they can stop engaging in gay sex just as I can stop engaging in heterosexual sex.
elsewhere, you wrote, "No, I did not stop because my religion prohibits it. I stopped initially because of marital problems I was having at that time, and then I never went back to having sex because I lost interest in sex. I never thought about sex after that, except when people started talking about it on the forum."
There's the difference between equality and equity. What works for somebody with no sexual desire doesn't work for those who have one.
Nor are we under any obligation to see our claims the way you choose to.
No, you are not, but you would be well advised to understand how other see them. If you choose to stand up for what others perceive to be a homophobic depiction of a deity, you will be seen as homophobic yourself, and if it's in a debate forum, likely called on it by the humanists, whose ethics are based in reason and human empowerment. They'll condemn this homophobic doctrine every time, since it is irrational and destructive in their minds even if not in that of the adherent. Maybe that's OK with you. You don't seem to mind the reaction as much as many, and maybe you feel that it is proper for you to discuss and defend that doctrine. Others are not so well emotionally insulated, and it seems to me that they would prefer to avoid these discussions. If so, isn't it important for them to understand how their audience will perceive them and then react?
We accept what Baha'u'llah wrote because we believe it came from God and we believe that God knows more than we know about what is beneficial and destructive for humans, since God created humans.
Yes, and that kind of thinking creates problems. That's the divine command theory of ethics, which states that good and evil are defined by what they believe a deity has said and done. This the part of faith that makes good people do harm. Just convince them that it is the will of a good god and it ceases being bad whatever it is.
In your opinion it is destructive, but what is it destroying?
People's self-esteem and access to all that society offers, such as being able to marry and be seen as equal to heterosexual couple in legitimacy without some religious government functionary denying them a marriage certificate or some Christian baker refusing to bake them a wedding cake. It all says that you're not OK. The Baha'i here don't seem to like hearing it about themselves.
In my opinion what is destructive is the 'anything goes as long as it feels good' attitude towards sex in present-day society that is devoid of morals.
That's a caricature of modern sexual mores. Anything pleasurable goes that is safe, legal, and just, and not just sexually. The pursuit of pleasure being a sin is a religious notion with no legitimate rational basis in modern society.
Can you prove your personal opinion is right and mine is wrong?
I have already demonstrated that I am correct with an argument you chose to not refute. "That's your opinion, you can't prove it," aren't a refutation or any other kind of argument. It's mere dissent. The argument had no apparent impact on you.
For the humanist, morality and immorality are unrelated to the admonitions in holy books or what others claim gods say. To be immoral an act must be more harmful than beneficial to others, and some would add to oneself. All else is moral by default. You failed to demonstrate your claim that homosexuality was spiritually or physically harmful. The STD argument was rejected because it is not an argument that homosexuality is harmful to anybody. It's an argument that careless sex is harmful. You didn't refute the argument. One possible reason is because its conclusion is correct. One cannot successfully rebut a correct statement. This is the method used in the academic world and in courts of law. The last plausible, unrebutted conclusion is provisionally considered correct until such time as it is falsified.
I understand that these are not your standards, and in the end, for you, it's all just opinion. But this reinforces my previously stated position that there is no burden of proof with a collocutor who is not able to dispassionately evaluate an argument for soundness and be willing to be convinced by a compelling one. That's simply impossible here. So in answer to your question, no, I cannot demonstrate that I am correct to you, but I can to others.
This is another area in which it behooves one to know the values and standards by which others will judge him even if those are not his values. To you, it was a draw. By the standards of the critical thinking community, it wasn't a draw.
Once you have expressed your opinion you have expressed it. Why continue to argue about it?
I was done with this when I made my argument and you declined to rebut it. You brought it up again. I've restated my case if you want to try to rebut it this time. If not, I will consider the discussion has reached its natural end and the matter settled. Do you have evidence that shows that I am wrong? The STD data didn't do that. If you thought it did, you would have offered a counterargument to my claim that you have shown the harm in careless sex and not harm in homosexual sex. You didn't because you can't, and you can't because the conclusion is sound.