Homosexuality and religious.

[mikkel_the_dane]

Incorrect, I know they are moral because that came from God.

Yeah, you still conflate belief and knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

You don't know that either. You just say it with as much enthusiasm as you can muster.

I do know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't know that either. You just say it with as much enthusiasm as you can muster.

Though knowledge is a subset of beliefs, it differs from other belief systems, at least if based on skepticism. But it is still based on beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, you still conflate belief and knowledge.

All knowledge is not factual. I can know that what I believe is true, even though I cannot prove it.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

 

[Truthseeker]

Yes I did. Pay attention.
(And it was "homosexuality", not "homosexuals")

I did find this, which I found surprising:

205.11 The view that homosexuality is a condition that is not amenable to change is to be questioned by Bahá’ís. There are, of course, many kinds and degrees of homosexuality, and overcoming extreme conditions is sure to be more difficult than overcoming others. Nevertheless, as noted earlier, the Guardian has stated, that "through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap."[5]

205.12 The statistics which indicate that homosexuality is incurable are undoubtedly distorted by the fact that many of those who overcome the problem never speak about it in public, and others solve their problems without even consulting professional counselors.
Universal House of Justice, "Messages from the Universal House of Justice: 1986-2001"

However, like Shoghi Effendi, the Universal House of Justice is not considered infallible when it comes to science. They quoted Shoghi Effendi which formed their opinion about this.

 

[Truthseeker]

So at some point in the future, homosexuality could have the death penalty.

You have a way of casting what we say in the worst possible light. Adultery is prescribed to be fined. Why would the UHJ prescribe the death penalty?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Because if they were in a largely Baha'i society the echo chamber would increase.
As for the 'indoctrinated' part if I recall the Universal House of Justice admits to the use of indoctrination as a valid tool.

In my opinion.

Do you have a reference or link?

 

[Truthseeker]

In order to have a case put before the House of Justice, does a person need a lawyer?

No. I don't understand what I described to you has to do would be misunderstood by you so that a case about homosexuality would be put before the UHJ. Whatever is decided at the time involved would be applied by whatever justice system is operation, and that is where the case would be decided.

 

[Truthseeker]

Your sarcasm is noted.

 

[Truthseeker]

Utter nonsense.
People get married so they can get visas, work permits, etc, and they have no intention of having a committed relationship with the person they marry.
You have been sadly misinformed.

Your cynicism is noted.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Are Baha'is going to tend towards being more liberal or more conservative in the future? Liberal Baha'is I would think would have a much different view about homosexuality than conservative Baha'is. But which one is more likely to get into positions of power?

I can’t see Baha'is in positions of political power any time soon. Currently, Baha'is avoid political allegiances and partisan politics. They tend not to become members of political parties or run for office.

 

[Truthseeker]

Are you advocating sham marriages between friends?

Friendship and love. Romantic love based on sex isn't love. Many people today confuse sexual attraction with love.

 

[danieldemol]

Nobody knows what the Baha'i Faith is 'planning to do' to homosexuals in the future although we do know what they are planning to do to adulterers.

It has defined adultery as being sex outside the marriage of a man and a woman.

Therefore if two men (for example) have sex and tell anyone they did they will be fined as adulterers.

This is obvious and I think you are just being willfully in denial about it.

Homosexuals don't lose their voting rights unless they are flagrant about their sexuality in public.

It is not ok to harm someone just because they were publicly honest about their love life.

If they feel guilty that is on them, not on the Baha'is. They would not feel guilty unless they thought they were doing something wrong.

They don't have to know it is wrong to feel guilt, they only have to believe it is wrong.

If we indoctrinate a bunch of kids to believe heterosexual relations are a shameful aberration and they grow up believing it they will feel guilty when they have heterosexual relationships.

In such a case (heterosexual relationships) we could agree that their guilt is the hands of those who indoctrinated them to believe it is wrong.

I would assert the only reason we can't agree on homosexual guilt being on those who indoctrinated them is because of your adherence to dogma.

In my opinion.

 

[KWED]

Trailblazer said: "I do not have a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality.
I agree with the Baha'i Laws regarding homosexuality, that is all."

Can you see that if Trailblazer agrees with Baha'i Laws that all she means is that she would not engage in homosexual activity?

Have you not read the quotes from Bahai teachings?
Homosexuality is an evil passion, immoral, shameful aberration, to be purged from the world.
Those are all terms used verbatim in Bahai texts.
If you say that you agree with that statement, you are homophobic, by definition ("hold a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality.")

What is that so hard for people to understand?
(Rhetorical question. It is due to cognitive dissonance. They are aware that homophobia is viewed negatively by civilised society, but at the same time they cannot bring themselves to criticise their religious teachings.)

 

[Spirit of Light]

Have you not read the quotes from Bahai teachings?
Homosexuality is an evil passion, immoral, shameful aberration, to be purged from the world.
Those are all terms used verbatim in Bahai texts.
If you say that you agree with that statement, you are homophobic, by definition ("hold a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality.")

What is that so hard for people to understand?
(Rhetorical question. It is due to cognitive dissonance. They are aware that homophobia is viewed negatively by civilised society, but at the same time they cannot bring themselves to criticise their religious teachings.)

You might going to get heart attack now, but actually islam and Baha'i teachings are what took away the rest of my homophobia....i was a very homophobic when I come to this forum in 2018, yes I almost hated absolutely everything in this world.

But both islam/sufism and Baha'i has gotten me to be free of any negativity. I still struggle with certain aspects of debate, but the teaching guiding me.

 

[KWED]

I would say that loverofhumanity has a different way to judge what is immoral behaviour than the way you use,

Obviously. I use innate empathy, altruism, evidence, reason, etc. They blindly accept what a 19th century Persian man said.

and "consensual adult" has nothing to do with it.

Why not? It seems pretty obvious that sexual behaviour between two consenting adults that does not affect anyone else is completely different to child abuse.
If you can't see that, it's pretty worrying.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You might going to get heart attack now, but actually islam and Baha'i teachings are what took away the rest of my homophobia....i was a very homophobic when I come to this forum in 2018, yes I almost hated absolutely everything in this world.

But both islam/sufism and Baha'i has gotten me to be free of any negativity. I still struggle with certain aspects of debate, but the teaching guiding me.

Well, debate is not just debate. It can have different goals. Some do it to win and prove other humans are wrong. Other do it to learn. But the joke is that you can learning from being wrong and then become better.

 

[KWED]

Since you use an "and", I will for now just ask for evidence.

You want evidence that using cannabis doesn't turn people into antisocial psychopaths?
That it causes fewer deaths and costs the health services proportionally less than alcohol or tobacco?
You want evidence that having children out of wedlock does not prevent you from being a valued, productive, respected member of society?
Have you been living under a rock?
(I have better things to do with my time than dig up studies on this issue, but if you really are that uninformed, I will help you out)

 

[KWED]

No they wouldn't. Period.

In the 1970's here in Tasmania there was a push to 'DECRIMINALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY'
Homosexuality was a crime.
The proponents of the measure assured the press, govt depts and public forums that decriminalization will not lead to gay marriage or promoting homosexuality in schools - gays just want to be left alone. Fair enough, most of us bought into the relaxation of the rules.
SOON AFTER.... the SAME PEOPLE were pushing gay marriage and teaching homosexuality in schools.

What's the problem? Loss of trust.

Second. Euthenasia advocates in Victoria PROMISED that any euthenasia law would be quite strict - for terminally ill patients and people suffering from untreatable pain. Fair enough? Yeah... suppose. But didn't we have these promises with other issues before? Pulling out the goal posts of not doing harm to any patient and moving them is a serious issue - what about the abuse?

There will be no abuse, they said.

SOON AFTER... the SAME PEOPLE who promised no shifting of the goal posts a second time want the euthenasia law to be 'relaxed' for anyone who wants assistance in dying, for whatever reason. In other words, abuse.

What's the problem? Loss of trust.

Now, we hear 'Marijuana is not a gateway drug'
So here we go again.

So back in the 1960's and 1970's NO-ONE SAID '"Fantastic! And about bloody time!"

I think you misunderstand their motives. When a marginalised, oppressed group is trying to obtain some measure of equality and justice from a recalcitrant establishment, it will not demand all its ultimate goals at once. "One step at a time", etc
Of course those gay activists in the 70s wanted to be able to marry their parters and have all the same rights as heterosexuals.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You want evidence that using cannabis doesn't turn people into antisocial psychopaths?
That it causes fewer deaths and costs the health services proportionally less than alcohol or tobacco?
You want evidence that having children out of wedlock does not prevent you from being a valued, productive, respected member of society?
Have you been living under a rock?
(I have better things to do with my time than dig up studies on this issue, but if you really are that uninformed, I will help you out)

I would like evidence for the bold.
Take the word "God" and show me that like you could point to say a stone. Then do the same with "valued, productive, respected member of society" and "better". You are confusing independent of brains with dependent on brains.
In effect you conflate to see something independent of thinking with I value as good.