Homosexuality and religious.

[samtonga43]

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?

But what makes you think that it is NOT possible for a homosexual man to have sexual intercourse with a lesbian?

Maybe you need to enrol in a sex education class...

 

[samtonga43]

Because religious believers are compassionate -- with caveats. We can be compassionate without, since we have no gods to obey.

Christian here, and perfectly able to be compassionate sans caveats. Careful with the generalizations!

 

[F1fan]

Again since this amply demonstrates the harm homophobic prejudices can do, why do you not denounce such ideas?

How can you believe a loving deity would demand such harmful nonsense?

It always comes back to the same explanation: We have to follow the laws from God (that isn't known to exist) as dictated through a mortal who claims to be God's Messenger (but we can't confirm this), so we have no choice.

But there are many choices. Choose not to be Bahai because it has a bigoted law that the hierarchy won't eliminate. The hierarchy could decide to eliminate this law by claiming God spoke to them, but they don't. Bahai members could choose to splinter a different sect (hey, if the Abrahamic religions can do it....).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"But homosexuality apart from sexual satisfaction, what purpose does it serve?"

That's enough. Nobody needs to justify themselves for taking sexual pleasure in a consensual, adult relationship. But there must be more benefit to humanity, since evolution has selected for it. You've seen suggestions for how homosexuality might benefit families and villages.

Not by having sex with each other.

You responded to, "Even gay people can reproduce." Your objection is irrelevant to the issue of whether homosexuality is immoral. Being able to conceive during homosexual sex is also irrelevant. The entire issue of the moral status of homosexuality rests in it not being immoral, that is, not a harmful behavior.

Because God says so, and that is the only reason we need.

Humanists need a better reason than that somebody SAID that a god told them to tell the rest of us how to behave.

Now give us facts and a coherent explanation of the facts as to why you believe homosexuality is moral.

It's already been done in this thread by several posters here. The Humanist answer is because it's not immoral according to rational ethics, which are based in the Golden Rule and utilitarian ethics.

To be fair, the same prohibitions against homosexual sex exist in the Bible and the Qur'an. Why single out the Baha'i Faith?

We don't. The term Abrahamic religions has appeared in this thread. Skeptical moral theorists have this discussion frequently with the Christians, and they ask the same question - why are you just singing us out? Same answer.

Why would it have ever been considered a mental disorder?

Abrahamic religions demonized and marginalized homosexuality, essentially defining it as a form of spiritual sickness. Humanists are busy trying to undo the effects of Abrahamic homophobia. Getting homosexuality recognized as a natural, normal human function was one great step forward, as was decriminalizing homosexuality and legalizing same sex marriage.

Science does not deal with morality, that is within the purview of religion.

Religion doesn't do as good a job with ethics as Humanism. Humanism informed the West that secular democracies with guaranteed individual human rights was more conducive to societal happiness than the authoritarian regimes that preceded them. Freedom of (and from) religion is a humanist concept. Humanists taught Christianity that slavery and pedophilia were immoral, and are busy teaching them that homosexuality, atheism, and abortion are not.

The religious argument is that it hurts the people engaging in the behavior and it hurts society as a whole.

That's not an argument. That's a claim, one that contradicts the available evidence, and thus, while believed by those willing to believe by faith, is rejected by those who require sufficient empirical evidence (the only kind of evidence) to believe.

But that doesn't mean the God does not exist. Lots of things that were not known to exist were discovered later.

Yeah, but being empiricists, we didn't act like they were real until they were discovered. The rule is the same for gods for empiricists. Discover a god first, and we can talk, but you'll have to meet the empiricist's standards for demonstration - evidence that is best explained by positing the existence of a deity. You find that the words of Baha'u'llah meet that bar, but they don't meet the definition I provided for evidence for a deity. Those words could have been written by human beings, and support a godless metaphysics as well or better than a supernatural one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Christian here, and perfectly able to be compassionate sans caveats. Careful with the generalizations!

Reproof accepted. You are quite right. I have known many Christians of the same temperament. I should have said "many believers, inspired by dogma, have difficulty being compassionate without caveats."

And indeed, many non-believers (in gods) still hold dogmatic beliefs of other kinds that limit their ability to be compassionate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unnatural
1. contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.

Homosexuality is common in nature. But this is yet another red herring. It doesn't matter if it's natural or unnatural. Nothing is immoral because it is natural or unnatural. And once again, homosexuals don't need to justify themselves to you or anybody else. They don't need to meet your criteria for acceptability. That only applies to you. All this talk about genetics and STDs and nature is irrelevant. Is the behavior harmless? If yes, it cannot be called immoral. That is the standard in the rational ethics of Humanism.

Laws are necessary to maintain harmony and wellbeing within communities. There are laws that fulfil this function well, others that undermine well being.

Homophobic religious dicta undermine societal and individual well-being.

The values and practices of atheist societies can also reflect all manner of prejudices.

There are no irrational prejudices in Humanism. Its prejudices are based in reason and empiricism, including that those are the path to knowledge, not faith. Rational prejudices are called learning.

Being rational is a vital part of being a human being but it is no guarantee of being free from prejudice.

I'm assuming that you mean only irrational or faith-based prejudices. Those are prejudices based in nothing. Being rational does protect one from that. If one can master critical thought, he becomes immune to indoctrination, and all of his future prejudgments (prejudices, beliefs about what is true) will be rational (empirically derived).

If others identify as gay and are in a same sex relationship, that is their business and it does not affect my relationship them.

That's not credible to me if you are Baha'i and accept its doctrine as divine. What you are saying to me is that you never reveal that you consider them spiritually defective because a god said they were. It says that you wish that they weren't gay, and that you don't approve of them, even if you conceal such opinions. You might have convinced yourself that if you harbor no overt hatred that your relationship is unaffected, but I don't believe that, and nor should any homosexuals you know who know what Baha'i doctrine is and that you accept it uncritically.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again since this amply demonstrates the harm homophobic prejudices can do, why do you not denounce such ideas?

I said: I know a man who on another forum was with his male partner for 50 years and he was devastated when he got ill and passed on. He never really recovered from his loss, he was never the same after that.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was not talking about homophobic prejudices. I was talking about the man's loss of this partner. I really liked this man on the other forum and I felt terrible for him when he lost his partner of so many years.

How can you believe a loving deity would demand such harmful nonsense?

What harmful nonsense?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you don't believe homosexuality is evil nor immoral now? Or that it is an unnatural sexual abberation, that should be purged?

Who said that I ever believed all of that?
I believe that homosexuality is immoral, according to God, but I do not believe that it is evil or that it is a sexual aberration that should be purged.

Are you know saying your religion's prejudice against gay people is wrong or at least something you can't defend?

My religion does not have a prejudice against gay people.

Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
prejudice meaning - Google Search

The Baha'i Laws regarding homosexual behavior are not based upon a preconceived opinion. They are based upon God's perfect knowledge of human nature and what is best for humans individually and collectively.
God needs no defense so I do not need to defend God and His Laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe not, but actively discriminating against people may well see people prosecuted for it. Also since you know gay people are capable of loving each other just as straight people do, why wouldn't you change your views to reflect that.

My views already reflect that because I personally know gays who love each other just as straight people do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why would there be? Up until recently many gays publically lived a straight life, being married to a female and having kids for fear of their homosexuality to be publicly known. They hid it and lived that secretly. Do you deny that?

Whose fault is that?

When a gene is not being passed on as much as it once was, and over time it keeps getting passed on even less.... What does evolution predict will happen to that gene?

It will disappear from the gene pool. But that hasn't happened with homosexuality, which appears throughout much of the animal kingdom. That should tell you something.

I'm straight and I don't have a straight pride flag, a straight pride parade, a straight pride month, etc. I don't want them.and don't need them.

No, you don't, but then you aren't discriminated against for your sexuality, either. You also don't need to proclaim that white lives matter.

I don't hate ya. But if you want to feel I do that's your choice. A wrong choice but your choice. Maybe you are wrong about others hating you to. One thing I've learned in life is "not agreeing with what someone does doesn't mean you hate them."

I think he's right. Homophobia is a type of hatred. You understand, I hope, that you are not the arbiter of whether others find your opinions bigoted. The objection we see most often here is that the bigot doesn't feel hatred. Why would that matter to deciding whether such beliefs are homophobic and destructive to the gay community? That just means that you've learned to feel good about the belief.

How did I take this out of context? "Pride days are our ways of saying to a world full of bigots, "F You!" Why not say its our way of showing we love each other, that we are happy, etc. But instead you say "Pride days are our ways of saying to a world full of bigots, "F You!"

You pushed his buttons and got the reaction you were likely looking for. I think he would agree that posting angrily like that was an act of acute angst caused by the mood of the conversation, which was dismissive of who he is and how he feels, and a net harm to his argument. He has never expressed hatred of any kind on RF before to my knowledge. Now, because of that choice, you get to turn it around and call him the hater, as if he were the instigator or is somehow in the wrong for hating how homophobes have made his life harder and expressing it emotionally. This is the same tactic used with BLM - push them to violence and then say, see, there's the problem.

Too bad that you can't feel empathy there. But you also forfeit empathy when you do that. Yesterday, there was a similar thread complaining about having to be empathetic to the transgendered. It seems to be a symptom of modern American life more and more. Gun people have no empathy for terrified school children or their parents, and walk through Wal-Marts with assault rifles strapped to their backs. Empathy-free Karens are shouting at people in their neighborhoods and calling police over nothing but color. The Christians are inflicting their theocratic beliefs on an unwilling majority, utterly indifferent to the pain that causes. People are coughing in the faces of others for being asked to wear a mask, indifferent to the fears of others around them. The mantra of Republican voters was, "F*** your feelings." All of those people have lost my empathy. I am as indifferent to what becomes of them as they are to those they treat so shabbily.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sheldon said: ↑
gay people can and do reproduce having heterosexual sex

Which word is tripping you up?

My stepson had three children with his wife, who later came out as gay,. Some gay people choose to have heterosexual sex to have children, are you really going to try and deny that fact?

My point was that homosexuals cannot reproduce by having sex with each other.

I know that homosexuals can have children by having heterosexual sex. My best friend @Truthseeker is married to a lesbian and they had sex in order to have their son Michael.

 

[Trailblazer]

You think connecting sexual desire to sex is dumb?

No, I never said that. How you got from point a to point z I do not know.

You're priceless fair play. Most people are smart enough to see they're synonymous.

Sex and sexual desire are not synonymous although they are connected, because one usually has sexual desire before they have sex. This was once a big interest of mine so I did research and wrote a paper on disorders of sexual desire back when I was in grad school studying psychology.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did I mention you? Religions are preoccupied with it in an unhealthy way.

No, I do not think that religions are preoccupied with sex.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I never said that. How you got from point a to point z I do not know.

Sex and sexual desire are not synonymous although they are connected, because one usually has sexual desire before they have sex. This was once a big interest of mine so I did research and wrote a paper on disorders of sexual desire back when I was in grad school studying psychology.

So is it a fact or an opinion what makes a disorder a disorder?

 

[Trailblazer]

Since animals are part of nature, and human (animals) are part of nature, your claim is nonsensical. Lots of animals differ from each other, humans also share traits with close evolutionary relatives.

Humans are different from animals, since humans have an animal nature, but humans also have a spiritual nature that other animals do not have.

What is natural for animals is natural for humans if humans only follow their animal nature, but if humans follow their spiritual nature then it is not natural for humans to behave like animals.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Humans are different from animals, since humans have an animal nature, but humans also have a spiritual nature that other animals do not have.

What is natural for animals is natural for humans if humans only follow their animal nature, but if humans follow their spiritual nature then it is not natural for humans to behave like animals.

In your opinion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For us Baha’is it comes down to fallible error prone humans vs an All Knowing infallible God Who created both man and science.

For we Humanists, that's all there is is fallible human beings, some of whom speak as if a god exists and has their ear. Nature created man and the laws of physics. So, it comes down to who believes by faith and who won't. That's where the error lies - belief by faith.

Baha’u’llah is only advising us what is best for us but then it is up to us to listen or not.

Humanism offers better advice. We should not listen to self-proclaimed prophets and messengers. We should not believe by faith. We should listen to our minds (reason) and hearts (conscience). Knowledge comes from experience (empiricism), not holy books.

Without religion science lacks a moral compass and is being used by politicians to create dangerous weapons threatening us all.

It's the politicians who lack the moral compass, and in America, they are mostly Christians. Religion offers no solutions. In fact, it's part of the problem. Faith always is. It's just guessing, and most guesses are incorrect:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)

• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.

The best moral system the world has is the rational ethics of Humanism. It's the one that avoids faith-based proclamations. It's the one not carved in stone and able to adapt to changing times. It's the one that informs the religions of what is right and what is wrong, religions that are gradually transformed by continual humanist influence. That's why Christianity in the West is less barbaric than Islam in the East. Not executing homosexuals or hanging witches are not Christian principles. Neither is recognizing that slavery is immoral nor that women are socially equal to men. Church-state separation and freedom of religion are not Christian principles. Nor is democracy.

With Faith, knowledge becomes unlimited.

You are using a definition of knowledge that has no use or value to me. For me, knowledge is a collection of facts, facts being ideas that demonstrably map onto some aspect of reality, and this can be used to anticipate outcomes better than competing ideas. Faith doesn't do any of that. It just piles up sterile guesses.

They are always welcome in the Baha'i community to attend functions and devotionals and community activities. They can not be part of the Administrative Order.

Somehow, you don't see that as homophobia.

The key to this is, as a Baha'i we are guided to not utter any wrong against another.

But your right and wrong aren't based in reason. They're based in faith. If you don't have right and wrong correct, you can't judge that properly. As you can see, many consider your religion wrong-headed in what it and its adherents DO say.

 

[Trailblazer]

Tb, you have fallen for this logical fallacy, and you use it over and over again.
Do you not see that what is natural for animals is often also natural for humans?
You really are the most illogical person I have come across on any forum.

What is natural for animals is sometimes natural for humans
There is nothing illogical about what I said unless the Bible is wrong.

It is not natural for humans to always behave like animals because humans have a spiritual nature that animals do not have. You should know that if you read the Bible.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

I just explained that in post #3115.

Humans are different from animals, since humans have an animal nature, but humans also have a spiritual nature that other animals do not have.

What is natural for animals is natural for humans if humans only follow their animal nature, but if humans follow their spiritual nature then it is not natural for humans to behave like animals.

#3115 Trailblazer, 2 minutes ago

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is natural for animals is sometimes natural for humans
There is nothing illogical about what I said unless the Bible is wrong.

It is not natural for humans to always behave like animals because humans have a spiritual nature that animals do not have. You should know that if you read the Bible.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

I just explained that in post #3115.

Humans are different from animals, since humans have an animal nature, but humans also have a spiritual nature that other animals do not have.

What is natural for animals is natural for humans if humans only follow their animal nature, but if humans follow their spiritual nature then it is not natural for humans to behave like animals.

#3115 Trailblazer, 2 minutes ago

But the Bible is not about right or wrong. It is about opinion, so it has nothing to do with everyday world unless you believe that is all opinion and all opinion goes. You are conflating two versions of natural. One is about facts and the other is about opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

It was a gratuitous attempt at still trying to put homosexual sex in a poorer light than, say, heterosexual sex using birth control.

No, it was no such attempt. Two people who love each other having sex with each other for purposes other than producing offspring are in the same light.