Homosexuality and religious.

[Brian2]

You're coming from a very different place than Baha'is. For you, it's just the Bible and the NT. My arguments to you would be very different than to the Baha'is.

With Baha'is I can bring in science, since they supposedly support scientific evidence. Their view might not be based on science at all but merely what their prophet said.

But religions have to draw the line somewhere on what is good and pure and Godly behavior, and what is evil and wrong and destructive to society. And is homosexuality one of the evil things? For sure in Christianity, and it seems like it is for sure in the Baha'i Faith too. Now... what are they going to do with them?

What am I going to do with homosexuals or Baha'is?
Actually interestingly in Christianity some read the Bible to not be saying that homosexuality is one of the evil things.

 

[Brian2]

Yeah, there's a lot of sexual stuff that can be yucky. But when a person gets past all the yuck, a lot of it feels good. So, what the yuck?

True, it can be a turn off however and detract from the sexual experience.

 

[Bree]

So you are fine with the idea and the practice of gay couples living just as heterosexual couples do. Dating, sex, marriage, children, family, etc.
Maybe you aren't a homophobe then?

If a perso

I though you believed your deity wanted us to have free will?

just because you can do something, doesnt mean you should do it.

There are boundaries, there is right and wrong, there is good and bad. You have the free will to use good judgement.

 

[Bree]

Do you think dishonestly misrepresenting the definition will go unnoticed?

adjective

1. having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

that is not what phobia means

The homosexual activiists invented 'homophoboia' and gave it their own definition. Basically anyone who does not 'approve and support our desure for same sex' is homophobic

 

[Bree]

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

Ending sexism ends power structures within many religious orgs.

it also destroys femininity and womanhood.

It is against both male and femaile.

thnk about that.

 

[Bree]

Again, the "rules" of the creator says to stone homosexuals to death. When did that law get changed? What law replaced it?

But the other thing that's happening here is that Baha'is have their own laws and rules that they believe were sent to them by God through their prophet, Baha'u'llah. Which rules should we accept? The Baha'is believe their laws have replaced the laws brought by Muhammad. And Muhammad's laws replaced those brought by Jesus and so on down the line. Do you believe that? Probably not. And neither do some others here on the forum. To us, it's questionable whether or not Baha'u'llah has really sent from God.

So, does what the Baha'i Faith says about homosexuals true? We all know gays. Some of the people here are gay. Are they mental cases? Are they evil? Some of us don't think so. But Christianity and now the Baha'is say they are. We don't agree.

I dont know what the Bahi faith says in any of their books because i've never read them. No i dont believe he replaces Jesus or anyone else for that matter, and no i dont believe he is the incarnation of God .

But I do know what the Christian scriptures state regarding homosexuality and other forms of sexual misconduct. What it says shows that, even though the mosaic law was put aside, Gods standards were still inforce. The difference now is that it is God himself who will pass and execute judgment on those who do such things. No one on earth is to pronounce judgement or execute any kind of punishment to wrongdoers.

1Cor6:9-11 “What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.”

You see, even though God is against the act of homosexuality, he is not against the person themselves.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

I'm not clear on what your point is.

In regards suffering, I think we would agree that suffering can result from our actions or inaction and from random stuff that happens in life. A Baha'i narrative would certainly consider the laws of God as providing protection from some of the trials and tribulations of life though not all.

However it is for each of us to read the reality of our own lives and consider what works best and what doesn't work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not clear on what your point is.

In regards suffering, I think we would agree that suffering can result from our actions or inaction and from random stuff that happens in life. A Baha'i narrative would certainly consider the laws of God as providing protection from some of the trials and tribulations of life though not all.

However it is for each of us to read the reality of our own lives and consider what works best and what doesn't work.

You are aware that not all suffering is self-inflected and some suffering can be psychological and caused by other humans.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You are aware that not all suffering is self-inflected and some suffering can be psychological and caused by other humans.

Of course. However the one person we have the most influence and control over is ourselves. We have very limited capacity to change others but we can more readily change the way we respond to others. If another is causing me pain, it is unwise to make my happiness and well being conditional on such a person.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course. However the one person we have the most influence and control over is ourselves. We have very limited capacity to change others but we can more readily change the way we respond to others. If another is causing me pain, it is unwise to make my happiness and well being conditional on such a person.

Well, now you live in your social network, local culture and that is your everyday world. Problem being that you are a wrong person, because your behaviour for some your being doesn't match the norms. According to studies you now have an elevated chance of psychological problems, drug abuse and suicide.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well, now you live in your social network, local culture and that is your everyday world. Problem being that you are a wrong person, because your behaviour for some your being doesn't match the norms. According to studies you now have an elevated chance of psychological problems, drug abuse and suicide.

You would need to consider which group in which culture Where I live, having an identifiable religion, whether Christianity and the like, puts one in the minority. Secularism pervades the culture and religion is seen negatively. Homosexuality is legal and their is equal rights with heterosexuals. My best quess is that LGBTQ have a significantly higher rate of psychological problems including substance abuse and suicide.

Edit

Suicide among LGBT youth - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You would need to consider which group in which culture Where I live, having an identifiable religion, whether Christianity and the like, puts one in the minority. Secularism pervades the culture and religion is seen negatively. Homosexuality is legal and their is equal rights with heterosexuals. My best quess is that LGBTQ have a significantly higher rate of psychological problems including substance abuse and suicide.

So your claim is that it is solely in them, is that it?

 

[Dawnofhope]

So your claim is that it is solely in them, is that it?

There are studies included in the link above that identify a positive correlation between LBQT affirming legislation and mental health outcomes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I wrote, "you have been unable to demonstrate why that belief makes sense." You had written that the proscription about homosexuality made sense to you. Tolerance of homosexuality makes sense, since it is a harmless practice important to people with homosexual proclivities and promotes their well-being, whereas pressure for religions to modify that behavior through social disapproval is harmful to such people. Accepting such behavior makes sense. The opposite is irrational and destructive, but made sense to you anyway.

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.

It sounds like the rules are to pressure everybody to comply with Baha'i values. Neither marriage nor children are necessary in every in every family.

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.

If you are not talking about spiritual experience, then it seems to me that you are talking about nothing. "Spiritual nature" refers to nothing specific. It's like soul. It imagines that there is an aspect of human psychology that isn't naturalistic and somehow transcends biology and psychology. That's a religious belief- one I don't hold.

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.

Your concept of the spiritual experience is different from mind. Spiritual experiences are always pleasurable. No argument was made that anybody needs sex to be spiritual, but you seem to be implying that sex cannot be a spiritual experience because it is pleasurable and is base because animals do it. Sex can be an ecstatic experience.

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.

I had written "Didn't you say that your god calling homosexuality immoral made sense to you? If so, you would be able to say how." That doesn't explain to me why this idea makes sense. That's why you accept it. If the idea made sense, humanists would be in agreement.

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.

I need a reason to call something immoral, but not to consider it morally acceptable. Homosexuality is moral because it's not immoral. It's analogous to being asked why I consider something possible. I don't need a reason to call anything possible beyond that it hasn't been shown to be impossible.

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's not what blindly refers to here. It means accepted by faith.

I do not see those things as improving on God's design.

Prosthetic joints and eyeglasses don't improve on God's design? I think they do.

I never said that homosexual behavior is a sign of inferiority.

You didn't use that word, no, but it is evident in the words that you did use that like the messengers, you consider homosexuality some kind of aberration to be suppressed. If you believe that every homosexual ought to be heterosexual instead, then you consider the former less desirable. The Baha'i seem to be unable to see that as homophobic or destructive.

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.

How is that not treating them differently?

Baha'is believe that heterosexuals should also suppress their sex instincts unless they are married and we believe that is highly beneficial.

That's not a proscription against heterosexuality. That a proscription against fornication. I also consider the latter irrational. There is no reason to confine sex to marriage. Marriage isn't right for everybody, and such people have no good reason to give it up because some religion teaches otherwise. Just about everybody I know from high school has enjoyed extramarital sex, and none were harmed by it. Some of my friends have never married.

I hope things are going a little better for you. I know that these discussions are valuable to you for the social interaction and mental stimulation.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In a 2011 study of American lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents, Mark Hatzenbuehler found that a more conservative social environment elevated risk in suicidal behavior among all youth and that this effect was stronger for LGB youth. Furthermore, he found that the social environment partially mediated the relation between LGB status and suicidal behaviour. Hatzenbuehler found that even after such social as well as individual factors were controlled for, however, that "LGB status remained a significant predictor of suicide attempts."[32]

Suicide among LGBT youth - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are studies included in the link above that identify a positive correlation between LBQT affirming legislation and mental health outcomes.

Homosexuality and religious.

What some people doesn't understand is that if you grow up in a local culture, where your behavior is considered fundamentally wrong, it can affect you.
Now that is not the first time that I have come across the idea that socialization doesn't involve trying to integrate your local culture as your worldview and you can get an inner conflict if you don't fit in.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In a 2011 study of American lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents, Mark Hatzenbuehler found that a more conservative social environment elevated risk in suicidal behavior among all youth and that this effect was stronger for LGB youth. Furthermore, he found that the social environment partially mediated the relation between LGB status and suicidal behaviour. Hatzenbuehler found that even after such social as well as individual factors were controlled for, however, that "LGB status remained a significant predictor of suicide attempts."[32]

Suicide among LGBT youth - Wikipedia

@Trailblazer

 

[dybmh]

Fertility rates of heterosexual couples over a one year period are about 80 - 85%. Fertility rates for homosexual couples over a one year period are exactly 0 %. Science establishes a strong co-relationship between fertility and heterosexual intercourse and a non-existent relationship between homosexuality and fertility.

In your view is a married gay couple adopting and fostering hard to place orphans a positive outcome or a negative outcome if they are not being adopted/fostered by heterosexual couples?

The LGBT couples adopting 'hard to place' children

 

[Sheldon]

We stand strong and firm while they are weak and insecure so feel the desperate need to bully others to agree with them and if we don’t then we are ‘infidels’ or homophobic. How laughable! Lol

That is laughable, the homophobia is now a matter of record, all anyone need do is read this thread for confirmation.

As for bullying, the hilarity of theists who espouse hate speech and homophobia, and then trying to play the victim when others point it out, is all to obvious. So yes, that's a pretty risible statement.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Those that choose a Faith, will then have the choice to abide by the given laws, in full knowledge that it is not prejudices behind those laws.

Really? I don't know all of Baha'i doctrine, but the part on homosexuality reveals an irrational prejudice. Since it's about a demographic of people and harmful to them, it is also bigotry. I understand that neither you nor any other Baha'i posting in this thread agree, but it's not really a debate. The unbelievers are telling the Baha'i what their scriptures mean to them, and what they call that.

Those laws are given as the basic fundamental requirements for a strong foundation required for a progressive family and community life.

I don't think any of the religions understand what makes a society healthy and happy. It's not having children. That's merely a biological necessity to maintain a population. My happiness is unrelated to children. My family doesn't include them. My immediate community - my inner circle of friends and acquaintances - doesn't include them. The foundation for a healthy society can be found in the Affirmations of Humanism.

"..Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power. To this beareth witness that which the Pen of Revelation hath revealed. Meditate upon this, O men of insight!.."

I don't see choice wine in any of the Abrahamic religions. I have what I feel is a better code of conduct than those religions offer. It doesn't include homophobia, for example. It actually considers that unkind and unfair.

for the last 70 or so years, this time has seen a significant shift away from God given advice

Moving away from religion is a positive for society. It always has been. It's why Christianity is less savage than Islam. The former but not the latter has befitted from centuries of humanistic input, which put an end to hanging witches and legally persecuting homosexuals.

America is moving toward religion with its bans on abortion and its persecution of LGBTQ in the schools and elsewhere. That's a step in the wrong direction.

And as far as we know, there is no such thing as God-given advice. There is only the advice of men claiming to speak for a god, most or all of whom would be lost in our world.

I now also see the wisdom in those laws, and the problems society faces now those laws are neglected.

I don't. I see the irrationality of many of them. Modern societal problems are not due to the move toward secularism. That canard is as old as the complaint that immorality followed with the removal of state-led prayer in public school, as if praying matters. There's plenty of praying going on in those churches with the pedophile priests and their enablers. Didn't prevent a thing.

The Baha'i Faith is not homophobic. Homophobic : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people. Definition of HOMOPHOBIA We are not taught to have fear of homosexual people, or have aversion of them, and we are taught not to discriminate.

As I just told TransmutingSoul, the opinions of believers are not useful to the skeptic in deciding if the Baha'i scriptures are homophobic. The scriptures themselves are. We make that judgment for ourselves. The Baha'i position meets that definition. It is an irrational aversion and discrimination against gay people. It's more than that. It's also an explicit disapproval in the form of an opinion from a deity, and it is destructive to homosexuals. I can't say often enough that this is not refuted by Baha'i saying that they feel no antipathy against gays, which seems to be the only defense we are seeing here against the charge that the doctrine homophobic. That's simply not relevant.