Homosexuality and religious.

[ppp]

You are fully entitled to your opinion. I have absolute certitude in the infallibility of Baha’u’llah. So you go your way and I’ll go mine.

And by extension, the infallibility of yourself.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Bahai writings are judgemental and intolerant of homosexuality, whichever way you look at it. Claiming that it is only sodomy that he is talking about (which clearly isn't the case) doesn't make it any less homophobic.

So if a Bahai is jealous of their neighbour's new car, they cannot report them for child abuse?
Jeez!

Seemst a bitst harshst.

God is God and He judges how He pleases. I have absolute trust and complete certainty that whatever He decrees is right, true and in our best interests. So we agree to disagree.

 

[loverofhumanity]

"I condemneth homosexuals, but you musteth treateth them well, because you are more moral and just than I".

Not really. The Baha’i teachings are more about promoting marriage and family life.

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. This Bahá'í Law restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And by extension, the infallibility of yourself.

No. I refer to God not myself. So if you do not accept there is a God then you must be referring to your own infallibility then? Because I personally can’t know something is 100% true except through God. But how do you know you are right or wrong. What is your source of certainty that you are right if you only follow fallible human judgement?

 

[loverofhumanity]

But your parent were heterosexuals, and their failed relationship caused you great harm.
Any yet, there are homosexual couples with children who remain a faithful, loving, responsible, caring couple.
So it clearly isn't homosexuality that is the issue.
Understand?

I think you missed the point. I needed the loving support of both sexes not just my mother. A homosexual marriage cannot provide both male and female care, only the qualities of one sex which wasn’t enough for me.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is a fact that nobody has demonstrated that homosexuality is more spiritually destructive than heterosexuality, which justifies the assertion that homosexuality is not immoral, since immorality is about help and harm to others and nothing more or less. To say that homosexuality is in any way harmful to the homosexual or others is to hold an unjustified opinion contradicted by evidence.

It is not a fact that that homosexuality is not more spiritually destructive than heterosexuality unless you can prove it. Otherwise, it is only a personal opinion.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

It is also not a fact that homosexuality is more spiritually destructive than heterosexuality because I cannot prove it. All I have is a belief, not a fact.

immorality is about help and harm to others and nothing more or less. To say that homosexuality is in any way harmful to the homosexual or others is to hold an unjustified opinion contradicted by evidence.

Your opinion is an unjustified opinion contradicted by evidence.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Gay and Bisexual Men | CDC

Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM)
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent an incredibly diverse community. However, these men are disproportionately impacted by syphilis, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The resources on this page provide an overview of the impact of STDs on MSM as well as prevention and treatment information.
Gay, Bisexual and Other MSM | STDs | CDC

STD Facts – What Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men Need to Know About Sexually Transmitted Diseases
While anyone who has sex can get an STD, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM:
Gay Men and STDs | Sexually Transmitted Diseases | CDC

Lesbian, gay and bisexual older adults suffer more chronic health conditions than heterosexuals, study finds
Lesbian and bisexual older women are more likely than heterosexual older women to suffer chronic health conditions, experience sleep problems and drink excessively, a new University of Washington study finds.

In general, lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) older adults were found to be in poorer health than heterosexuals, specifically in terms of higher rates of cardiovascular disease, weakened immune system and low back or neck pain. They also were at greater risk of some adverse health behaviors such as smoking and excessive drinking. At the same time, however, findings point to areas of resilience, with more LGB adults engaging in preventive health measures, such as obtaining HIV tests and blood pressure screening.

The study is the first to use national, population-based data to evaluate differences in health outcomes and behaviors among lesbian, gay and bisexual older adults. Using two-year survey data of 33,000 heterosexual and LGB adults ages 50 and older from a probability-based study of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers from the UW School of Social Work report noticeable health disparities between LGB and heterosexual adults.

The findings were published in the August issue of the American Journal of Public Health.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual older adults suffer more chronic health conditions than heterosexuals, study finds

You and I have been down this road before. Yes, everything anybody states is the truth is an opinion that that statement is true. If it is true, it is inappropriate to class such an opinion with opinions that cannot be demonstrated to be correct. Yes, they're all opinions, but not all opinions are on equal footing. Some are demonstrably correct, some are demonstrably incorrect, and some such as calling something beautiful are neither.

Opinions that are demonstrably true are facts. It is not a fact that homosexual behavior is not harmful, but there is some evidence that it causes harm (see above). The physical harm it can cause is demonstrable and it is unlike the spiritual harm to the soul which cannot be demonstrated, at least not in this life.

That applies to my claim that homosexuality compared to heterosexuality is not harmful spiritually or in any other way. Can you rebut it, that is, provide evidence and argument to the contrary? Correct statements can be disagreed with and are often just waved away, but they cannot be rebutted, that is, shown to be wrong.

See above.

Yes, that first sentence reflects a faith-based belief. Being a metaphysical statement, that is, detached from evidence and therefore unfalsifiable, it fits in the category of neither demonstrably true nor false. That is different from my claim, which is demonstrably correct and irrefutable.

What claim do you make that is demonstrably correct and irrefutable?

They are not merely opinions. Unlike opinions based in faith, which are merely opinions, they are also empirically confirmed opinions, also called facts.

Please present the empirical evidence, and remember, we are only talking about moral sexual behavior, we are not talking about other moral behavior, what is moral behavior in general.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are fully entitled to your opinion. I have absolute certitude in the infallibility of Baha’u’llah. So you go your way and I’ll go mine.

Infallibility? You have, it seems, turned Baha'u'llah into a god. I wonder if he would have approved.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God is God and He judges how He pleases. I have absolute trust and complete certainty that whatever He decrees is right, true and in our best interests. So we agree to disagree.

Absolute terust and complete certainty that "whatever He [God] decrees is right, true and in our best interests."

And yet, you could not show the remotest bit of evidence that "He" made any "decrees" at all -- only that somebody (you have decided, for your own reasons, to trust) said "He" did. But of course, being as limited and constrained as God is, could only do it through one human person and not even provide a trace of an audit trail.

You guys don't "agree to disagree." Credulity is in no sense equated to knowledge.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Homosexuality is not a behaviour anymore than heterosexuality is, and there is no objective evidence for any deity, let alone that it has condemned anything. Though the irony this perfect deity people keep imaging, shares the obviously human failings of ignorance, prejudices and bigotries like homophobia, is pretty hard to miss.

Telling people who they are is immoral, unless they deny who they are, isn't respectful, and singling out gay people for this is hardly treating them equally, it's pretty absurd to claim it is. As KWED pointed out, you are contradicting yourself.

You are fully entitled to your opinion.

It's not my opinion, but I was refuting an unevidenced subjective opinion that homosexuality is a behaviour.

I have absolute certitude in the infallibility of Baha’u’llah.

Knock yourself out, why would I care care how closed minded someone's religious beliefs are?

So you go your way and I’ll go mine.

This a debate forum, but that aside I will defend people's rights, and challenge bigotry and prejudice always. I guess you are not minded to debate the coincidence that a perfect deity people keep imagining, shares the obviously human failings of ignorance, prejudices and bigotries like homophobia?

I also am bemused that you think it is ok to tell people who they are is immoral, unless they deny who they are, and the claim this is respectful, or that singling out gay people for this is treating them equally, which is a pretty absurd claim.

As KWED pointed out, you are contradicting yourself, and I already know I am entitled to my opinion, what this has to do with your claims is unclear?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I disagree. When the beliefs are unjust, to condone them is also unjust.



And others are completely free to consider those who believe that and the religion that teaches it to them immoral, and to tell them that.



You will never understand. I would like you to. I would like you to know that humanists will never condone religious bigotry or any other kind because it would be wrong to do so, and that it is your deity (or whomever writes in its name) that is the bully and homophobic basher, and we will never accept its views or those of its adherents who believe them.



No. From the application of reason to empathy and common decency. We are mostly humanists.



Not credible. You might believe that because you feel no antipathy for gays, but that is not enough to claim that you view them as equals. The best you can do is to treat gays the same as straights.



That sounds like they're religious. Talk about crying persecution! Look at the comments on this thread begging others to lay off of them, describing dissent and debate as war and attack.

So, you think you know better than a gay person how the world treats them? How could they miss the fact that so much love and equality is being doled out to them and instead think that there are people who consider them defective in the eyes of a good god? You can see it, so why can't they? Oh, yeah - a chip on their shoulder.

Do you have no sense of how such a comment is understood?



You first.



You first. And your god next.

The main difference between our views as I understand it is that of belief in God. We know people err so people can make wrong judgements based on poor reasoning or emotion.

But I believe God exists, is All Knowing and knows what’s best for us as He created us. So when God condemns homosexual behaviour then He is right because He is God and knows all. So we have a stalemate where no further progress in the discussion can be made. I believe God exists you do not so we go our own way. You can continue challenging but I believe God is acting in our best interests.

So just don’t become a Baha’i. But the laws laid down by Baha’u’llah stand so those who don’t like them are wasting their time trying to force us to turn against them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do they feel guilty about being gay? Religionists.

Oh I see, the blame game. It is all the religionists fault.

No, Imo they feel guilty because they know their behavior is wrong, just as I would feel guilty if I engaged in extramarital sex. There is this thing called a conscience, and some people have it, some don't. That is why there are religious Laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is not evidence that homosexuality is wrong or dangerous.

Diseases are not dangerous?

 

[Trailblazer]

It is in the sense they are both wrong or harmful.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

No one should ever feel obliged to have sex. Avoiding sex will not harm a person's health, and it may even be healthy. Anyone who feels concerned about low sexual desire or the effects of infrequent sex on their relationship can talk about this with a doctor or therapist.2 days ago

Not having sex for a long time: Are there side effects?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Absolute terust and complete certainty that "whatever He [God] decrees is right, true and in our best interests."

And yet, you could not show the remotest bit of evidence that "He" made any "decrees" at all -- only that somebody (you have decided, for your own reasons, to trust) said "He" did. But of course, being as limited and constrained as God is, could only do it through one human person and not even provide a trace of an audit trail.

You guys don't "agree to disagree." Credulity is in no sense equated to knowledge.

That’s your opinion. I believe very much that God exists and I choose to follow what I believe is an infallible source of knowledge as opposed to faulty, error prone human speculation.

I was once an atheist too but later I found out I was dead wrong so I was honest to myself and accepted God.

I’m just saying that allow for the fact that maybe God exists and has sent Educators to guide us spiritually and that their guidance may be what is best for us.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is not a fact that that homosexuality is not more spiritually destructive than heterosexuality unless you can prove it. Otherwise, it is only a personal opinion.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

It is also not a fact that homosexuality is more spiritually destructive than heterosexuality because I cannot prove it. All I have is a belief, not a fact.

Your opinion is an unjustified opinion contradicted by evidence.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Gay and Bisexual Men | CDC

Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM)
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent an incredibly diverse community. However, these men are disproportionately impacted by syphilis, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The resources on this page provide an overview of the impact of STDs on MSM as well as prevention and treatment information.
Gay, Bisexual and Other MSM | STDs | CDC

STD Facts – What Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men Need to Know About Sexually Transmitted Diseases
While anyone who has sex can get an STD, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM:
Gay Men and STDs | Sexually Transmitted Diseases | CDC

Lesbian, gay and bisexual older adults suffer more chronic health conditions than heterosexuals, study finds
Lesbian and bisexual older women are more likely than heterosexual older women to suffer chronic health conditions, experience sleep problems and drink excessively, a new University of Washington study finds.

In general, lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) older adults were found to be in poorer health than heterosexuals, specifically in terms of higher rates of cardiovascular disease, weakened immune system and low back or neck pain. They also were at greater risk of some adverse health behaviors such as smoking and excessive drinking. At the same time, however, findings point to areas of resilience, with more LGB adults engaging in preventive health measures, such as obtaining HIV tests and blood pressure screening.

The study is the first to use national, population-based data to evaluate differences in health outcomes and behaviors among lesbian, gay and bisexual older adults. Using two-year survey data of 33,000 heterosexual and LGB adults ages 50 and older from a probability-based study of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers from the UW School of Social Work report noticeable health disparities between LGB and heterosexual adults.

The findings were published in the August issue of the American Journal of Public Health.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual older adults suffer more chronic health conditions than heterosexuals, study finds

Opinions that are demonstrably true are facts. It is not a fact that homosexual behavior is not harmful, but there is some evidence that it causes harm (see above). The physical harm it can cause is demonstrable and it is unlike the spiritual harm to the soul which cannot be demonstrated, at least not in this life.

See above.

What claim do you make that is demonstrably correct and irrefutable?

Please present the empirical evidence, and remember, we are only talking about moral sexual behavior, we are not talking about other moral behavior, what is moral behavior in general.

I now know for an absolute certainty that you do NOT read the articles you link to. If you did, you might have discovered something about the REASONS for the statistics you take such schadenfreudische delight in posting. Reasons like -- if a person is shunned by their community (THAT WOULD BE YOU) their outcomes, mental, emotional, and health, suffer. If a person has poorer access to support, because they would have to admit what their community (THAT WOULD BE YOU) despises and would hate them for -- then their health and welfare outcomes will be likewise poorer.

I see nothing, nothin at all, of the "love" that Baha'is like to talk about in anything you post. I'm a bloody atheist, and I have more love of humanity in my left littlE toenail than you display in anything you write.

I shall now shut you out. Goodbye.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Baha'is writing in this thread have reminded why I so much prefer Quakers. The Society of Friends actually does have honesty, love, non-judgement, and admission of fallibility on their side.

 

[Sheldon]

That’s your opinion. I believe very much that God exists and I choose to follow what I believe is an infallible source of knowledge as opposed to faulty, error prone human speculation.

So your beliefs are superior because you subjectively believe they come from a deity, it's not a new idea, but it never ceases to raise a laugh.

If only these infallible deities didn't have to rely on bigoted ignoramuses, they might communicate a morally cogent message that didn't contain the fingerprints of fallible evolved humans from the epoch the religious texts and message originated, even the ones plagiarised centuries later of course, just to lend them a little gravitas.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Given the vile hate speech espoused here,

I have seen no Baha'i undertaking in that.

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have seen no Baha'i undertaking in that.

Regards Tony

Take the blinkers off...look a little deeper into what they're writing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why is your focus only on men? Do you not think that there are women who have sex with women?

It is not my focus, it is the research focus.

Here's a little secret for you -- gay women who have sex only with other women have the lowest incidence of STDs. This must, by your reasoning, make them more moral than anybody.

I am not surprised by that but disease has nothing to do with morality.

What you ignore (of course, and we've had this talk before and you will ignore again and again ad infinitum) is a simple little contributor to all your stats: men are much readier to hop into the sack at the drop of a zipper than women are. Thus, gay men are simply getting more sex than anybody who who is hoping to get a woman into bed.

It's not the fact that they're same-gender that's causing STDs. It's the availability of ready-and-willing partners, thus the actual number of sexual encounters.

That is absolutely correct. That is why the disease incidence is higher among men.
Gay men are getting more sex and more diseases. Nothing comes without a cost.