Homosexuality and religious.

[Sheldon]

Out of curiosity -- could you provide a statement of what might be "objectively wrong about homosexuality?"

That way, we could perhaps move beyond opinion nad belief -- and find our way finally, to FACT.

She's already failed massively, resorting to absolute and unevidenced claims like god says so, and vague woo woo like it is spiritually harmful, no one can offer any practical or even cogent explanation for homophobic bigotry, but then religious bigotry is irrational. One poster did make the risible claim that gay people have long been hiding who they are because they somehow know they are "wrong", I am almost embarrassed to even paraphrase such an asinine and obvious lie.

 

[Sheldon]

If you present a reasonable and cogent argument for why homosexuality if not evil, shameful, unnatural, should be purged, etc - then I will consider it.

It is a perfectly natural and harmless derivations of adult sexual desire.

It's good to see you've stopped the pretence that your religion and it's adherents respect and love gay people anyway...I mean it would be pretty stupid now to try and pretend after claiming you needed evidence they were not "evil, shameful, unnatural," and "should be purged, etc". I shudder to think what the etc means, but purged? Really? That claim alone has destroyed any moral pretence that Bahai's and bahai religion are not deeply and perniciously homophobic.

I think any posters here who are gay, deserve an abject apology, as that is a truly appalling outburst of homophobia, even by religious standards.

 

[Sheldon]

So what? Humans are not like other species. Humans were created in the image of God, other species were not.

Circular reasoning fallacy, though I'm guessing the irony of you accidentally implying you've imagined a deity whose image involves being gay, is lost on you.

 

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
It occurs naturally, in the natural world. Therefore it is natural. By definition.

So what? That does not make it moral.

Shifting the goal posts, you claimed it as unnatural, when this was refuted with objective evidence, you switched your claim, such dishonesty is unworthy of debate.

 

[Sheldon]

But God doesn't say this. A person who claims to be a messenger does, and you can't be certain homophobia isn't the messenger's prejudice.

Ironically we can be pretty sure homophobic bigotry is a human failing, so touting it as a claim from a "perfectly moral" deity does raise a rather obvious logical inference. Either they've imagined a deity that has the petty ignorant failings and prejudices of evolved apes, or it's all the same BS other religions tout. Hmm, decisions decisions.

 

[Sheldon]

You cannot know or prove that homosexuality is harmless

Of course we can, and rather tellingly no one promoting homophobia has been able to offer any objective evidence that being gay is harmful in any practical way. All they have is "I believe the deity I imagine is real says so", not vey compelling at all.

 

[Sheldon]

That is also what atheists offer, an opinion, one built on prejudice.

Nonsense, how is suggesting gay people deserve to be treated equally a prejudice, that's another absurd and irrational contradiction.

 

[Sheldon]

Why not? We teach them about the dangers of traffic on the street, and how they shouldn't run in front of cars. Why can't we talk to the about other conduct? Why can't we acknowledge (and I think this is the thing we leave out most often, to our sorrow) that drugs and other activities happen -- but can lead to disaster?

At the end of the day, what's actually wrong with a kid who knows about things that are dangerous to him or her?

Bravo, a sensible rational, practical, and empathetic post.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, they do. Meaning short of saying they don't believe such and such, they'll go beyond that and say why what others believe is not true. And more, such as claiming that God is not necessary, that we're all products of evolutionary principles.

It has the rational advantage of not needing subjective unevidenced claims, or supernatural magic, and appeals to superstition and mystery, and of course being based on overwhelming objective scientific evidence. Odd how you try to make that appear a bad thing, odd but very revealing.

 

[Sheldon]

And of course, we know that some clergy and parents who claim to be religious or attend a house of worship say whatever is ok, even if the Bible says it's not. Years ago I remember meeting a man who bragged he was teaching his young son how to steal. I was not particularly religious at that time but I kind of figured that was not particularly the way to bring up a child. He also celebrated Christmas.

Yes, this pointless anecdote is all very well, but you still haven't explained why you claimed schools teaching children how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and catching or spreading potentially fatal or life altering std's, is not moral?

I think it defines moral behaviour, like teaching children about using drugs and alcohol in a frank and honest way, or teaching them to be very cautious when crossing the road etc etc..

 

[Sheldon]

That is a choice available.

Regards Tony

Calling it a choice implies there was an alternative, but the truth is such bigotry is deeply harmful, and offers gay people little choice, only to deny who they are which is obviously deeply damaging to any human being, and certainly involves prejudice against them from your religion that is morally unacceptable.

 

[Sheldon]

We do speak out against the condemnation of gays

Rubbish....

present a reasonable and cogent argument for why homosexuality if not evil, shameful, unnatural, should be purged, etc - then I will consider it.

Come on now, all pretence ended with that post.

 

[Sheldon]

Law? What law? There are no laws against being gay. Not in the USA anyway.

She means imaginary laws, from an imaginary deity.

 

[Sheldon]

No, it means that God created us all because he loves us, and God is merciful, and homosexual acts are just one aspect of our behavior.

A harmless aspect, that is part of who some people are. Condemning it is the same as condemning them, and such homophobia is deeply pernicious. People have some choice over what they believe, they have none over being gay or straight. I happened to be born straight, there was no choice involved, and asking me to deny it would be absurd and deeply harmful. just as it when religious bigotry claims this is how gay people ought to live.

 

[Sheldon]

God, the Judge of all mankind has condemned certain behaviours among them homosexuality but told His followers to treat them with kindness and dignity as they are equal fellow human beings and that that.

By condemning the fact they are gay? That isn't kindness or dignified, it's cruel bigotry and prejudice.

 

[Sheldon]

Sexual fluidity is a real thing and much more common in those who identify as lesbian, bisexual and gay males than heterosexuals.

One study by Steven E. Mock and Richard P. Eibach from 2011 shows 2% of 2,560 adult participants included in National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States reported change of sexual orientation identities after a 10-year period: 0.78% of male and 1.36% of female persons that identified themselves to be heterosexuals at the beginning of the 10-year period, as well as 63.6% of lesbians, 64.7% of bisexual females, 9.52% of gay males, and 47% of bisexual males. According to the study, "this pattern was consistent with the hypothesis that heterosexuality is a more stable sexual orientation identity, perhaps because of its normative status.

Sexual fluidity - Wikipedia

Try reading on..." Sexual orientation is stable and unchanging for the vast majority of people, "...."researchers usually emphasize that changes in sexual orientation are unlikely, despite conversion therapy attempts, "

This was one just piece of research of course, and you seem to be opportunistically cherry picking it.

It's perhaps predictable that when religions espouse hate speech against a minority group like gay people, they aren't interested in examining all the facts, just anything that reinforces the bigoted dogma and doctrine those religions want to promote as divine diktat.

 

[Sheldon]

Flagrant violation of Baha'i laws is problematic for the Baha'is who break them and the Baha'i Assemblies who administer those laws. It is the same principle whether sex before marriage, adultery or a gay couple. If it is flagrant then Baha'i Assemblies are duty bound to respond.

No one is duty bound to enforce bigotry and prejudice, that's the problem with pretending blind adherence to doctrine and dogma is morality, but morality involves the ability to decide what is and is not moral, it helps if that decision process is based on something tangible and practical, like the consequences of our actions, and whether they can cause real suffering to others. Though some theists maybe good at this, religions are not, and are deeply harmful because of it.

 

[F1fan]

I was referring to the Baha'i Law.

Calling religious dogma a "law" is dangerous and immoral. It suggests some dogma has an authority over society as a whole, and it doesn't. It's also worthless in debate because it carries no significance.

Theists often refer to their dogma as law, including the Old Testament, as if it means something to everyone. It is a way for theists to presume an authority they don't have. It strikes me as desperate.

It also implies that believers in Bahai don't have any option to reject immoral beliefs and "law" if it goes against their own moral sense. If the prophet says gays are to be condemned then it is a toxic theology.

 

[KWED]

I always reply in the short, never with the entirety. That would be the benefit of face to face discussion, issues can be clarified earlier.

If you left out the platitudes and scriptural quotes, and just replied to the actual post, you might find it a bit easier. Just a thought.

 

[F1fan]

Why this perception on your part that we are not clear thinking and intolerant?

As I explained atheists are just criticizing religious belief. That is a response, it's criticism. It isn't a dogma that is being claimed to be an absolute truth. Now you might respond by saying that denying one person's claims of absote truth is itself a claim of truth, but that isn't accurate. Being critical of claims of truth that are not backed by evidence is simply pointing out observations.

I like plenty of atheists, but when they try to destroy out belief in God, that in my view is proselytization, trying to make us atheists like you.

Destroy your belief? That sounds overly dramatic and victimized. You volunteer to join a forum where religious ideas are scrutinized. That's your choice, unlike gays being gay.

Atheists are not going to be sympathetic to claims about a god, and as we see in this thread, the condemnation of gays. Do you follow me here, it is Bahai who are prejudiced against gays for religious reasons, and atheists are the tolerant side and condemn the bahai for their ironic prejudice.

Theists often cite their dogmas that are immoral and intolerant in open debate, and then get upset when these claims are subjected to criticism.