One God

[loverofhumanity]

So all heterosexual marriages serve the purpose of perpetuating human life?

Moreover, why should marriage necessarily serve the purpose of perpetuating human life?



'Nature' doesn't always give a child a mother and father, though. Where, for example, does IVF figure in this?

No but the provision is there for the continuation of our species.

Marriage is a bond, a unity and unity is very important for family stability and happiness. Anything that can reinforce commitment and binding is helpful so a formal commitment can make a huge difference as opposed to someone just shacking up and feeling no responsibility to stay once things get tough.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Right, like Baha'u'llah..



Who's to say they have got those beliefs from what you refer to as Holy Books of religions?

It's highly possible they just thought of the idea themselves but it is an idea that is in harmony with what some religions teach.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

All the major religions Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrian Faith, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the Baha'i Faith.

Okay, I'll ask the question slightly differently. How would you define a 'major religion' (without references to examples of what you consider to be major religions)?

Science is another truth we believe in. But there are many organizations which teach some truth but because they mix other unpalatable things in we can't accept them as a whole. Also many tribal traditions are truth and the list is endless as far as truth goes. It's everywhere.

But religions we fully uphold are only those that were taught by the Educators such as Christ, Buddha, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah etc.

I'm still not clear on how you define 'religion' though..

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I would be able to identify the traditions Baha'u'llah covers by their basic beliefs rather than their names. Baha'u'llah covers all religious and spiritual concepts in His Teachings so which concepts, ideas, beliefs specifically are we talking about? He has them all covered but I can't identify the beliefs by the names of the tribes.

But that wasn't the point. The point was, why doesn't he refer to other religions by name, and other religions' founders/teachers by name (beyond those he came across during his lifetime)?

As with heterosexual marriage it plays the role of procreation whereas in homosexuality it is just for pleasure.

Heterosexual marriage certainly doesn't always play the role of procreation, though. And, excuse me, but people don't only engage in homosexual sexual relations for pleasure (moreover, at least some people who engage in heterosexual sexual relations do so solely for pleasure, at least some of the time!).

Sex within marriage between a man and a woman keeps our species from dying out.

There are other ways of keeping the human species from dying out other than sex within marriage between a man and a woman (e.g. sex between a man and a woman outside/without marriage, simultaneous sex between multiple men and women at the same time, the use of artificial reproductive technologies).

 

[The_Fisher_King]

No but the provision is there for the continuation of our species.

What about infertile couples? Or couples where at least one partner has had surgery which prevents them from being able to contribute to the conception of a new baby?

Marriage is a bond, a unity and unity is very important for family stability and happiness. Anything that can reinforce commitment and binding is helpful so a formal commitment can make a huge difference as opposed to someone just shacking up and feeling no responsibility to stay once things get tough.

I agree that marriage has its uses, but plenty of people can feel total responsibility without being bound by marriage (moreover, plenty of married people seem to feel no responsibility to stay once the going gets tough!).

But more importantly, that doesn't speak to either of my other two points above.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But that wasn't the point. The point was, why doesn't he refer to other religions by name, and other religions' founders/teachers by name (beyond those he came across during his lifetime)?



Heterosexual marriage certainly doesn't always play the role of procreation, though. And, excuse me, but people don't only engage in homosexual sexual relations for pleasure (moreover, at least some people who engage in heterosexual sexual relations do so solely for pleasure, at least some of the time!).



There are other ways of keeping the human species from dying out other than sex within marriage between a man and a woman (e.g. sex between a man and a woman outside/without marriage, simultaneous sex between multiple men and women at the same time, the use of artificial reproductive technologies).

My understanding is the way nature intended is best.

Yes you are right. Not all heterosexual relationships are based upon love, many just for lust. By you are asking why a same sex marriage is not the best thing and my answer is it is not the way nature intended. Sure we can use science and break laws but as I said there is the child to consider who has the right to both a mother and a father.

It would be selfish to put the interests of the couple above the child and deprive them of a mother and father which they are fully entitled to.


He did address all the major Faiths. We only recognize about 9 religions so anything outside that is not addressed as a religion. Maybe as a 'people' such as His Tablets to the peoples of the world but He addressed all the major religions.

"He doeth whatsoever He willeth, and ordaineth that which He pleaseth." - Baha'u'llah

 

[loverofhumanity]

What about infertile couples? Or couples where at least one partner has had surgery which prevents them from being able to contribute to the conception of a new baby?



I agree that marriage has its uses, but plenty of people can feel total responsibility without being bound by marriage (moreover, plenty of married people seem to feel no responsibility to stay once the going gets tough!).

But more importantly, that doesn't speak to either of my other two points above.

People can be more responsible not married than married. You are right. It depends on the individual. Marriage is there to strengthen the bind.


Here is the Baha'i answer


“… While artificial insemination is a very different process from in-vitro fertilization, the principle enunciated by the Guardian is the same, namely, that to be acceptable to Bahá’ís the egg cell of the wife should be fertilized by the sperm of the husband in the procedure.

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 25, 1984)

 

[loverofhumanity]

Okay, I'll ask the question slightly differently. How would you define a 'major religion' (without references to examples of what you consider to be major religions)?



I'm still not clear on how you define 'religion' though..

A Manifestation of God Who brings a Holy Book.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It could be of course but it serves no purpose in perpetuating human life.

And since pro-creation is not the be-all and end-all of sex, that's just fine.

And it is selfish to adopt because then the child would be denied the human right of having both a mother and a father.

No such human right exists. There is a human right to a family but such laws do not themselves define what constitutes a family. And it's even more selfish to think children should be denied a loving, caring environment to grow up in because the family they'd be sent to doesn't fit in with you believe a family should look like.

A child is entitled to both.

But where a child can't get both you think they should be denied the one option - a stable family with two parents - that they can get.

Who gives the adults the right to deprive the child of a mother or a father? Nature gave the child both.

Strawman. Nobody's saying there is a right to deny children a mother and father. Nature may have given the child both but what if one or both parents is killed; say by a natural disaster? Nature has then taken away both. And you'd prefer a child remain an orphan than go to a family where both parents have the same genitalia. I suggest you re-think your priorities because that is not what is best for a child - rather it's what is best for your dogmatic sensibilities.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And since pro-creation is not the be-all and end-all of sex, that's just fine.




No such human right exists. There is a human right to a family but such laws do not themselves define what constitutes a family. And it's even more selfish to think children should be denied a loving, caring environment to grow up in because the family they'd be sent to doesn't fit in with you beleive a family should look like.




But where a child can't get both you think they should be denied the one option - a stable family with two parents - that they can get.




Strawman. Nobody's saying there is a right to deny children a mother and father. Nature may have given the child both but what if one or both parents is killed; say by a natural disaster? Nature has then taken away both. And you'd prefer a child remain an orphan than go to a family where both parents have the same genitalia. I suggest you re-think your priorities because that is not what is best for a child - rather it's what is best for your dogmatic sensibilities.

In situations where there are extenuating circumstances there is no reason why the children cannot be looked after by their close relatives where possible or a loving home found for them.

There are lots of loving families or couples who would be glad to give the child a loving home.

As nature provided a mother and father we should seek to provide them one. There are bound to be many parents who cannot have a child and could provide a loving home and mother and father as nature intended.

Just because a tragedy has occurred doesn't mean children should be further punished by being denied a mother or father.

There is a different character and attributes in a female than a male. Not only their sexual organs are different but their very nature. The child is entitled to both and can easily find a home with both.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

In situations where there are extenuating circumstances there is no reason why the children cannot be looked after by their close relatives where possible or a loving home found for them.

I concur. No need to open a can of worms like adoption when other, easier options are potentially available.

There are lots of loving families or couples who would be glad to give the child a loving home.

Sadly there aren't as many as there would be if some people would put their money where their mouth is...

As nature provided a mother and father we should seek to provide them one. There are bound to be many parents who cannot have a child and could provide a loving home and mother and father as nature intended.

But since (in some cases) nature then took the mother and father away, we should deny them a mother and father in future because that is what nature obviously intended. That's the result of your logic.

Just because a tragedy has occurred doesn't mean children should be further punished by being denied a mother or father.

That's not a punishment though. If you ask a child what's worse between having one or no parents and having two parents of the same sex, I think it'd be obvious that they'd say having one or no parents is worse. Love is innate, hatred & homophobia is taught. There have been so many studies published that show same-sex couples are just as capable of raising well-rounded, psychologically stable children as opposite-sex couples. I'd suggest you try reading them but you're far too prone to believing unevidenced claims as it is so I won't get my hopes up.

There is a different character and attributes in a female than a male. Not only their sexual organs are different but their very nature. The child is entitled to both and can easily find a home with both.

Sexist tripe.


This is why Bahaism isn't a universal faith. LGBT people are part of this world yet Bahais spend so much time denying their nature or that they can do as much good as straight people. Love is love and if you worshipped a truly loving god you'd appreciate that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I concur. No need to open a can of worms like adoption when other, easier options are potentially available.




Sadly there aren't as many as there would be if some people would put their money where their mouth is...




But since (in some cases) nature then took the mother and father away, we should deny them a mother and father in future because that is what nature obviously intended. That's the result of your logic.




That's not a punishment though. If you ask a child what's worse between having one or no parents and having two parents of the same sex, I think it'd be obvious that they'd say having one or no parents is worse. Love is innate, hatred & homophobia is taught. There have been so many studies published that show same-sex couples are just as capable of raising well-rounded, psychologically stable children as opposite-sex couples. I'd suggest you try reading them but you're far too prone to believing unevidenced claims as it is so I won't get my hopes up.




Sexist tripe.


This is why Bahaism isn't a universal faith. LGBT people are part of this world yet Bahais spend so much time denying their nature or that they can do as much good as straight people. Love is love and if you worshipped a truly loving god you'd appreciate that.

Our laws for marriage state that it is only between a man and a woman. They are what they are.



B

 

[The_Fisher_King]

My understanding is the way nature intended is best.

Yes you are right. Not all heterosexual relationships are based upon love, many just for lust. By you are asking why a same sex marriage is not the best thing and my answer is it is not the way nature intended. Sure we can use science and break laws but as I said there is the child to consider who has the right to both a mother and a father.

It would be selfish to put the interests of the couple above the child and deprive them of a mother and father which they are fully entitled to.

'The way nature intended...' - hmm. How do you define 'what nature intended'? Did nature intend that people wear spectacles to correct certain kinds of eye problem? Or develop the concept of wearing clothes? Or medicine? etc.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

You said: As with heterosexual marriage it plays the role of procreation whereas in homosexuality it is just for pleasure.

To which I responded:

Heterosexual marriage certainly doesn't always play the role of procreation, though.

And I supported this with a reference to infertile couples, which pretty clearly shows that heterosexual marriage doesn't always play the role of procreation, nor has the potential to.

You also said: Sex within marriage between a man and a woman keeps our species from dying out.

To which I responded:

There are other ways of keeping the human species from dying out other than sex within marriage between a man and a woman (e.g. sex between a man and a woman outside/without marriage, simultaneous sex between multiple men and women at the same time, the use of artificial reproductive technologies).

You have yet to really respond to either of my responses.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You said: As with heterosexual marriage it plays the role of procreation whereas in homosexuality it is just for pleasure.

To which I responded:


And I supported this with a reference to infertile couples, which pretty clearly shows that heterosexual marriage doesn't always play the role of procreation, nor has the potential to.

You also said: Sex within marriage between a man and a woman keeps our species from dying out.

To which I responded:


You have yet to really respond to either of my responses.

I responded to that with a letter about IVF. I posted it just as some guests arrived and later checked and it did post but I can find it again. Sorry about that.

I am learning a lot from you and many of the points you praise are very good points.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

He did address all the major Faiths. We only recognize about 9 religions so anything outside that is not addressed as a religion. Maybe as a 'people' such as His Tablets to the peoples of the world but He addressed all the major religions.

"He doeth whatsoever He willeth, and ordaineth that which He pleaseth." - Baha'u'llah

Well the last quote can get you out of any bind! But it doesn't really resolve the issue of why Baha'u'llah didn't have knowledge of so many other religions (and their founders/teachers). If he really was a Manifestation of God, and more importantly, the Manifestation for the next 800 years or so, why didn't God provide him with knowledge of the multitude of other religions of which humans around the world now have so much more knowledge than then (or at least a reasonable subset of them to show that his knowledge of religions must have come from a supernatural origin, else how could he have known about religions from all corners of the world, including places he could not possibly have known about otherwise)? Have you not noticed that the religions he made reference to were those he might reasonably have come into contact with or heard about (being a learned man)? Remember, we are testing whether Baha'u'llah's claim to knowledge is quite as special as he claims.

A Manifestation of God Who brings a Holy Book.

As defined by...Baha'u'llah! How can we test Baha'u'llah's knowledge if the only religions that are 'allowed' are those that he has recognised? The measure of Baha'u'llah's knowledge is Baha'u'llah's knowledge. Doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You said: As with heterosexual marriage it plays the role of procreation whereas in homosexuality it is just for pleasure.

To which I responded:


And I supported this with a reference to infertile couples, which pretty clearly shows that heterosexual marriage doesn't always play the role of procreation, nor has the potential to.

You also said: Sex within marriage between a man and a woman keeps our species from dying out.

To which I responded:


You have yet to really respond to either of my responses.

I thought I responded with our views of IVF etc and it is in a previous post. We already have a way of perpetuating our race which works very well why look for another?

In the majority of times it does. We have enough viable candidates to perpetuate the race even if some fail.

Here is the Baha'i answer on IVF or scientific means. It still comes down to the donor not being outside the marriage between a man and a woman.

“… While artificial insemination is a very different process from in-vitro fertilization, the principle enunciated by the Guardian is the same, namely, that to be acceptable to Bahá’ís the egg cell of the wife should be fertilized by the sperm of the husband in the procedure.

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 25, 1984)

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Our laws for marriage state that it is only between a man and a woman. They are what they are.

The law does not inform morality - gods help us if that's where we've arrived. In reality it's the other way around. If you're going to argue that same-sex marriage is immoral because it differs from what the law says is marriage then:

1. Presumably you'll be okay with it once the law is changed;
2. You're presumably okay with Bahais and other religious minorities being persecuted and criminalised for things like 'blasphemy' if such is the law in your country or in another?

If you're not okay with this then your argument from legal strictures has no foundation.

Okay I just had another look at your post and you're not talking about secular laws, are you? If not, I'll respond to you in the morning since I'm sleepy.

 

[Milton Platt]

Is only one God,name and diferents dialects ,diferents points of view ,diferents atributs , and ideologias the absolute and universal true is not go to change with are simple human ideologia.

Your statement is nonsensical. You may want to try again.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I thought I responded with our views of IVF etc and it is in a previous post. We already have a way of perpetuating our race which works very well why look for another?
In the majority of times it does. We have enough viable candidates to perpetuate the race even if some fail.

But you hang the importance/necessity of marriage being between a man and a woman on this notion of only heterosexual marriage (rather then homosexual marriage) being able to/having the potential to (I assume 'naturally') lead to procreation and perpetuation of the human species.

What I am trying (perhaps not very well!) to argue is that if this is not only not always necessarily true of heterosexual marriage, but moreover that there are other ways (beyond a marriage between a man and a woman) of perpetuating the human species, your argument (so far) for claiming that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is undermined. Of course, you can always fall back on 'But this is what Baha'u'llah tells us, these are our laws, they are what they are', etc. And that is fair enough. But it does mean we can't go much further with this conversation (because, obviously, I don't pay any special attention to what Baha'u'llah says, not least because I have yet to be persuaded that he was a Manifestation of God).