Post Reply
Page 27 of 32  •  Prev 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 ... 32 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Baha'is displaying prejudice
3 years ago  ::  Sep 02, 2011 - 2:04PM #261
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,922

Sep 2, 2011 -- 1:26PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy Lilwabbite


 


Sep 1, 2011 -- 11:42PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


G'morning from the misty Helsinki IDBC (zero-visibility today, the fall has arrived full blast),


Thanks for your post. Now it seems we managed to move on a notch.



It is a bright sunshiney day today in the Capital of the World.   I was briefly in Helsinki or to be more precise in the airport at Helsinki when I and my ex-wife had a stopover on our way to the former workers paradise-evil empire the USSR. 



Hallelujah, and you managed to get McCarthy off your case. 


Sep 1, 2011 -- 9:50PM, Idbc wrote:


And as I stated before homosexuals are equally human regardless of their sexual oreintation and therefore should have the same rights of other human beings regardless of their sexual orientation.



Fully agreed. Our disagreement seems to lie mainly in what is a rational basis for something to be regarded as a human right.


If you are willing to concede that heterosexuals have no more a human "right" to marry than homosexuals then that is okay with me.



Heterosexuals have no more "right to have a life partner" than homosexuals. Marriage, for the Bahá'ís, is simply not a personal right to a life partner with whom one can be sexually intimate among other things. The day such an option can be proven to be a fundamental human right, I will be the first to accept that the Bahá'ís are discriminators.


As to most of the other points you raised in your post, I would have only minor disagreements unworthy of mention.


With kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 8:08PM #262
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Jan 7, 2011 -- 1:31PM, world citizen wrote:


The Faith acknowledges that most homosexuals are born that way, no differently than heterosexuals are born with opposite-sex attractions.  The Faith does NOT distance itself from them or from those who drink alcohol, nor does it castigate them.  The Baha'i Faith does, however, expect that those who have accepted Baha'u'llah as the Voice of God for this day will try as best they can to obey His laws.  It's an adult faith for spiritually mature believers.

The loss of voting rights only applies to those who flagrently flaunt the Aqdas while, at the same time, proclaim themselves to others as being Baha'is.  Ex: drinking heavily in a bar where the patrons know that individual to be a Baha'i;  participating in a Gay Pride parade with others who know that individual to be a Baha'i.  Drinking in the privacy of one's home or practicing sodomy in the privacy of one's home is between the individual and God.  It's only when overt actions bring disgrace to the Faith that administrative discipline (ie., removal of voting rights) is considered.




Well, that's a pretty watertight case against the Baha'i religion if you ask me.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 8:48PM #263
world citizen
Posts: 5,593

Apr 27, 2012 -- 8:08PM, steven_guy wrote:

Jan 7, 2011 -- 1:31PM, world citizen wrote:


The Faith acknowledges that most homosexuals are born that way, no differently than heterosexuals are born with opposite-sex attractions.  The Faith does NOT distance itself from them or from those who drink alcohol, nor does it castigate them.  The Baha'i Faith does, however, expect that those who have accepted Baha'u'llah as the Voice of God for this day will try as best they can to obey His laws.  It's an adult faith for spiritually mature believers.

The loss of voting rights only applies to those who flagrently flaunt the Aqdas while, at the same time, proclaim themselves to others as being Baha'is.  Ex: drinking heavily in a bar where the patrons know that individual to be a Baha'i;  participating in a Gay Pride parade with others who know that individual to be a Baha'i.  Drinking in the privacy of one's home or practicing sodomy in the privacy of one's home is between the individual and God.  It's only when overt actions bring disgrace to the Faith that administrative discipline (ie., removal of voting rights) is considered.




Well, that's a pretty watertight case against the Baha'i religion if you ask me.


With all due respect, we didn't ask you, but non-Baha'is are entitled to think and do whatever they wish without judgment from Baha'is.  It doesn't, however, seem to be the other way around...

Blessed is he who mingleth with all men in a spirit of utmost kindliness and love. ~Baha'u'llah
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 4:19PM #264
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Certain sentiments reflect an inability to see beyond the contemporary, Western, politically correct narrative regarding homosexuality.


It's nothing to sweat. Like all essentially flawed ideas, it won't last. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 8:24PM #265
chevy956
Posts: 1,968

Apr 30, 2012 -- 4:19PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Certain sentiments reflect an inability to see beyond the contemporary, Western, politically correct narrative regarding homosexuality.


It's nothing to sweat. Like all essentially flawed ideas, it won't last. 




And what would you see the narrative replaced with?


The simple fact of the matter is that in the US, anti gay legislation at the state level are being and will all eventually be overthrown for the same reason the old miscegenation laws were. They are/were based on religious practice and not by common law or civil law.


     Baha'i's are welcome to believe as they wish regarding gay rights, as far as I am concerned. There aren't really enough of you here in the US to influence any aspect of American politics or culture, and you really aren't supposed to be involved in politics anyway, per the orders of your Founder. However,the double standard and hypocrisy of your religious views is obvious and saddening. I don't know why a gay person would give the Baha'i' message more than a shrug of the shoulder as one more post-Abrahamic religion without a clue about human sexuality in general

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 12:34AM #266
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,922

Howdy Chevy,


Most human right lawyers the world over do not regard "gay rights" as human rights in any known legal sense. It remains a contentious issue. No doubt there's growing political pressure in many countries to adopt the liberal Western view, but it has nothing to do with reason or objective science. It's politics and hence the loud lobby groups on both sides. According to the interest theory of human rights, rights must protect an essential human interest, say survival, education or employment, that have over time proven necessary for human existence or development. Do you have some objective evidence to suggest that having a sexually pleasing life-partner is essential to human existence or development? If you have, then and only then you can talk about an undisputed human right.


Meanwhile, Bahá'ís are both free and logically correct to regard a sexually pleasing life partner a job requirement (among many) rather than a human right. We have some Bahá'í gays that prefer the Western liberalist stance (obviously it grants them pleasures that they wouldn't enjoy otherwise) and hence cannot accept such a notion and eventually leave the Faith. They should be free to do so and Bahá'ís are not known to harrass them in any way (please offer evidence to indicate an established Bahá'í tendency of harrassment if you think the contrary is the case). But we have also other gays (I know a few personally) that have come to accept the dual-gender notion of marriage and wish to remain devout Bahá'ís. You're not in a position to offer us reliable statistics as to which group is larger and what is the overall trend. Let alone to judge who is the better gay. I even know a gay Bahá'í who decided to pursue a gay lifestyle and left the Faith, got himself an HIV infection (no, I'm not saying the latter is an inevitable part of gay lifestyle), stopped his gay lifestyle and returned to the Faith. He died a few years ago as a Bahá'í.


Moreover, your accusational tone is not matched by robust argumentation to support your case. If you haven't come to discuss but rather to accuse, please state it openly. It will help me to know how to deal with you since I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have the best of intentions.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 1:37AM #267
Aka_me
Posts: 12,415

May 1, 2012 -- 8:24PM, chevy956 wrote:

     Baha'i's are welcome to believe as they wish regarding gay rights, as far as I am concerned. There aren't really enough of you here in the US to influence any aspect of American politics or culture, and you really aren't supposed to be involved in politics anyway, per the orders of your Founder.



there is no statement regarding "do not be involved in politics"


people who have done more than dabble know this.


Baha'is vote, and that is being involved in politics, we are simply forbidden from campaigning for a candidate or making know which party we voted for.


May 1, 2012 -- 8:24PM, chevy956 wrote:

However,the double standard and hypocrisy of your religious views is obvious and saddening. I don't know why a gay person would give the Baha'i' message more than a shrug of the shoulder as one more post-Abrahamic religion without a clue about human sexuality in general



there is nothing forbidding me from voting for civil gay marriage so long as it is not forced upon religions to do the same.


notions of double standard or hypocrisy would need to be explained further to capable of being discussed.

if you don't believe the CIA controls the media, then it's only through WILLFUL ignorance of the information openly available to you. who shot himself in the head TWICE before a new book was released. the corruption is bleeping sick!
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 2:32PM #268
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 1, 2012 -- 8:24PM, chevy956 wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 4:19PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Certain sentiments reflect an inability to see beyond the contemporary, Western, politically correct narrative regarding homosexuality.


It's nothing to sweat. Like all essentially flawed ideas, it won't last. 




And what would you see the narrative replaced with?


The simple fact of the matter is that in the US, anti gay legislation at the state level are being and will all eventually be overthrown for the same reason the old miscegenation laws were. They are/were based on religious practice and not by common law or civil law.


     Baha'i's are welcome to believe as they wish regarding gay rights, as far as I am concerned. There aren't really enough of you here in the US to influence any aspect of American politics or culture, and you really aren't supposed to be involved in politics anyway, per the orders of your Founder. However,the double standard and hypocrisy of your religious views is obvious and saddening. I don't know why a gay person would give the Baha'i' message more than a shrug of the shoulder as one more post-Abrahamic religion without a clue about human sexuality in general




We're not suppsed to get involved in politlcs. 


Nor, are we supposed to even try to tell others how to live, much less try to force them to live a certain way.


On a personal level, I don't give two hoots if a person is gay, or if two gay people get married in a state/country where it is legal, or if they move in next door to me, or if one or the other or both of them teach at my kids' schools, serve on my town council or own the grocery store down the street.


I've known numerous gay, bisexual and lesbian people, and have never felt an ounce of discomfort or fear around any of then. Worrying about somebody else being gay is, I think, about the most stupid waste of time a human being can engage in.


My comments have nothing to do with secular law or personal matters. They have to do with a philosophical approach, and rational thought on the subject of homosexuality.


Certian teachings of the Baha'i Faith are at odds with a current, mostly Western, politically correct narrative about homosexuality. I've found said narrative to be lacking in actual rational thought and detached consideration -- but rather to be rife in pandering generalities, subjectivity and appeals to emotion.


Furthermore, I've found it to be ironically reactionary and intolerant, and quick to start throwing out terms like "hate" "bigotry" and "homophobia" any time any other view dares to question or disagree with said P.C. narrative. 


So what? I won't apologize for my view or my religion's stance, nor am I particulary concerned about who might get upset about it. Any more than I am concerned that, for example, some Christians might get upset because I understand Jesus of Nazereth to be one of many, and not the one and only. 


God's Messengers have never been in the business of telling people what they wanted to hear. And regardless of the age or Messenger, there will always be those who just simply cannot get past a certain issue or issues -- and will sweepingly judge God's religion accordingly, and who will be accordingly hostile and either unable or unwilling to learn or listen. 


I don't hate gays, and the Baha'i Faith does not teach, embrace, condone or promote actual homophobia. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 8:07PM #269
chevy956
Posts: 1,968

Hi Wabbit,


          Forgive the delay in responding to your thoughtful post. It brings up some interesting points that I'll attempt to address.


Most human right lawyers the world over do not regard "gay rights" as human rights in any known legal sense. It remains a contentious issue.


>>>In the US, crimes committed against gays due to their sexual orientation are most certainly considered hate crimes and are subject to prosecution at the Federal level as a violation of civil rights. Please show me which human rights lawyers, outside of known homophobic dens like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Uganda don't regard gay rights as a form of human rights.


 No doubt there's growing political pressure in many countries to adopt the liberal Western view, but it has nothing to do with reason or objective science. It's politics and hence the loud lobby groups on both sides.


>>>>Actually it has to do with both reason and objective science. Homosexuality has not been considered an illness or mental disorder for many years by the only people whose opinion should matter on the subject- working psychologists, psychiatrists and ckinical researchers with credentials in the field of mental health. Reason would indicate that thoughful people should pay attention to what they have to say on the subject , as opposed to the words of shills who hide their hatred behind a blanket of religious belief and seek to intrude on people's private business.


 According to the interest theory of human rights, rights must protect an essential human interest, say survival, education or employment, that have over time proven necessary for human existence or development. Do you have some objective evidence to suggest that having a sexually pleasing life-partner is essential to human existence or development? If you have, then and only then you can talk about an undisputed human right.


>>>>>We know far more about human sexuality from both the physiological and psychological aspects than the founder of your religion ever did. We know that sexual preference is far more fluid a thing than was imagined as it runs accross a wide spectrum. Humans are sexual beings- it isn't a matter of having some imagined "rights" or not. In my country, one has the civil right to live as they please, unmolested by the authorities, unmolested by the authorities as long as they abide by the law. This includes the right to have a sexually pleasing partner. In my opinion, the prohibition against homosexaul behavior has more to do with your founder absorbing the Muslim cultural and religious bias which he was born into, and nothing to do with any divine plan. Tellingly, Jesus said not a word about gays in the Gospels.



Meanwhile, Bahá'ís are both free and logically correct to regard a sexually pleasing life partner a job requirement (among many) rather than a human right.


>>> No logic is involved, save adherance to your founder's teachings, which no one else need be concerned with.


 We have some Bahá'í gays that prefer the Western liberalist stance (obviously it grants them pleasures that they wouldn't enjoy otherwise) and hence cannot accept such a notion and eventually leave the Faith. They should be free to do so and Bahá'ís are not known to harrass them in any way (please offer evidence to indicate an established Bahá'í tendency of harrassment if you think the contrary is the case). But we have also other gays (I know a few personally) that have come to accept the dual-gender notion of marriage and wish to remain devout Bahá'ís. You're not in a position to offer us reliable statistics as to which group is larger and what is the overall trend. Let alone to judge who is the better gay. I even know a gay Bahá'í who decided to pursue a gay lifestyle and left the Faith, got himself an HIV infection (no, I'm not saying the latter is an inevitable part of gay lifestyle), stopped his gay lifestyle and returned to the Faith. He died a few years ago as a Bahá'í.


>>>> Interesting. When I was a Baha'i', I don't ever recall meeting an openly gay member, although this was over 3 decades ago and people were far more circumspect at that time.Much to the Faith's credit, I do conceed that you (plural) do not actively practice sexual discrimination as a religious tenet. There is much about the Faith that the Founder got right, such as lack of racial, religious, and sexual discrimination (aside friom not allowing women to be members of the UHJ). However, I find the stated claim that your God created gay people mostly (?) as gay people to be irreconcilable with the idea that they aren't allowed by the same god who allegedly created them that way to express the sexuality which was given them. Again, I see Baha'i' praxis on homosexuality more of a matter of the cultural bias of the Founder and not any type of divine mandate. You and I will likely not agree on that point, which is fine .



Moreover, your accusational tone is not matched by robust argumentation to support your case. If you haven't come to discuss but rather to accuse, please state it openly. It will help me to know how to deal with you since I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have the best of intentions.


>>>>Lighten up, mate. Again, my apologies for my delay in getting back to you. Life has been happily very busy, and your post merited a thoughtful, if not timely response.


            Regards and safe travels,


                   Chevy

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 1:03AM #270
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,922

Howdy Chevy,


Thanks for your well-articulated post.


The Bahá'í stance is critically different from the Christians in that we do not regard gays to be somehow lesser beings or more sinful people by default than non-gays. We do not claim that "homosexuality is a choice" and begrudge the gays for it. Slogans like "God hates gays" sound just as abhorrent and outrageous to us as they may sound to a gay rights activist. It may very well be that in God's sight the bulk of the world's heteros are greater sinners.


"He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be." (Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Iqán, p. 266)


But our stance also critically differs from that of the gay lobby in that we do not see the presence of a sexually attractive human being in one's life, whether they be hetero or gay, as a human right. Rather, we see such a non-negotiable criterion as a somewhat self-centric and shaky foundation for any relationship, whether hetero or gay. Marriage means something altogether different to us. "Marriages" that are founded upon "getting a partner", and where sexuality is a defining element of that partnership (even if not the only one), have proven not to last very long. The statistically high rate of breakdowns of such relationships applies just as much to heterosexuals as it applies to homosexuals. In fact, due to sheer numbers and the involvement of children, the heterosexual laxity of marital standards is a far bigger problem globally. The perennial counter-argument that "gay relationships aren't just about sex" is misdirected since they weren't even claimed to be all about sex. What is claimed is that sexuality remains a key aspect of gay relationships since otherwise gays need not seek lifelong partnerships with other gays. This misguided sexuality-based notion of a lasting relationship is not the fault of gays at all, but rather the example for such relationships is firmly set by the Western heterosexual world where marriage is increasingly more about "getting something from the world" rather than "giving something to the world". Many homosexuals have simply borrowed such individualistic notions of "marriage" from the heterosexuals without question. My personal bone to pick is actually more with the whole egocentric notion of "marriage" adopted by the heterosexuals, rather than blaming the gays for something that the heterosexuals practice in far greater numbers.


May 12, 2012 -- 8:07PM, chevy956 wrote:


>>>In the US, crimes committed against gays due to their sexual orientation are most certainly considered hate crimes and are subject to prosecution at the Federal level as a violation of civil rights. Please show me which human rights lawyers, outside of known homophobic dens like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Uganda don't regard gay rights as a form of human rights.



If you are talking about universal human rights (as per the Declaration), we're on the same page as to the essential need to protect the gays from abuses, hate speech and other crimes prompted by prejudice and hateful attitudes. But then we're veering off to a different subject altogether. You haven't offered objective evidence that human rights lawyers and professors of law have reached any consensus that having a sexually pleasing life partner is a universal human right. Where you think Bahá'u'lláh is behind modern developments, we find his position resting rationally and morally on a far more solid ground than the alternative one. The Bahá'í viewpoint, indiscriminately, sees "life partner" not as a human right, whether it concerns the heterosexuals or homosexuals. Marriage is simply not about having a partner and reducing another human being into a therapeutic teddy bear to assuage the sense of loneliness and abnormality that single persons quite understandably feel. Another human being deserves much greater respect, no matter how snuggly and warm they may feel, and no matter how mutually consentual such a therapeutic arrangement may be. Mutual therapy is still therapy. Marriage is not. I blame the heterosexuals for this distortion.


As I said before, the whole issue of whether same-sex unions are a human rights issue depends wholly on whether or not a right to a sexually compatible life partner (heterosexual or otherwise), is understood as an essential human interest comparable to say the 'right to shelter', the 'right to employment' or the 'right to education'. The latter rights are critical to human survival and progress. Nobody in their right mind seriously disputes their essentiality. But anyone who confidently claims an inalienable right to a sexually compatible life partner, which is as yet universally unrecognized as a human right, has the burden of proof to demonstrate how formalizing a lifelong companionship with a sexually attractive partner is in fact essential to human survival and progress. For me this is clearly not the case. In the case of the other human rights their essentiality is so universally obvious that very few proofs are in fact needed to highlight their significance. Hence, to me, it is evident there is no discrimination, not even moral discrimination, perpetrated by the Bahá'í Faith. I'm still awaiting sound reasoning or solid evidence to the contrary rather than mere claims that amount to little more than dogmatic insistence. It is also clear to me that the whole issue is highly politicized. Ultimately most of the vitriolic demands on both sides of the argument are more political and personal rather than rational, scientific and legal-philosophical.


You can keep on repeating that the Bahá'ís are prejudicial and discriminatory to no end, but failing to provide solid reasoning to reject essential human interest as the basis of human rights, it boils down to just that: unreasonable repetition. Appeals to dodgy and methodologically flawed studies on sexuality carried out by researchers with a known a priori bias simply won't do as scientific evidence. Just because it is increasingly "fashionable" to view same-sex union as a human right, and just because many have bought the clamorous "human rights" and "tolerance" rhetoric, it still does not make it a human right which is in any significant way comparable to the known human rights formulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There's just too much propaganda (on both sides of the political aisle) surrounding the issue, too few facts and too few thoroughly thought-out arguments. Personally, the public popularity or unpopularity of the Bahá'í stance means very little to me. I do not base my convictions on popular acceptance.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 27 of 32  •  Prev 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 ... 32 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook