Number of times the word "homosexuality" appears in Baha'i scriptures

[Jim]

The prohibition on homosexual marriage ...

I don’t see any prohibition on homosexual marriage, unless your definition of “marriage” is different from what it means in our scriptures and from every dictionary definition. What I see is our scriptures promoting a kind of marriage that is physically possible only between a man and a woman. If you mean two men or two women performing some kind of ritual or ceremony, or making some kind of agreement, and calling that “marriage,” I don’t see any prohibition against that. If you mean that it would be wrong to impose Baha’i marriage laws on that kind of marriage. I agree.

 

[exchemist]

As I understand it the Baha'i writings teach the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Its not the only purpose of course.



Of course. I agree.



If you took the time to study all the Baha'i writings on marriage, sex and chastity you would find it does just that.

I could take one of the catechisms of the RCC out of context and make a mockery of it. What does that achieve?

It achieves confirmation that you have managed to misinterpret my post completely, as if it were some sort of attack on Baha'i. I had thought my reference to "churches" (note the plural) would have made my point pretty clear. In fact I had Catholicism, evangelical Protestantism and Islam primarily in mind when I wrote. I'd never even heard of Baha'i (Bahaiism?) until I joined this site a few months ago and have no clue what it is about.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It achieves confirmation that you have managed to misinterpret my post completely, as if it were some sort of attack on Baha'i. I had thought my reference to "churches" (note the plural) would have made my point pretty clear. In fact I had Catholicism, evangelical Protestantism and Islam primarily in mind when I wrote. I'd never even heard of Baha'i (Bahaiism?) until I joined this site a few months ago and have no clue what it is about.

Thanks for clarifying. You had commented on a post made by me to another in relation to Baha’i principles regarding marriage and sex. You may have intended Catholicism, conversation Protestantism and Islam but that was not clear to me. There are similarities between what the Baha’i Faith teaches and what these other ‘churches’ teach. There are important differences too.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don’t see any prohibition on homosexual marriage, unless your definition of “marriage” is different from what it means in our scriptures and from every dictionary definition. What I see is our scriptures promoting a kind of marriage that is physically possible only between a man and a woman. If you mean two men or two women performing some kind of ritual or ceremony, or making some kind of agreement, and calling that “marriage,” I don’t see any prohibition against that. If you mean that it would be wrong to impose Baha’i marriage laws on that kind of marriage. I agree.

Baha’i law applies only to Baha’is. If a same sex couple marry that is their business. If someone becomes a Baha’i at some stage they are expected by Baha’i assemblies to follow Baha’i law. Most laws are a personal matter between the individuals and God. Marriage being a public matter is different and the Assembly would have a role regardless to ensure the requirements of Baha’i marriage are met.

 

[Jim]

(edit)This quote was from Deeje, not adrian.(end edit)

This has been my position for 48 years.

Even though this feels futile to me, I want to point out that you posted two long replies to my posts, completely ignoring my whole reason for posting: my appeal to you to find ways to tell people about the sexual behavior that is prohibited between two men, without using the word "homosexuality."

 

[Dawnofhope]

Even though this feels futile to me, I want to point out that you posted two long replies to my posts, completely ignoring my whole reason for posting: my appeal to you to find ways to tell people about the sexual behavior that is prohibited between two men, without using the word "homosexuality."

Those are Deejes words not mine Jim. Was your comment to Deeje or myself?

 

[Jim]

Those are Deejes words not mine Jim. Was your comment to Deeje or myself?

It was to Deeje. Sorry.

 

[Jim]

@Deeje Even though this feels futile to me, I want to point out that you posted two long replies to my posts, completely ignoring my whole reason for posting: my appeal to you to find ways to tell people about the sexual behavior that is prohibited between two men, without using the word "homosexuality."

 

[Jim]

Baha’i law applies only to Baha’is. If a same sex couple marry that is their business. If someone becomes a Baha’i at some stage they are expected by Baha’i assemblies to follow Baha’i law. Most laws are a personal matter between the individuals and God. Marriage being a public matter is different and the Assembly would have a role regardless to ensure the requirements of Baha’i marriage are met.

Personally I don't think that anyone's sex type should make any difference in what spiritual assemblies do about possible sexual relationships that might be happening outside of Baha'i marriage. I don't think they should be any more concerned about the sex lives of people who call themselves "gay," than they are about anyone else's sex life. I also don't see any prohibition against two men or two women, living together or not, having a relationship that they, or the civil government, call "marriage." I agree with not certifying that as a "Baha'i marriage." I don't see how it could even be possible to apply all the Baha'i marriage laws to two men or two women, and I've never heard of any two men or two women who would even want that. For one thing it would be physically impossible for them to consummate the marriage.

However that may be, I'm not objecting to anything that I think any institutions are currently doing. If I were doing that, I wouldn't be doing it here. What I'm objecting to is using the word "homosexuality" in public discussions about what kinds of behavior God has prohibited between two women or two men.

 

[columbus]

What I'm objecting to is using the word "homosexuality" in public discussions about what kinds of behavior God has prohibited between two women or two men.

I don't want to insert myself into a discussion between people who have beliefs i find fundamentally irrational, like prophets. But i have to ask.

What word would you use to discuss this? What is the point to avoiding that simple and clear word? How is substituting an ancient and vague euphemism better?
Tom

 

[Jim]

What word would you use to discuss this?

If I wanted to tell people about what I kind of behavior I think God has prohibited between two men, I would say exactly that. I think that there is some kind of behavior that God has prohibited between two men, and that it has something to do with what Baha'u'llah calls "the subject of boys." From my research, I think that what's prohibited might be substituting a man in the place of a woman, in an imitation of procreative union.

 

[exchemist]

What I'm objecting to is using the word "homosexuality" in public discussions about what kinds of behavior God has prohibited between two women or two men.

This seems a rather futile objection, given that homosexual means simply "same sex."

 

[wandering peacefully]

I don't think He did write anything about what people are calling "homosexuality" today. I think that all He did was ratify the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus, and one of those is a prohibition against a man playing the role of a woman in an imitation of procreative union. Significantly for me, Leviticus explicitly prohibits men and women from having animals as sex partners, but it says nothing about two women.



Why are you asking about all that? What difference would it make to you, if any of that were true? Are you looking for a new religion for this day and age? Do you want to help unite the world in peace and harmony? Are you looking for a religion with laws that make it attractive to you and relevant for this day and age?

Are you kidding? If there really was a group who figured out how to bring peace and harmony to the world, of course I would want to be a part of it. The real question is why do Baha'i continue to claim they are that group? They can't even explain the core laws that are supposed to do that. I guess I'm done trying to find out because none of them want to quote the actual laws written down by their supposed great prophet for "this day and age". It appears to be a total farce and useless as a unifying religion. There seem to be a certain personality type who get involved with it which has become abundantly clear seeing the responses from them in this forum. I can only imagine it extends to the larger population of bahais. Good luck trying to convince anyone else of its efficacy. I never heard of it before all of the people here talking about how great it is so I'll just forget about it as being anything of worth other than another specialty cult. Best wishes. I'll keep seeking thanks.

 

[columbus]

If I wanted to tell people about what I kind of behavior I think God has prohibited between two men, I would say exactly that. I think that there is some kind of behavior that God has prohibited between two men, and that it has something to do with what Baha'u'llah calls "the subject of boys." From my research, I think that what's prohibited might be substituting a man in the place of a woman, in an imitation of procreative union.

That seems incredibly complex and cumbersome to me. Useless and counterproductive, to the point of making discussion nearly impossible.
And ultimately useless, because the euphemism used in Leviticus doesn't technically apply to women, or even two guys who have sex without lying down (trust me, it's easy and fun!).

So I still don't see the point, nor have you suggested a reasonable substitute that would facilitate this discussion. What word would you use to describe two women who have been in a "mutually supportive, exclusive, and permanent relationship" for decades? Homosexual is the only one I can think of.
Tom

 

[wandering peacefully]

I don't know enough about the Bab myself. Islam did forbid it in many places. According to wiki source, Taliban banned it in Afghanistan as un-islamic. Now after they're gone, it's back again.

Interesting that all of these various sects of these Abrahamic religions can't even get along with each other, never mind the world as a whole. Yet they keep at it no matter how much hate, division, closed mindedness, exclusivetly, and disharmony it brings between each of them and the rest of humanity. It doesn't give me much hope for the continuation of the human species. We may have become more advanced in some areas but the place where it actually counts for survival and fairness and harmony between all people hasn't changed a bit in 5,000 years. I'm glad for Buddha's teachings but it's too bad they haven't spread to more of humanity. Even his original teachings some how got turned into waring religious sects. I guess humans just like to fight and be self-centered "believers" no matter the cost.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Firstly there can be no Baha'i theocracy, as there are no Priests in the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i system of elections is unique and only applicable to Baha'i.

Rule of this world has been left to humanity to pursue, with just Monarchy and Democracy encouraged.

1) Holy law is removed from the Book
2) Elimination of all prejudices
3) Equality of Men and Women
4) Elimination of extreme poverty and wealth via a spiritual solution to the economic problems.
5) Education for all people, with the females given priority.

Regards Tony

Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity, or religious institution, is the source from which all authority derives.

The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία meaning "the rule of God". This in turn derives from θεός (theos), meaning "god", and κρατέω (krateo), meaning "to rule". Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was "rule by god(s)" or human incarnation(s) of god(s).
Theocracy - Wikipedia


I suggest you do a little more research into your chosen religion. Best of luck.

 

[Vinayaka]

There seem to be a certain personality type who get involved with it which has become abundantly clear seeing the responses from them in this forum. I can only imagine it extends to the larger population of bahais.

A very accurate assessment, I would say.

 

[Jim]

This seems a rather futile objection ...

Yes, I see now that it's futile to try to explain it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Personally I don't think that anyone's sex type should make any difference in what spiritual assemblies do about possible sexual relationships that might be happening outside of Baha'i marriage. I don't think they should be any more concerned about the sex lives of people who call themselves "gay," than they are about anyone else's sex life. I also don't see any prohibition against two men or two women, living together or not, having a relationship that they, or the civil government, call "marriage." I agree with not certifying that as a "Baha'i marriage." I don't see how it could even be possible to apply all the Baha'i marriage laws to two men or two women, and I've never heard of any two men or two women who would even want that. For one thing it would be physically impossible for them to consummate the marriage.

However that may be, I'm not objecting to anything that I think any institutions are currently doing. If I were doing that, I wouldn't be doing it here. What I'm objecting to is using the word "homosexuality" in public discussions about what kinds of behavior God has prohibited between two women or two men.

I was just reading the Wikipedia article about the Baha’i Faith and homosexuality and would recommend it to anyone whose interested. It appears balanced and fair. I wonder what your thoughts are?

Homosexuality and the Bahá'í Faith - Wikipedia

Both the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice use the word homosexuality. I’m personally comfortable with the word as are most other Baha’is I’ve come across.

I’m comfortable with the Baha’i Teachings on sex, marriage and chasity. The writings seem clear to me. I’m comfortable with the freedom of expression we have as Baha’is and while your thread as been of general interest to consider a complex and for some contentious topic, I’m unlikely to agree with everything you say. Its good you have posted as it’s something you are personally interested in. I was thinking a topic of more general interest would be how different faiths have responded to aspects of Western liberalism.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity, or religious institution, is the source from which all authority derives.

The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία meaning "the rule of God". This in turn derives from θεός (theos), meaning "god", and κρατέω (krateo), meaning "to rule". Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was "rule by god(s)" or human incarnation(s) of god(s).
Theocracy - Wikipedia


I suggest you do a little more research into your chosen religion. Best of luck.

Thankyou, I have been looking onto my Faith for 34 years and have found I have not even scratched the surface. I would offer this from Baha'u'llah;

"The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed."

There is further defenition included with the one you posted as to what is a Theocracy, which is, "a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god."

The Baha'i Administrative system is unique and no one word will describe it. There are no priests and it is not here to rule the world, but to guide all spiritually.

If you wish to see it as a theocracy, please do.

Regards Tony