That's great, I am not here to convince anyone.
Sure you are. It's why you've posted thousands of words in response to ideas with which you disagreed. It's why you keep ferrying scripture to people that you know are unbelievers. You're trying to convince others that Baha'u'llah offers wisdom and enlightenment. You're trying to convince others that Baha'i doctrine isn't homophobic, and that people aren't bigots if they think they are well-intentioned and don't actively or deliberately oppress others. And, you want skeptics to relax their standards for belief. Also, you have labored to convince others that Baha'ism is religion promoting unity even as it marginalizes homosexuals and tells the other religions where they've been corrupted. You saw the response to that, and to the appropriation of symbols. They resent it, but none of you cared.
I only present another frame of reference.
Yes, and you do so in the hope that they will adopt it. But it's the one critical thinkers have rejected - belief by faith.
"Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring balance established amongst men. In this most perfect balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds of the earth possess must be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it."
More of this? Let me rewrite it: Don't evaluate these words using the standard for belief used by science, because the words contain no errors, and should be believed by its author's standards, which are none.
But you're not trying to convince anybody of anything, are you? You just decided to cite that to people who you know reject it for no reason at all, right?
The problem is that you don't seem to understand what your purpose on this thread is, nor your audience, which undermines that purpose and your credibility with critical thinkers.
There's a term in the philosophy of argumentation called ethos. It refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his words (logos), such as does he seem knowledgeable about his subject, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.
Like most other religious apologists, you seem oblivious or indifferent to all of that. The creationists shoot themselves in the foot every time by arguing science they don't understand to people who do understand it. They seem to have no concept of how counterproductive that it to their apparent purpose - how much it damages their ethos and thus their purpose. The Baha'i on this thread do the same. None of you seem to care at all how your words affect people.
Suggestion: agree that your religion teaches that homosexuals displease your god, that that causes you to see homosexuals as unequal to heterosexuals, and that attitude is harmful to gays, but that you believe that all of that is good and just and holy. What do you think that would accomplish compared to your current approach? I can tell you. The homophobic doctrine would still be rejected and would stain the reputation of the religion in the eyes of humanists and others who judge homosexuals and heterosexuals equally, but you would seem more credible. You would seem to be more insightful and less in denial and would retain more of the respect (ethos) you forfeit trying to argue that you are not what they see you are. You can't make this doctrine seem kind or just to humanists, so stop trying, since the effort not only doesn't convince them, it also has them seeing you as lacking insight into yourself, which further demeans belief by faith and the blinding effect it has on those willing to do it.