I do not write the definitions.
No you didn't, you proved that promiscuous unprotected anal-sex is harmful to the health of individuals, not that this is an exclusively homosexual activity, nor that it provides the net harm to society to justify a complete ban on homosexuality in my opinion.
You are welcome to your opinion but you don't have a leg to stand on regarding the health risks.
Who is trying to justify a complete ban on homosexuality? Nobody can ban any sexual activity, be it heterosexual or homosexual.
What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms cannot be monitored, nor should it be.
No, the Baha'i Faith (loyal to shoghi effendi and the Haifa based Universal House of Justice) does not permit monogamous homosexuals to have sex within wedlock in my opinion.
The Baha'i laws have nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith (loyal to shoghi effendi and the Haifa based Universal House of Justice)
“The 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.
Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223
This has nothing to do with the Covenant. If the other Baha'i groups go against the Aqdas, they are going against Baha'u'llah.
Baha'u'llah only permitted sex between a man and a woman who are married to each other, and that means that homosexuals cannot have sex and still adhere to Baha'i law.
Ha ha, and if i show you examples of that I guess you will claim they are not true Baha'i (no true Scotsman) in my view.
You can show me examples of that but if they employ hate speech against homosexuals they would be going against what the UHJ instructed us to do.