are in long-term committed relationships. These are our friends.

We just ask for tolerance that we believe differently than you do.

I don't see any intolerance for adherents here. All of you here have been treated respectfully, as I'm doing now. It's the doctrine that is being condemned, but also to some extent the willingness to not repudiate it.

Basically anyone who does not 'approve and support our desure for same sex' is homophobic

No, anybody who accepts that homosexuals are somehow less than heterosexuals is homophobic. You don't need to approve of homosexually. You don't need to approve of any kind of sexuality. Nor do you need to support homosexuals or homosexuality, whatever that would look like. Just accept that homosexual people are not less than heterosexuals, and one is not homophobic. Otherwise, he or she is.

Sorry that so many Abrahamic theists resent the title homophobe, but I would suggest that each examine his beliefs (not feelings) and the secular world's definition of homophobia, and see if he or she fits that. If so, why not embrace the homophobia? If one finds that a fair, harmless, and reasonable way to think, then why not proudly announce that one is a homophobe according to that definition? I'm proud to announce to believers that according to their definition of sinner, I'm one, even though I don't accept the idea that sin as believers understand it exists.

I don't call myself a sinner, but most Christians, for example, would, and I have no problem with that. If impiety is sin to a believer, then OK, I'm a sinner in his eyes. Objecting vociferously at that makes no sense to me, and I'm not offended that somebody judges me by Christian or Baha'i standards, So how about you Baha'i? How about, "I don't feel homophobic, but if others describe me that way for the beliefs I gladly admit to, then OK, I'm a homophobe by his standards just as he is a sinner by mine."

 

[Sheldon]

Odd but you're not the first theist to claim they think it a "beautiful" idea, that a deity cares more about the free will of murderers and rapists, than about their victims suffering. So sits on its hands while children are raped and says yeah go ahead I won't stop you, but I will punish you later.

They never seem to realise just how monstrously barbaric a deity they've imagined.

If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn’t say those things. It just shows your ignorance about what religion is all about.

If he was wrong then you would have a better response than a set of platitudes.

No platitudes just facts.

Rubbish, you resorted to petty ad hominem, and failed to even address my post at all, and the subjective trite and facile platitudes posted had absolutely no relevance whatsoever to my post, or the claim I'd responded to, which of course provided proper context, and which of course you also utterly ignored.

The poster made a claim about a deity being more concerned with free will than stopping evil acts, citing war as an example. This would obviously mean that the deity imagined cared more about the free will of a paedophile for example, and sits idly by letting children get raped, while deciding to punish the rapist later.

Anyone who can't see what a barbarically cruel and evil monster they're imagining in such a scenario, has clearly lost all moral direction. We wouldn't and don't value the free will of rapists and murderers above the suffering of their victims, so the deity this poster imagined has less morality than one species of evolved ape can muster, whether you see ot or not is irrelevant to that fact.

 

[Sheldon]

To make such false accusations belies one’s complete ignorance.

The claim was made by a theist, I merely offered an example, try actually reading what was posted.

 

[Sand Dancer]

But if you don't like doing it then maybe it shouldn't be a thing in your sex life.

Well, I don't like it for me but I am not a guy either.

 

[Sheldon]

does anyone tolerate behaviors they disagree with?

Yes, all the time,unless they're deeply pernicious like racism or homophobia of course, when hate speech of that nature is expressed I always feel obliged to challenge it.

 

[Jedster]

My question is why does someone become a member of the Bahai faith? Still can't figure what, if any, restrictions restraints of service are placed on someone not behaving according to "rules." That Bahaullah set, of course.

There are people that often join a faith without forensically analysing all the scriptures/writings of that faith. They join usually because they are inspired by the writings or more often by the feeling they get around the members, (as was my own case with another religion, not Bahai).

I first met Bahais when I was living in Israel(circa 1970) and really enjoyed their company and vision.
I saw it as a natural progression from Judaism, Christianity & Islam(i.e with my limited knowledge of all 3). I saw it as a progressive message. (I knew nothing of Dharmic religions at the time)
I always thought the message was more important than the messenger.

More recently, I met up with Bahais again in London, their centre was near my college.(late 1980s)
All the meetings and social occasions I ever attended with them was interfaith with no hint of proselytizing. In fact, I don't remember even of hearing of Bahaullah until I came online in 1995.

Presently, I live in SW England in a small town where I know several of the local Bahais. They often answer enquiries by saying that they don't know everything about their religion or simply "I don't know".
As I understand it, Bahai is relatively new religion and not all the writings have been translated/released by their ruling body, so Bahais are still learning.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And as far as we know, there is no such thing as God-given advice. There is only the advice of men claiming to speak for a god, most or all of whom would be lost in our world.

All I can do is wish you all the best in life, may you always be happy, be full of joy, safe from harm, wealthy and wise.

All the best, Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There are people that often join a faith without forensically analysing all the scriptures/writings of that faith. They join usually because they are inspired by the writings or more often by the feeling they get around the members, (as was my own case with another religion, not Bahai).

I first met Bahais when I was living in Israel(circa 1970) and really enjoyed their company and vision.
I saw it as a natural progression from Judaism, Christianity & Islam(i.e with my limited knowledge of all 3). I saw it as a progressive message. (I knew nothing of Dharmic religions at the time)
I always thought the message was more important than the messenger.

More recently, I met up with Bahais again in London, their centre was near my college.(late 1980s)
All the meetings and social occasions I ever attended with them was interfaith with no hint of proselytizing. In fact, I don't remember even of hearing of Bahaullah until I came online in 1995.

Presently, I live in SW England in a small town where I know several of the local Bahais. They often answer enquiries by saying that they don't know everything about their religion or simply "I don't know".
As I understand it, Bahai is relatively new religion and not all the writings have been translated/released by their ruling body, so Bahais are still learning.

Online forums and chats are a new level of learning.

Basically it is too easy to give information overload and it can all become just a messy debate when any one can see a reply, many can jump on board, so it is not ideal.

It is full of irony that when one only wants peace and reconciliation, that talking about it only brings debate and estrangement.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

I wrote, "you have been unable to demonstrate why that belief makes sense." You had written that the proscription about homosexuality made sense to you. Tolerance of homosexuality makes sense, since it is a harmless practice important to people with homosexual proclivities and promotes their well-being, whereas pressure for religions to modify that behavior through social disapproval is harmful to such people. Accepting such behavior makes sense. The opposite is irrational and destructive, but made sense to you anyway.

What makes sense to you does not make sense to me since I am coming from a religious perspective and you are not. It seems harmless to you but I do not consider it harmless, not any more than any sexual practice that goes against the Laws of God.

Whether something is irrational and destructive all depends upon one's perspective. It is all a matter of belief or opinion, not fact. Just because people feel harmed that does not mean they are harmed, and the converse also applies.

You and others say that the pressure for religions to modify that behavior through social disapproval is harmful to such people. My take on that is if they don't like what religion teaches they do not have to be a member of that religion. Why should the religion change its Laws which are contained in their scriptures in order to accommodate them? Moreover, why would it matter to them if they are disapproved of unless they felt they were doing something wrong?

It sounds like the rules are to pressure everybody to comply with Baha'i values. Neither marriage nor children are necessary in every in every family.

Baha'is are not pressuring anyone to comply with our values, what is happening is that people who don't like our values are asking us to change our values in order to accommodate their values. Baha'i Laws on sex and marriage only apply to Baha'is, and becoming a Baha'i is a personal choice.

If you are not talking about spiritual experience, then it seems to me that you are talking about nothing. "Spiritual nature" refers to nothing specific. It's like soul. It imagines that there is an aspect of human psychology that isn't naturalistic and somehow transcends biology and psychology. That's a religious belief- one I don't hold.

Baha'is believe that there is a spiritual aspect of human nature that isn't naturalistic and transcends biology. Obviously that is not a belief you hold since you are not religious.

Your concept of the spiritual experience is different from mind. Spiritual experiences are always pleasurable. No argument was made that anybody needs sex to be spiritual, but you seem to be implying that sex cannot be a spiritual experience because it is pleasurable and is base because animals do it. Sex can be an ecstatic experience.

I am not implying that sex cannot be a spiritual experience because it is pleasurable, I am saying that it is not a spiritual experience because it is a physical experience. Sure, sex can be an ecstatic experience, but the ecstasy is physical, not spiritual.

Spiritual: concerned with or affecting the spirit or soul
“a spiritual approach to life”
“spiritual fulfillment”
“spiritual values”

Synonyms:
unearthly
unworldly

not concerned with the temporal world or swayed by mundane considerations
Spiritual - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

A spiritual experience is any experience concerned with or affecting the spirit or soul, as opposed to the physical body or worldly concerns. It could have something to do with the mind, depending upon what the mind is focused on. Goodness, Love, Compassion, Kindness, Graciousness, Justice, Righteousness, Honesty, Sincerity, Forgiveness, Forbearance and Patience are all the spiritual part of our human nature so a spiritual experience is a experience that teaches us to have those qualities.

I had written "Didn't you say that your god calling homosexuality immoral made sense to you? If so, you would be able to say how." That doesn't explain to me why this idea makes sense. That's why you accept it. If the idea made sense, humanists would be in agreement.

What makes sense to people is according to what world view they hold, so what makes sense to you is based upon the fact that you are a humanist. I could just as easily say that if it made sense, religionists would be in agreement, but I would not say that because I know that what makes sense to people is always according to their particular world view, so it is necessarily biased.

I need a reason to call something immoral, but not to consider it morally acceptable. Homosexuality is moral because it's not immoral. It's analogous to being asked why I consider something possible. I don't need a reason to call anything possible beyond that it hasn't been shown to be impossible.

Homosexuality is moral because it's not immoral -- according to you -- but it is immoral according to God, as revealed in scriptures. I do not expect you or anyone who does not adhere to scriptures to believe that it is immoral. However, saying it is moral is only your personal opinion, not a fact, just like me calling it immoral is only my religious belief, not a fact.

That's not what blindly refers to here. It means accepted by faith.

But that does not mean the faith is blind faith, notwithstanding the fact that atheists consider all faith blind.

You didn't use that word, no, but it is evident in the words that you did use that like the messengers, you consider homosexuality some kind of aberration to be suppressed. If you believe that every homosexual ought to be heterosexual instead, then you consider the former less desirable. The Baha'i seem to be unable to see that as homophobic or destructive.

Again, it is only a matter of personal opinion whether homosexual acts are an aberration to be suppressed - your personal opinion vs. my beliefs. It is also a matter of personal opinion vs. my beliefs whether or not such suppression is destructive.

How is that not treating them differently?

They are treated differently because they are different. They are subject to the Baha'i Laws regarding homosexual behavior if they are Baha'is. Heterosexuals are not subject to those Laws since they are not homosexual.

That's not a proscription against heterosexuality. That a proscription against fornication. I also consider the latter irrational. There is no reason to confine sex to marriage. Marriage isn't right for everybody, and such people have no good reason to give it up because some religion teaches otherwise. Just about everybody I know from high school has enjoyed extramarital sex, and none were harmed by it. Some of my friends have never married.

Again, what you have is a personal opinion as to what is harmful and I have a belief that differs.
Harm to the soul is not something that is observed but it affects the person nonetheless.
The argument that 'everyone does it' so it must be okay is a weak argument.

The bandwagon fallacy describes believing something is true or acceptable only because it is popular. The fallacy is also known as “jumping on the bandwagon” or argumentum ad populum (“appeal to the people”). These bandwagon movements can range from popular fads to dangerous political movements. Here are some examples of ways that people jump on the bandwagon.
Bandwagon Fallacy Examples

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't think any of the religions understand what makes a society healthy and happy. It's not having children. That's merely a biological necessity to maintain a population. My happiness is unrelated to children. My family doesn't include them. My immediate community - my inner circle of friends and acquaintances - doesn't include them. The foundation for a healthy society can be found in the Affirmations of Humanism.

I see many problems in this section of your reply. It is very self orientated.

I will leave that as food for thought.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

In your view is a married gay couple adopting and fostering hard to place orphans a positive outcome or a negative outcome if they are not being adopted/fostered by heterosexual couples?

The LGBT couples adopting 'hard to place' children

Based on the link provided and the research cited the outcome was positive.

 

[dybmh]

Based on the link provided and the research cited the outcome was positive.

Doesn't this show that gay marriages support a healthy society where orphans are adopted?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Homosexuality and religious.

What some people doesn't understand is that if you grow up in a local culture, where your behavior is considered fundamentally wrong, it can affect you.
Now that is not the first time that I have come across the idea that socialization doesn't involve trying to integrate your local culture as your worldview and you can get an inner conflict if you don't fit in.

I believe it can be challenging in some circumstances for LGBT and conservative religionists to work closely together. There is prejudice and misunderstanding on both sides. I work in health so I have inevitably have quite a few LGBT patients. I don't mention my religious beliefs unless asked (that rarely happens) and I endeavour to treat LGBT the same as anyone else.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Doesn't this show that gay marriages support a healthy society where orphans are adopted?

Yes

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't think any of the religions understand what makes a society healthy and happy. It's not having children. That's merely a biological necessity to maintain a population. My happiness is unrelated to children. My family doesn't include them. My immediate community - my inner circle of friends and acquaintances - doesn't include them. The foundation for a healthy society can be found in the Affirmations of Humanism.

I see many problems in this section of your reply. It is very self orientated.

And I see a problem in your reply. You seem to think that anything other than child-rearing is selfish. Is that how you see people - as child producing and rearing factories, all other contributions to communal well-being being of too little value to elevate one above selfishness?

You had written, "Those laws are given as the basic fundamental requirements for a strong foundation required for a progressive family and community life." I guess that you were only kidding when you added community life. You must have meant home life raising children. I've always been community oriented. My life has been dedicated to serving others - country (military), patients (medicine), and in retirement, assorted volunteer community activities. But no diapers or shuttling to soccer practice, so, it's selfish to you. How about we leave that stuff to people who enjoy being with children?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And I see a problem in your reply. You seem to think that anything other than child-rearing is selfish. Is that how you see people - as child producing and rearing factories, all other contributions to communal well-being being of too little value to elevate one above selfishness?

You had written, "Those laws are given as the basic fundamental requirements for a strong foundation required for a progressive family and community life." I guess that you were only kidding when you added community life. You must have meant home life raising children. I've always been community oriented. My life has been dedicated to serving others - country (military), patients (medicine), and in retirement, assorted volunteer community activities. But no diapers or shuttling to soccer practice, so, it's selfish to you. How about we leave that stuff to people who enjoy being with children?

Well done for all your service to others and community.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think any of the religions understand what makes a society healthy and happy. It's not having children. That's merely a biological necessity to maintain a population. My happiness is unrelated to children. My family doesn't include them. My immediate community - my inner circle of friends and acquaintances - doesn't include them. The foundation for a healthy society can be found in the Affirmations of Humanism.

I agree that 'having children' in and of itself is not what makes a society healthy and happy. There are people in society who are not suited to have children or people who chose not to have children for their own reasons. I was not suited to have children but I also had other reasons why I chose not to have children. Most people are married and choose to have children so there is no danger that the population will not be maintained.

The nuclear family is not the only family unit that exists, not according to the Baha'i Faith. All of humanity is to be considered our family, that is what universal brotherhood is all about. Of course that includes our friends and acquaintances, but it also includes people we don't know personally.

“When asked on one occasion: “What is a Bahá’í?” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá replied: “To be a Bahá’í simply means to love all the world; to love humanity and try to serve it; to work for universal peace and universal brotherhood.” On another occasion He defined a Bahá’í as “one endowed with all the perfections of man in activity.” In one of His London talks He said that a man may be a Bahá’í even if He has never heard the name of Bahá’u’lláh.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 71

Chapter 5: What is a Bahá’í

 

[Trailblazer]

Doesn't this show that gay marriages support a healthy society where orphans are adopted?

Yes

 

[idea]

it also destroys femininity and womanhood.

It is against both male and femaile.

thnk about that.

It doesn't destroy femininity, or masculinity, just heirarchies. Adding option C does not destroy options A and B, it just gives everyone more choices.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And I see a problem in your reply. You seem to think that anything other than child-rearing is selfish. Is that how you see people - as child producing and rearing factories, all other contributions to communal well-being being of too little value to elevate one above selfishness?

You had written, "Those laws are given as the basic fundamental requirements for a strong foundation required for a progressive family and community life." I guess that you were only kidding when you added community life. You must have meant home life raising children. I've always been community oriented. My life has been dedicated to serving others - country (military), patients (medicine), and in retirement, assorted volunteer community activities. But no diapers or shuttling to soccer practice, so, it's selfish to you. How about we leave that stuff to people who enjoy being with children?

My reply was overly blunt, it would have needed further clarification, but your reply cleared most of that up.

In the end children have to be part of our lives, we were one and our experiences can teach others, I see why some choose not to, it is a great responsibility and challenge, it requires one to give of much time.

I have known the pain of not having as much time as I should have. My Jobs were rosters away remote for 2 weeks at a time and only back for a few days, that plays havoc on families, especially if one's partner suffers ill health in life.

Regards Tony