Homosexuality and religious.

[Aupmanyav]

Not a problem in Hinduism. People are what they are, even Gods and Goddesses have such inclinations. All are human, all need to be respected, all need to be helped if they require help. The courts and government in India are alive to the problems faced by LGBTQ.

 

[KWED]

This is not your problem but that of the other person.

With all due respect, if someone condones homophobia the problem is with them, not the person calling them out on it.

And saying "I am neutral over the homophobia in my beliefs" is not an acceptable response, any more than "I am neutral over racism/slavery/torture" would be. It is tacit support, by the nature of the issue.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Suppose person X rapes person Y. Will you then judge person X? If yes, why would you judge in the case of rape and not in the case of consensual homosexual relations?

Simple, go by law. Consensuality and fulfillment of the age requirement are necessary for a sexual act.

And saying "I am neutral over the homophobia in my beliefs" is not an acceptable response, any more than "I am neutral over racism/slavery/torture" would be. It is tacit support, but the nature of the issue.

It is the same on views about God. Either one should agree or one should deny. I do not think there is an agnostic position in Hinduism.

 

[KWED]

It is same to me if other people are gay or not. How can I judge them for what they are feeling is right for them.

But your perfect god and his perfect messenger judge them, and they condemn them - so how can you then disagree with them?

So be clear - were god and Bahaullah and Abdulbaha and Shoghi Effendi wrong to condemn homosexuality?

 

[rational experiences]

Gods natural law.

Known was in memory of gods records heavens. Gods position natural.

First humans paired life were mutual equal twins. Same parent in every nation same parent type first.

Had sex. Produced two babies holy life two. Non arguable natural law.

Brother uses transmitting sciences. Changes how life's records owned person recorded as man voice man or image woman voice woman.

Yet all life is still human parent procreated ..no law broken about why we live.

You see change. Genetalia is not recognised....heavens consciousness.

Life recorded by heavens act is changed. Notified.

Only science non living position could change gods laws

Told

You ignore the advice as you are angry. Is the reason.

Sex normally is private.

If it were kept private then how would we know?

Oh men dress as women now....why?

They believe they are women.

Beyond any doubt.

Okay said the assessment as you have to SEE to make comments.

What law is broken?

You summarise men shouldn't lay with men. Women with women. Etc trying to tally a scientific reason as numbers are used.

Is life science by gods laws?

No. It's natural. So you summarise words. Babies are born by sex sin inherit life body changes its not their fault. We are all innocent and born babies

Still same natural law.

That's right said spiritual humans consciousness as heavens causes had changed. As no God law by two parents sex changed. It's not human fault.

It's sciences fault.

The heavens state had changed.

Mass is what changed a body mass sacrificed gone. Old memory recorded also gone. Was why. Human life gone memory parents history.

Told. You knew.

In healer church Satanists scientists claiming a n a l sex gave them Satan's powers forbidden. It wasn't about all men. As scientists had caused it.

Occultists weren't allowed was the law. Summary stated. You had to summarise changed life first knowing what had already changed.

To claim what went wrong to legally own science stopping it's practice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Abdul Baha and Shoghi do not matter. They were not manifestations of Allah. What is important is what Bahaollah, the manifestation of Allah, said. No one can deny that and not suffer consequences.

 

[ChristineM]

With all due respect, if someone condones homophobia the problem is with them, not the person calling them out on it.

And saying "I am neutral over the homophobia in my beliefs" is not an acceptable response, any more than "I am neutral over racism/slavery/torture" would be. It is tacit support, by the nature of the issue.

He is not condoing homophobia.

In essence he could not care less if someone is gay or straight.. there is a considerable difference between homophobia and not having an opinion either way.

Whether you think his response is not acceptable is your problem. Personally i would prefer a "meh" than outright hatred.

 

[rational experiences]

But your perfect god and his perfect messenger judge them, and they condemn them - so how can you then disagree with them?

So be clear - were god and Bahaullah and Abdulbaha and Shoghi Effendi wrong to condemn homosexuality?

The message said it hadn't stated all advices yet to come as advice fed back as message heard. Reason human parent memory recorded 200 years in heaven. We live average 100.

Answers about 1 ...00 hence have to accrue advice first. By living naturally.

 

[sayak83]

Simple, go by law. Consensuality and fulfillment of the age requirement is necessary for a sexual act.It is the same on views about God. Either one should agree or one should deny. I do not think there is an agnostic position in Hinduism.

Well there could be. One can always say that " I do not know enough about the issue to make a decision." That is perfectly legitimate position to have.

 

[rational experiences]

As just a psychic healer. I got messages. I didn't think it made me special. I thought everyone who gained a message a human...had. basic being awAre and psychic.

So the idea don't self idolate. I didn't. I don't idolate anyone else either. As it is a given Mutual equal instruction isn't it...being told why life human went wrong?

Or are you still going to lie that science hadn't doesn't change anything?

 

[Altfish]

Yesterday (for me) i was answering about a question relating to baha'i scripture and homosexuality. And i replied something like "I can not tell other what they can and can not do in their belief/faith."

The person who made the question then directly assumed i had to be a homophobic, hateful person against every LGBTQ person.

I just wonder, how is it possible to conclude that a person is homophobic or hateful from a reply like the one i gave?

Just to clarify my true stand on it, i am neutral to what other people do in their relationship sexually, i is not any of my business to critique them.

The issue is that many religions tell you what to think and not how to think.
So, too often people follow what their priest tells

 

[stvdv]

Nitpicking

Not at all.

Otherwise the gay person would not have replied to you thinking you were anti homosexual. Clearly your wordchoice gave him that impression, and I can see why

You asked for help, so I gave you a suggestion. Don't ask for help, if you think you are right anyway

 

[Brian2]

A: Do you condemn racist violence?
B: I maintain a neutral position on the issue.

You really think that is an acceptable response?
*smh*

So the world is divided into those who are positively in favor of homosexual acts as a morally good thing to participate in and those who are homophobic?

 

[Spirit of Light]

You may not consider yourself to be homophobic, but if you refuse to condemn or even criticise the homophobia in your religious teaching or the actions of other believers, and claim that said teaching is perfect - then it is just as bad.
It really isn't that difficult to understand.

I practice not for others, So how other people want to practice the law given by God to those who believe in God, that is not up to me to judge.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But you are not talking about it. You are avoiding talking about it.

There is no "neutral position" on things like homophobia, sexual discrimination and barbaric punishments.
An attempt to claim a "neutral position" is usually a sign that the person realises they are between an ideological rock and a hard place.
Condemn it and they are essentially condemning god's perfect word.
Support it and they look like a monster to civilised society.

Am i really avoiding it when i invite you in to the discussion/Debate?
I dont fear your critique on this. I know what i would personally do if i was Gay and God told me what it say in the scripture. I would avoid having sex, but not everyone would do what i would do.
I respect those who are LGBTQ and what they stand for, but i also respect what the scripture say would be right for me as a religious person.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Suppose person X rapes person Y. Will you then judge person X? If yes, why would you judge in the case of rape and not in the case of consensual homosexual relations? If no, does that mean you have a neutral opinion about rape?

Please clarify.

I would say the action of rape is a wrong action to do

 

[Spirit of Light]

Not at all.

Otherwise the gay person would not have replied to you thinking you were anti homosexual. Clearly your wordchoice gave him that impression, and I can see why

You asked for help, so I gave you a suggestion. Don't ask for help, if you think you are right anyway

I only say i have a neutral view of other people are gay or not. Personally i would follow the teaching

 

[KWED]

He is not condoing homophobia.

In essence he could not care less if someone is gay or straight.. there is a considerable difference between homophobia and not having an opinion either way.

Whether you think his response is not acceptable is your problem. Personally i would prefer a "meh" than outright hatred.

If your religion calls homosexuality "immoral", "evil", "shameful aberration" that needs "purging from the world" - then if you don't reject or condemn those statements, you are implicitly condoning them, especially if you claim that following your religion's teachings makes you a better person!

I struggle to see any argument whereby calling out those statements is worse than implicitly condoning them.

If someone believes homosexuality is "a shameful aberration that needs purging from the world" - how TF can you not have an opinion on it!!

 

[Spirit of Light]

But your perfect god and his perfect messenger judge them, and they condemn them - so how can you then disagree with them?

So be clear - were god and Bahaullah and Abdulbaha and Shoghi Effendi wrong to condemn homosexuality?

I do not go against God and what rules God put down for belivers who believe in God. But i have to make my own decission of how i want to treat other human beings.
I agree on the teaching that ask me, Myself to not do those actions since i am a follower of Baha`i now. But other people are not, so why should i condem someone who believe different than i do??

 

[KWED]

So the world is divided into those who are positively in favor of homosexual acts as a morally good thing to participate in and those who are homophobic?

the world is divided into those who see no problem with homosexuality, and those who are homophobic?

There, fixed that for ya.