Homosexuality and religious.

[Sheldon]

In theory, hetrosexual Baha'i have the opportunity to have sex per their sexual preference. Gay Baha'i do not. That is why it is unjust towards Gay Baha'i; they don't have the same opportunity that Straight Baha'i have.

Thank you, which is the very definition of prejudice, now what's the word for a prejudice against gay people, it's homophobia isn't it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, you do. Your religion teaches you that. Evidence is to the contrary. Homosexuality is widespread in nature - pretty much the definition of natural.

The primary biological purpose of the reproductive system is to reproduce. That is the natural order and how each one of us came into being. Without heterosexual sex we would not exist. Homosexual sex doesn't result in propagation of the species.

I find the argument of the presence of homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom a weak justification for normalising homosexual behaviors in humans.

It's all completely off topic of course. The thread is about those with conservative religious beliefs having a positive attitude towards those who are openly gay. What I hear is none of the Baha'is here have any issues with such people. We're all free to belief as we choice and homosexuality is legal in our respective countries.

You don't like religions that we are socially conservative. We get it. However no one here is asking you to change your belief let alone become a Baha'i. On the other hand you seem discontent to let the Baha'is have their beliefs and live as they do.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That wasn't what claimed though, so this is shifting the goal posts.

What was claimed?

 

[idea]

LGBTQ destroys male heirarchies, male head of house, male priesthood.

Ending sexism ends power structures within many religious orgs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The primary biological purpose of the reproductive system is to reproduce. That is the natural order and how each one of us came into being. Without heterosexual sex we would not exist. Homosexual sex doesn't result in propagation of the species.

I find the argument of the presence of homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom a weak justification for normalising homosexual behaviors in humans.

It's all completely off topic of course. The thread is about those with conservative religious beliefs having a positive attitude towards those who are openly gay. What I hear is none of the Baha'is here have any issues with such people. We're all free to belief as we choice and homosexuality is legal in our respective countries.

You don't like religions that we are socially conservative. We get it. However no one here is asking you to change your belief let alone become a Baha'i. On the other hand you seem discontent to let the Baha'is have their beliefs and live as they do.

No. But when at least one of them start claiming what causes suffering in regards to homosexuals, we are in the everyday world, because your opinion/fairg doesn't decide in another human is suffering and how/why.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you do. Your religion teaches you that. Evidence is to the contrary. Homosexuality is widespread in nature - pretty much the definition of natural.

If humans were only animals you might have a point but I believe that humans have both an animal nature and a spiritual nature, so to live like the beasts of the field is contrary to our spiritual nature.

But you have been unable to demonstrate why that belief makes sense.

And you have been unable to demonstrate why your opinion is any better than my belief.

The basis for my belief that no sexual act can be considered lawful except between a man and a woman to whom he is married is as follows:

Bahá'í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Thus Bahá'í law restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.
Homosexuality

Once again, the evidence is to the contrary. Homosexuals are just as capable of spirituality and spiritual experiences as heterosexuals.

I was not talking about spirituality and spiritual experiences, I was talking about our spiritual nature.
Trailblazer said: It may not be against our animal nature but it is against our spiritual nature, Imo.

Sex is part of our animal nature. The sex act is for pleasure or procreation. It has nothing to do with spirituality. Let's cut to the chase. Nobody needs sex to be spiritual, they just want sex for pleasure, unless they are trying to conceive.

I think that evolved from your point that a family has children.

No, it is simple biology.

Yes, that is cherry picking. You seem to think that that is wrong.

It is only wrong when one insists there is a "direct quote" that says what they are claiming in order to support their argument. That is wrong because it is dishonest.

Didn't you say that your god calling homosexuality immoral made sense to you? If so, you would be able to say how.

I believe it is immoral because God says so, and I believe that God is the ultimate authority as to what is moral or immoral. I believe any sex out of wedlock is immoral.

Why do you think it is moral? Just because you think it is acceptable, in your personal opinion. There is no other reason to consider it moral.

KWED is making the point that your beliefs are accepted blindly. You agreed that you were willing to do that, but didn't need to in this case because the reasons for this judgment made sense to you.

I think he'd like you to see that your beliefs are held blindly and are destructive,

No, I did not agree that my beliefs were accepted blindly. I did not accept my beliefs blindly because I embraced them with my eyes wide open. That is aside from the fact that the judgment makes sense to me. It always made sense to me that sex should only be engaged in between a man and a woman who are married. I believed that long before I ever became a Baha'i.

 

[Trailblazer]

We've improved on God's design many times, as with artificial joints and eyeglasses. Do you object to in vitro fertilization? That's not God's design, either, but I don't recall any theist objecting on the basis that the process is unnatural. It's not a compelling argument even if it IS applied consistently, but it's even less compelling if one is inconsistent applying it.

I do not see those things as improving on God's design.
A man's sperm and a woman's egg are required to produce a child. That has never changed.

The station of man? Many people see it the other way around. Much of human behavior is unworthy of both humanity and the beasts.

That's true. Much of human behavior is unworthy of both humanity and the beasts, not just certain sexual behaviors.

More importantly, it helps other people.

That all depends upon what one considers helpful

You've said that, but you've also said things that belie that.

It is all in what people interpret what I say. I never said that homosexual behavior is a sign of inferiority.

If you think about why the Baha'i treat their own homosexuals differently than homosexuals outside of their religion, you might understand where the homophobia is. It's what powers that idea that such people need to be treated any way at all for their homosexuality. Humanists treat homosexuals the same whether they are humanist or Baha'i.

We do not treat them any differently. The only difference is that they are subject to the Baha'i Laws if they are Baha'is.

What do you think of this: "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8 I consider that a comparison. All of these kinds of people are the same in some respect, and different from those left out.

These people are the same but they are not being compared with people who are different, and that is why there is no comparison being made.

The verse says that all of these individuals shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, but it is not comparing unbelievers to these other types of people and saying they are the same.

This is where you undermine yourself. Regulation and control are achieved by suppressing natural instincts. Also, Bahai's believe that homosexuals should suppress their sex impulses.

Wake up and smell the coffee. This is not specific to homosexuals. Baha'is believe that heterosexuals should also suppress their sex instincts unless they are married and we believe that is highly beneficial.

You are free to disagree with that, and most people will disagree, but neither side can prove that they are right. What it all boils down to is Baha'i beliefs vs. the personal opinions of people who disagree. That is what this whole thread is about, religious beliefs vs. personal opinions of people who have no religion or belief in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is not a QED. In order for that to be a demonstration, you would have to demonstrate that:

• there is a god
• that god says things
• that god says the same things that you say
• that anyone should consider that god to be moral

You have not QED's the first bullet, let alone any of the rest. The most that you have QED'd is that other people have said the same thing as you.

No, it is not a QED. We all make mistakes.

 

[SomeRandom]

LGBTQ destroys male heirarchies, male head of house, male priesthood.

Ending sexism ends power structures within many religious orgs.

There can be heads of the household who are gay

 

[Trailblazer]

But you do have a Baha'i prejudice and aversion. And even if you don't personally deep down agree with it, you do support it, and you do shill for it. Which is ultimately what matters.

There is no such thing as a Baha'i prejudice and aversion.
I have no prejudice or aversion towards homosexuals.

 

[dybmh]

There is no such thing as a Baha'i prejudice and aversion.
I have no prejudice or aversion towards homosexuals.

Aversion is : "a strong dislike or disinclination" per google.
Homosexuality is an "evil passion" per the UHJ and you agreed to this.
Labeling something "evil" implies a strong dislike.
An aversion towards homosexuality is implied by the Baha'i teaching and you agreed.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is more justified because your belief has you and others espousing homophobia, and he is decrying you for that choice, to blindly espouse vile prejudices.

That is only your personal opinion which you believe is more justified than my religious belief.

I don't have homophobia because I do not have a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

homophobic: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
homophobic means - Google Search

Just because I 'disapprove' of homosexual behavior that does not mean I have a 'dislike of or prejudice against gay people.'

 

[Trailblazer]

Take #2. You are the kind of human, that is dangerous to other humans, because you judge other humans behavior as if your own is the universal standard.

I do not judge other human's behavior as if my own is the universal standard.

You are the pot calling the kettle black because you just judged me and called me dangerous.
That is called hypocrisy.

 

[Trailblazer]

We are talking about what can cause suffering in homosexual humans. Not your opinion about God!!!

So what causes their suffering, people's opinions of them?
Why does that matter so much to them if they think their behavior is just fine?

 

[Trailblazer]

Unless they're gay apparently.

Who is victimizing gay people?

 

[Trailblazer]

And you just condemned gay people as a sexual aberration.

No I did not.

 

[Trailblazer]

In theory, hetrosexual Baha'i have the opportunity to have sex per their sexual preference. Gay Baha'i do not. That is why it is unjust towards Gay Baha'i; they don't have the same opportunity that Straight Baha'i have.

That is true, they don't have the opportunity to be married as Baha'is and have sex with the same gender.

I don't consider that unjust because I believe that God is just.

Does anyone on this thread besides me realize that there is more to life than having sex?
I mean 1356 posts about sex. Pathetic, if you ask me.

 

[Trailblazer]

no one here is asking you to change your belief let alone become a Baha'i. On the other hand you seem discontent to let the Baha'is have their beliefs and live as they do.

Yes, that is what is going on here.
We are not allowed to have our beliefs, only they are allowed to have their personal opinions.

They call us homophobic but they are hypocrites.
bahaiphobic: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against Baha'i people.

 

[Trailblazer]

Aversion is : "a strong dislike or disinclination" per google.
Homosexuality is an "evil passion" per the UHJ and you agreed to this.
Labeling something "evil" implies a strong dislike.
An aversion towards homosexuality is implied by the Baha'i teaching and you agreed.

I have a strong dislike or disinclination towards any sexual behavior that is not between husband and wife. Why focus on homosexuals? The Baha'i Writings don't single out homosexuals.

 

[ppp]

There is no such thing as a Baha'i prejudice and aversion.
I have no prejudice or aversion towards homosexuals.

There is no substantive difference between a religious belief system that bars men from marrying men and one that bars blacks from marrying whites. There is no reason for me to regard or treat such declarations from members of either belief system any differently.