Homosexuality and religious.

[dybmh]

Any law of any Nation, the we are those that follow a law.

Regards Tony

The we, in your original question, was who are required to follow the law.

A question I must ask. Are all the laws we are required to live by, by defualt discrimination?

So, gay Baha'i are required to remain single. Straight Baha'i are not. The scope, the we, here are Gay Baha'i, not all Baha'i. And that technically discriminates between Gay Baha'i and Straight Baha'i.

 

[CG Didymus]

As we know the Abrahamic religions have been prejudical over the millennia, and this attitude has been largely adopted by societies outside the East. I think this is especially true since the Abrahamic religions are massively patriarchal, and I think that idea of "male" had a certain image. Homosexuality would no doubt be in conflict with this masculine ideal.

I am confident that Baha'u'llah just adopted this attitude. Would he be able to spread his teachings if he accepted gays in the 19th century? Doubtful. So the leadershi ever since has had to shape what and how Bahai believe, and that is to vilify gays.

It's interesting. I'd be curious how the Bahai leadership has changed their doctrines over time to better conform to modern attitudes. Do you know when the bit you quoted was written?

Here's more of the quote. It wasn't even written by Shoghi...

In a letter dated March 26,1950, written on his behalf, Shoghi Effendi, the authorized interpreter of the Bahá'í Teachings, further explicates the Bahá'í attitude toward homosexuality. It should be noted that the Guardian's interpretation of this subject is based on his infallible understanding of the Texts. It represents both a statement of moral principle and unerring guidance to Bahá'ís who are homosexuals. The letter states: "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. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, besides being against nature.

"To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap."​

 

[Vinayaka]

There's been links to a gay Baha'i who got reported. Did take a look at them?

Speaking of links, here's another one. The LGBTQ Baha'i Experience

It's about a gay Baha'i pair doing a documentary on the entire issue. I find it rather ironic that two sides to a debate can discuss stuff about other people of a double minority (being gay AND Baha'i) without any input from those most affected by this discussion. Hence the links, as it gives them a voice here.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, I saw that today. Like I said in another post, Baha'is are only one small step away from accepting gays as being normal. Too bad it's an infallible law, huh?

Too bad for who CG?

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, it's an important question, but, it could have been asked better, imo. To answer your question, I think a parent does the best they can in that difficult situation.

But a person's religious beliefs that it is wrong and evil is what makes it difficult.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The we, in your original question, was who are required to follow the law.

So, gay Baha'i are required to remain single. Straight Baha'i are not. The scope, the we, here are Gay Baha'i, not all Baha'i. And that technically discriminates between Gay Baha'i and Straight Baha'i.

That did not answer the question.

Are Laws, no matter the source, by fault, discrimination?

If one is seen as is and one is seen as not, who decides that is so?

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Too bad for who CG?

Regards Tony

You love them. You accept them... almost. Too bad you have to believe that there is something wrong with them because your leaders said so.

 

[CG Didymus]

Speaking of links, here's another one. The LGBTQ Baha'i Experience

It's about a gay Baha'i pair doing a documentary on the entire issue. I find it rather ironic that two sides to a debate can discuss stuff about other people of a double minority (being gay AND Baha'i) without any input from those most affected by this discussion. Hence the links, as it gives them a voice here.

Yes, I saw that one. Thanks. Sorry about not responding to some of your posts. I put a "like" though. Each day there's just so many pages that I've been skimming through them.

 

[dybmh]

But a person's religious beliefs that it is wrong and evil is what makes it difficult.

If the modern document that Tony provided accurately describes the direction the faith is moving, then judgements that it's wrong and evil could be on their way out. Too optimistic?

I know that several of the Baha'i in this thread repeatedly label it that way, but it could be generational.

 

[dybmh]

But a person's religious beliefs that it is wrong and evil is what makes it difficult.

From memory, only 2 of the 4 Baha'i on this thread have described it that way.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You love them. You accept them... almost. Too bad you have to believe that there is something wrong with them because your leaders said so.

It appears that is your issue, not mine or theirs.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But a person's religious beliefs that it is wrong and evil is what makes it difficult.

Who sets the standards?

Regards Tony

 

[dybmh]

Are Laws, no matter the source, by fault, discrimination?

I vote no. It depends on the scope.

If one is seen as is and one is seen as not, who decides that is so?

You get to decide, Here's the definiton of discriminate:

1. .recognize a distinction; differentiate.
   "babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"
   
   
2. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, age, or disability.
   "existing employment policies discriminate against women"

 

[TransmutingSoul]

From memory, only 2 of the 4 Baha'i on this thread have described it that way.

The key to this is, as a Baha'i we are guided to not utter any wrong against another. We have our own wrongs to right, it is not up to us to judge another.

Laws in the Faith are applicable and are judged by a house of justice, not by individuals and their opinions of the law, or its morality.

All truth is relative.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, I saw that one. Thanks. Sorry about not responding to some of your posts. I put a "like" though. Each day there's just so many pages that I've been skimming through them.

I don't care. ( I say that dispassionately. Freedom from attachment.)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I vote no. It depends on the scope.

You get to decide, Here's the definiton of discriminate:

1. .recognize a distinction; differentiate.
   "babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"
   
   
2. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, age, or disability.
   "existing employment policies discriminate against women"

The scope is the reason for the laws.

I see it is not up to me as an individual to decide what is a discrimination in regards to set law.

Laws are not made to discriminate, but to set a social standard we are to live by, with the aim of protecting the society into which they are to be applied.

Now if we do not choose God as our guide, then man sets their own standards. Thus those standards will be relative to each Nations evolutionary nature and nurture.

If the Nation are of a majority following God given guidance, then the law would not be prejudicial, they would have been based on a law given as guidance to that Nation via their Chosen God given channel.

The issue that we now face, is that over the last 180 or so years, the rule of Nations has neglected that guidance in favour of its own perceived standards, which ultimately resulted in a sexual revolution where very little was seen as wrong. The required standard that was the foundation of many laws, has been lost.

I could take that further. But it gives the thoughts I currently have. Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

Who sets the standards?

Regards Tony

That doesn't matter. What matters why a human would agree with them if they cause harm, and/or are immoral.

The problem for Bahai is that the world has matured passed them in regards to homosexuality. The Bahai are trapped by their own doctrines in a modern world. It's your choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, when you ask about homosexual relationships not resulting in offspring, what point were trying to make, if all sexual relationships aren't necessarily about offspring?

Let's go back and look at what I asked.
Trailblazer said: ↑
How can homosexual people produce children by having sex with each other?

That was a simple question. I just wanted to know how that was possible.

My question was unrelated to what sexual relationships are about, or whether all sexual relationships are about offspring. Clearly, all sexual relationships are not for the purpose of producing offspring.

Now do you understand?

 

[F1fan]

The scope is the reason for the laws.

I thought it was God's say so (a God that no one knows exists, and from a Messenger who's dead and no one can verify actually ever talked to a God).

I see it is not up to me as an individual to decide what is a discrimination in regards to set law.

Yet laws are decided by humans as benefiicial in some way. The Bahai laws can be said to be absolute and believers have no choice but to obey. But you do have a choice to belong to Bahai, so you are still accountable.

Laws are not made to discriminate, but to set a social standard we are to live by, with the aim of protecting the society into which they are to be applied.

The Jim Crow laws were. The Dred Scott decision was discriminatory. And the law in Bahai that vilifies gays is discriminatory. What does the prohibition on homosexuality protect anyone from?

Now if we do not choose God as our guide, then man sets their own standards. Thus those standards will be relative to each Nations evolutionary nature and nurture.

There are no rules or laws known to be from any Gods. And we see many supposed laws from God as immoral. Look at the Old Testament. Those laws were from God? Seriously? Following many of those laws today would get a person in jail for violating human designed laws. Look at Muslim extremists who follow the Quran literally and behead women for dating men they like. There's your laws from God.

Laws by liberal minds are very fair and look to protect basic rights. There is a reason modern societies have secular governments. It;s because religious laws and values can't be trusted.

If the Nation are of a majority following God given guidance, then the law would not be prejudicial, they would have been based on a law given as guidance to that Nation via their Chosen God given channel.

Tell that to Iran. So you are wrong. Secular governing is vastly superior to theocracies. Gods have a way of always agreeing with the moral believer. Ever notice that? Whether burning a woman for witchcraft, or stoning a girl to death, or prejudice against gays, this is all backwards thinking that has no test in reality.

The issue that we now face, is that over the last 180 or so years, the rule of Nations has neglected that guidance in favour of its own perceived standards, which ultimately resulted in a sexual revolution where very little was seen as wrong. The required standard that was the foundation of many laws, has been lost.

Are you going to blame sexual freedom for World War 1?

I could take that further. But it gives the thoughts I currently have. Regards Tony

My curiosity is if you are a good fit for Bahai because of your attitudes, or you are influenced by Bahai to think this way. You keep talking about a God as if it is real, and no one can assert that seriously. You know many of us don;t share that assumption. You offer no justification to assume any God exists, nor that anything results from a God.

 

[CG Didymus]

Speaking of links, here's another one. The LGBTQ Baha'i Experience

It's about a gay Baha'i pair doing a documentary on the entire issue. I find it rather ironic that two sides to a debate can discuss stuff about other people of a double minority (being gay AND Baha'i) without any input from those most affected by this discussion. Hence the links, as it gives them a voice here.

Why are we the ones feeling compassion and empathy for these people that loved their religion, but because they were gay, they couldn't stay in it.