Zhang

Pete, I disagree.

The UHJ has made it very clear that being a homosexual is a handicap. Countless people try to relate it to the "well single heteroseuxals have to be chaste too" but they are leagues apart.

The UHJ thinks that it is a choice, and it is best to pray it away. (Though this has 0% across the board success rate). The issue is in the understanding, they think it's a choice, science suggests it is not. Which often lends me to question Shogi's ability to accurate reflect the teachings.

Aren't Baha'is supposed to throw out a teaching if it is found to contradict science? Why won't they let this one go?

That will never happen, simply because the Guardian made it very clear that this is in no way an acceptable behavior. (Despite the fact that it is not explicitly said in the Aqdas, nor is it referenced once by Baha'ullah.)

LordOfGoblins

why bother to pray? Has science shown prayer is beneficial? Why bother fasting or following any spiritual laws at all? Science is rather deficient when it comes to giving an assesment of how the manifestation of Gods laws affect our souls..
Have they found a gay gene? My mum who is a school teacher has come across countless gays and each and every one of them has something in their historyu like a bad relationship with their dad.
Surely there is a percentage that is just behaviorial as well.

LordOfGoblins

people seem to have this idea that religion is there to please us. Its not.
Its a difficult path. I mean try following all the laws of Baha'u'llah all the time each and every day. Its not easy and it wasnt meant to be. Why arnt we allowed to have mass orgies in this life and do all those things that would fully please our animal natures?
Why do we have to do things that are uncomfortable like have sex with the opposite gender when we actually feel like we want to do it with the same gender.
The answer is simple and comes down to one thing. We are not animals we are humans with souls with animal bodies put into this world to train our souls for a better life in the world after. That is the path of religion. If you dont want to take it then dont. Just do what you want...

Napkin

So UHJ thinks gays are all just confused and there is no biological reasoning behind it. Baha'i s should never again claim to agree with science. This is one of the reasons door to door teachers focus on low income areas where extremely low numbers of college graduates. Anyone who took a biology class knows being gay is biological and occurs in the animal kingdom. Whats funny is that they keep screaming about how they agree with science, while consistently disagreeing with science.

ON the issue of plural marriage, let me direct you all to a specific quote from Ketabi Aqdas:
"... Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two."

Zhang

Please do not compare orgies with consensual sex between a pair of loving homosexual partners. It is insulting and far reaching.

While your mom's "case study" of homosexual behavior is interesting, it is hardly science.
There are countless theories backed up by hard science to show that homosexuality isn't a choice (unlike an orgie). For example, males are homosexual in order for the female to become extremely more fertile. Thus the homosexual male is not offset by his sexuality, because the fertility of the sister (and his increased ability to take care of the young) outweighs this.

And because we now know this, the Guardian was clearly wrong, especially considering he was not a messenger, was not appointed by a messenger, and was a heterosexual male.

The problem isn't the law, is the faith's understand of the science, (or lack thereof) and defense of a preposterous argument.

LordOfGoblins

its not really. Both are sexual desires someone must abstain from that they 'desire'.
Not everyone desires orgies and not everyone desires homosexual activity.
It is irrelevent whether someone is born with an inclination towards having sex with the same gender. Im sure an equal case study could be done to show all kinds of things 'backed by science'.
At the end of the day its an expression of desire that results in no children and contradicts the laws of ones physical form. Ie mans physical form is not designed for another man. A womans physical form is not designed for another woman. So equal I have just made a 'scientific' observation right then and there and can present that if i want as a scientific evidedence that such behaviour is contrary. But thats not the point.
The point is abstainign from desire is a part of religion, whether current science can be used to backup certain claims to approave those behaviors or not. Im sure someone can produce a scientific study that orgies are great for morale and social bonding- or whatever they wanted to. It may seem like a reduculous comparison but Scientific studies can easily go both ways.
If you dont like that example im sure its not hard to find another example. For example you could find scientific studies that show participating in sex more often is good for health. So on that basis all us poor Bahais not married are suffering bad health...
What a shame, looks like im going to die an early death if i remain a virgin..

LordOfGoblins

zhang. Are we born with the desire to have sex outside of marraige or does sexual desire only occur to us once we are married?
The dictate of our desire demands sex outside marraige, according to your reasoning then I shouldnt have to marry to have sex. My innate desire is telling me to have sex before marraige..

Emilia

If one of the participants in this thread can point me to something authoritative that tells me "elimination of all forms of prejudice" is something I should pursue for everyone unless they are gay, I would very much appreciate it.

In addition I would appreciate someone giving me something authoritative that says it's any of my <deleted> business what people either inside or outside my faith are doing, whether that involves sexual orientation or something quite unrelated.

Last time I checked it's a matter for Institutions. At most.

a. I am not an Institution.
b. Even the Institutions have limits.

As for citing "science" let me remind you that "science" at one time had a very different view of homosexuality. One that some of you have condemned as "wrong" in this very thread.

The scientific truth is we actually know very little about gender and sexuality and are only now getting serious about investigating it.

As a scientist myself (not biology) I am personally delighted we're finally trying to discover more about such topics, but it's a poor scientist indeed who decides before the work is barely begun what the results will be.

In the meantime, it doesn't take a whole lot of reading to discover that the approach the Baha'i Faith takes to science is "let science do science."

If you're unable to find the quotes speak up I'm sure several of us could oblige you.

Pete in Panama

The House also considers a desire for plural marriages to be a handicap too, and has ruled that existing plural marriages with new enrollments may continue.Same with plural marriages.The question of whether people can control their own sexual behavior is separate from the question of what guidance we got. Let's multitask morph the topic; my take is that anyone can say "science proves" anything they want. If you've got a peer reviewed study please share it. Otherwise you might want to just say it's something you've heard somewhere and you want it to be true. (Let's hope the 'topic police' don't kick us on to a new thread.)It's not his call. He also forbade plural marriages but House has (and exercised) the authority to allow them in special cases.

Pete in Panama

That's nice, and you won't get anywhere telling the judge that you ate your neighbor because it's "biological and occurs in the animal kingdom". What we're talking about is behavior and what limits we need.--and Baha'u'lah had four wives whom he did not chuck after he wrote that. FWIW, if you got four wives and you enroll, you can keep 'em.

Fadl

Is there a biological reason for any illnesses or disorders???

Fadl

Baha'u'llah had THREE wives.

Zhang

Emelia, what kind of scientist are you? Out of pure curiosity. Please examine the many studies done by prominent scholars, you will find the data is far from inconclusive.

Not exactly...

As for what Pete was saying;

Lol?! So first we compare it to orgies, and that didn't work. So now we equate it to cannibalism, and maybe we will get a better response? Good point, when I see two homosexuals who love their children I am often drawn immediately to images of cannibalism. Maybe that's why people don't want them to be happy? They are no better than orgie-having, people-eating, regressives.

Thanks for that connection (Please forward me the email address of your science teacher).

From Lord of Goblins

No shame in that, sex is overrated, save it for someone who matters

Your reasoning is flawed, you act like homosexuality means that you are in someway damaged. This is not true, you are a functioning adult who just happens to not be attracted to the opposite sex. When did you decide you wanted to be straight? How old were you? I quote another person here:
The difference is that they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Just like you aren't attracted to men.

I (and Napkin) are trying to show you that in fact, natural selection has allowed homosexuality to remain a natural, and beneficial part of life. We see this in so many animals, the male turns out to be effeminate in order to take care of the increasingly fertile sister's children. It happens across almost all species, where as cannabalism is only a microcosm of reality. Which is perhaps one of the reasons Baha'u'llah never said anything explicitly about homosexuality in the first place.

Look, I understand that I may come off a little rude, and I sincerely apologize. But I just see an atmosphere in which each person is apparently a microbiologist, historian, and geneticist. I say leave the science to the real scientists, and if the data is contrary to what a single heterosexual Guardian may believe, we should take the word of a messenger over a man.

Rani

Dear Zhang,

'...through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.'


Perhaps I am being liberal in my reading of the quote from Shoghi Effendi you provided, but when I read the above quote, I personally interpret the word 'can' as meaning it's a possibility, rather than it being a guarantee, or a sure thing.

Just as people can get over cancer, or eliminate an allergy for example, it doesn't mean that every person with a particular 'problem' (for lack of a better word), or orientation will be able to overcome it.
At least that is how I read it.

I'm also not sure that the UHJ says that the inclination toward homosexuality is a choice. It is only the struggle to not follow through (in action) with those said desires that involves choice.

"A number of sexual problems, such as homosexuality and trans-sexuality can well have medical aspects, and in such cases recourse should certainly be had to the best medical assistance...'
(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, January 12, 1973; cited in Messages from The Universal House of Justice, 1968-1973, pp. 110-111)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 365)


So while I tend to believe that a majority of cases of people with homosexual feelings have a biological cause, I just see it as a tremendous test for any person with those struggles. If they take Shoghi Effendi's advice, some, hopefully many may overcome it..

And some, if they are trying to live a 'baha'i' way, might stay single and tussle with those feelings for much of their life.

It is a tremendous hardship, and I do not envy anyone who has those feelings as it would undoubtedly make life harder. But it is true that people have many kinds of serious struggles, and also there is a proportion of heterosexual people who never find mates for one reason or the other.

Pete in Panama

Thanks, learn something new every day; back to the point.

Baha'u'llah still did not chuck any wives after he limited Baha'i marriages to two wives. Wikipeadia uses the fact to toss in a snarky suggestion of hypocrisy and inconsistency where none exists, but the real world still lives with the fact that what's done is done. Anyone with four wives that enrolls will keep his four wives and be a Baha'i in good standing.

Likewise, there may be practicing married homosexuals who've enrolled and are also Baha'is in good standing.

Sen McGlinn

Mark Tobey was a case in point: he continued to live with his long-time partner, and as I understand it, had a good relationship with Shoghi Effendi. On the other hand, I know of one such couple, already married in one country, who lost their voting rights when they re-did the marriage for US law, in California when that window was open. I know of gay couples where one partner serves on the Assembly, and of others that are deprived of voting rights and implicitly told to divorce. It depends on individual circumstances, and particularly on the opinions of the people on the local or national Bahai Assembly.

You can read the stories of some gay Bahais at the gay/Lesbian Bahai Story Project

Sen McGlinn

The Guardian (or his secretary) thought that birth control was a danger to society :

As in the case of same-sex marriages, when reading such letters we have to bear in mind:

1) - this is a question not explicitly covered in the Writings: the House of Justice can rule on it, and change its rulings

2) - the Guardian was both interpreter, and head of the Faith. As head of the Faith he made all sorts of decisions, some of which are no longer followed as the current head of the Faith (the UHJ) has made different decisions (eg, the dictrict convention system, as against Shoghi Effendi's system of having LSA areas select delegates for the National convention).

3) - the Guardian's letters to individuals are advice for them: the recipient is not bound to obey, and they do not establish a general policy:

4) The Guardian did not usually dictate the letters written on his behalf: he steered the process and checked the results:

What this means in practice, is that the Bahai community is freed from the rigidity of following even minor precedents that has, in the past, made the religious law into an ossified system

Pete in Panama

I imagine that a Baha'i who 're-did' his plural marriage in a new jurisdiction would also cause a conflict too. The question is whether our goal is happiness or fighting with others.

Zhang

Sen, I commend you on your open mindedness.

I'm not sure if I speak for Napkin too here, but I see a lot of what the Guardian wrote (or approved) as controversial and far reaching in terms of scriptural basis. I think many people forget to realize that the Guardian is nothing special, a man like the rest of us, and we should take his words with a grain of salt.

Learn biology, learn the facts, respect humans regardless of sexual preference. Let them have the same rights as you and I. Everyone needs to ask themselves when they decided they wanted to be straight, and the obvious conclusion will be that you most certainly did not choose such a path.

I'm not speaking out against the faith, i'm speaking out against those who blindly follow what an "interpreter" said, and forget to examine the science for yourself, as Baha'ullah instructed, and to throw out anything contradictory to the scientific data, as he also instructed.

That is what I am trying to do here with this absurd notion that homosexuals are just flagrant because they choose to be.

Meanwhile a religion of peace and unity systematically represses minorities in its own ranks by denying human beings their most basic rights.

Pete in Panama

Saying nothing's-our-fault-only-our-nature, that's the real problem.

Any harm to the social fabric being done by forces of destruction glorifying homosexuality, pales in comparison to that from an increasingly popular mindless sense of irresponsibility. It's time for everyone to get a grip and accept the fact that we are held to account for our actions. Since the dawn of humanity all groups of people have set and enforced behavioral limits. Courts of law focus mostly on actions.

We're also held accountable before the law for our choice of thoughts; examples include 'hate-crimes', establishing intent, and the condition of "malice aforethought". People who are genuinely not responsible for their thoughts and actions are made wards of the state.

Zhang

Do you suggest I promote anarchy? I suggest we be entirely responsible for our actions, but I also suggest that we are in no way more responsible for homosexuality than we are being born black or white. And while limits are a good thing (see my post to Lord on the other thread) i.e. no-sex before marriage, the extent to which Baha'is have carried it is borderline persecution.

With no scriptural support, mind you.

Yeshua

In my honest opinion homophobic people are the ones in need of therapy not homosexuals



This is a Baha'i forum, however you might be interested in comparing the Roman Catholic view with that of Iconodule, who lets be clear, does not posses a mandate on what constitutes "Christian" teaching and belief....

Michael Leach writes:


Homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, is accepted in Catholicism as beyond the control of homosexual people themselves. Homosexuality is not something that we consider, as do many Christian denominations apart from ay ultra-liberal Protestants, to be "sinful" or even in need of change in the individual.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:



The commentary on this part by Fr James Martin reads:



There is nothing immoral or wrong with being homosexual. Indeed it is the natural state, subjectively, for great numbers of people around the world. It is not a choice, but rather a sexual disposition innate to them as people, and is their natural way of expressing or manifesting themselves as sexual beings. One can only presume that God willed, that is intended, these people to experience attraction to the same sex.


However the debate within Catholicism centres not around homosexuality, which is completely acceptable and indeed natural to great numbers of people, but rather the morality of same-sex intercourse.


You see, in Catholicism, we are taught that sex must be open to life.

There is a strict interpretation of this, a more flexible interpretation and a liberal one:



1) Strict view - Every sexual act must be completely open to life, because this is how God naturally intended. This view means that there is no room for sex outside of a committed, marital relationship and no room for gay sex, which means that homosexual Catholics must not be sexually active with their partners. This means no contraception, or anything apart from Natural Family Planning.


2) Moderate view - Every sexual relationship must be open to life but not every sexual act. This means that couples can use contraception and perhaps have a more open relationship, however it still does not permit gay couples to have sex with each other because no homosexual relationship can be, naturally speaking, open to life at all. This view judges sex by the ability of the couple to reproduce even if they choose not to on certain occassions.


3) Liberal view - sex is, as Catholicism teaches, both procreative and unititative. The liberal view says that both need not be necessary in the same act but rather some sexual acts can be purely unitative (ie homosexual) and this means that homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable within Catholic theology.

So our problems are not with homosexual people, as with other Christian denominations and religions, but rather with our view of when sex is appropriate.

Love between homosexual persons can be real and committed, the problem though is should they express that love through sexual intercourse?

The decree mentioned earlier took the strict/moderate view, and which in part reads:



There are gay Catholic websites such as: Queering the Church which endorse the liberal view and say that homosexual sex is fine.

On the other hand there are gay Catholic websites that endorse the strict/moderate view, and these Gay Catholics are all active and proud homosexuals but not sexually active in their relationships: http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot...oing-fine.html

He calls himself, "Gay, Catholic and doing fine" but not sexual active.

So you see there is diversity of opinion on this. There have been gay Popes and saints but none of them were sexually active gays, apart from Pope Leo X who before he became Pope had an affair with another Cardinal in 1514 but then chose to lead a life of chastity thereafter, never having sexual intercourse with men again.

Saint Aelred of Rievaulx (1110 – 1167), seems to have been homosexual, but again not sexually active. Aelred himself speaks of losing his heart to one boy and then another during his school days. Aelred writes of his school days as a time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men, and of losing his heart to one boy and then another. He was a man of strong passions, who spoke openly of the men for whom he had deeply romantic attachments. After the death of one monk whom he clearly loved with real almost romantic love, he wrote:


"...The only one who would not be astonished to see Aelred living without Simon would be someone who did not know how pleasant it was for us to spend our life on earth together; how great a joy it would have been for us to journey to heaven in each other’s company . . . .Weep, then, not because Simon has been taken up to heaven, but because Aelred has been left on earth, alone...."


He furthermore wrote of his chaste love for this man:


"...He was the refuge of my spirit, the sweet solace of my griefs, whose heart of love received me when fatigued by labors, whose counsel refreshed me when plunged in sadness and grief... What more is there, then, that I can say? Was it not a foretaste of blessedness thus to love and thus to be loved?"

- Saint Aelred, from his eulogy on the death of Simon


Throughout the middle ages, not only did the open practice of homosexuality continue, but it flourished in the monasteries of the time. Many of the priests and abbots not only left us literature celebrating their gay loves, but some of the poetry they left us was beautiful and almost erotic but not sexual. Consider this poem from Marbod, Bishop of Rennes (d. 1123 C.E.)

The Unyielding Youth
Horace composed an ode about a certain boy Whose face was so lovely he could easily have been a girl,
Whose hair fell in waves against his ivory neck,
Whose forehead was white as snow and his eyes black as pitch,
Whose soft cheeks were full of delicious sweetness
When they bloomed in the brightness of a blush of beauty,
His nose was perfect, his lips flame red, lovely his teeth--
An exterior formed in measure to match his mind.


This bishop was, of course, far from alone in his chaste, non-sexual, same-sex attractions. We have literally thousands of poems from this period, many of them from other monastics, who celebrated their love for their gay loves.

Among these monastics were St. Aelred and many others. Among these, the literature left us by St. Aelred offers the clearest and most detailed literature celebrating gay love in this period. There seems little doubt that he was gay by orientation and that he was also able to sustain chaste gay, loving relationships.

In his book, “On Spiritual Friendship”, he is clear in extolling the value of same-sex love. He does so on the basis of personal experience, and describes the impact that several of these loves have had on him, and the desolation he has felt when a lover has died.


“It is no small consolation in this life to have someone to whom you can be united in the intimate embrace of the most sacred love; in whom your spirit can rest; to whom you can pour out your soul; in whose delightful company, as in a sweet consoling song, you can take comfort in the midst of sadness; in whose most welcome, friendly bosom you can find peace in so many worldly setbacks; to whose loving heart you can open, as freely as you would to yourself, your innermost thoughts; through whose spiritual kisses – as by some medicine – you are cured of the sickness of care and worry; who weeps with you in sorrow, rejoices with you in joy, and wonders with you in doubt; whom you draw by the fetters of love into that inner room of your soul, so that though the body is absent, the spirit is there, and you can confer all alone, the two of you, in the sleep of peace away from the noise of the world, in the embrace of love, in the kiss of unity, with the Holy Spirit flowing over you; to whom you so join and unite yourself that you mix soul with soul, and two become one.”


It is important to keep clearly in mind that although there is clear reference to the “embrace of love”, and to “kisses”, Aelred is writing about spiritual, chaste, non-sexual love between two men, and that he stresses the spiritual riches it brings, “with the Holy Spirit flowing over you.” The love is intimate, yes, touchy-feely, caressing, affectionate but never do they engage in anal sex.

Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality in the Gospels, although it is mentioned in the Letters of Saint Paul and in other documents of Sacred Tradition. Jesus is one of the few religious founders, I believe, that never regarded homosexuality as important enough to specifically mention either in a condemnatory way or in approval. He was utterly silent on the issue.

Currently the Catholic Church hierarchy endorses the strict/moderate view ie homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, all forms of homophobia are prohibited however gay Catholics must try not to have sex and if they do must try and limit their sex life to a culpable level.

I subscribe to this perspective. I have nothing against civil partnerships although I cannot suport gay "marriage" since as a Catholic matrimony is a holy sacrament between man and woman which is instituted by God for the spiritual progress of the spouses, childbearing and to symbolize the marriage between Christ and his Church. The grace conferred by this sacrament cannot be extended to people of the same sex, since it is strictly heterosexual in our view.

Arcbishop Vincent Nicholas of England said in an interview:



We also appreciate that Gays can have commited relationships, and admire monogamist homosexuals. Questioned on the Church’s attitude to homosexuals, Cardinal Schonborn said in 2010:



However despite our compassion for our homosexual brothers and sisters, the Catholic Church will never follow the route of Liberal Protestant Churches who have abandoned all sense of Christian morality and simply move with the times. Truth does not move with the times. Truth is that voice perrenially crying out in the wilderness, preaching often against the current. Times change, we must adapt and develop doctrines (the development of doctrine is an important doctrine in Catholicism, no pun intended!) and we must learn from scientific advances, however we must never undermine truth either or simply meekly submit to every new social more.

I do not see people as "heterosexual" or "homosexual" based upon their attractions to the opposite or same sex. I feel that our modern society, in providing such labels, often tries to reduce the human person to sexuality, which is in line with modern day attitudes towards a so-called "sex without consequences". In fact there is no sex without consequences because sex is a holy act of self-surrender between two people. Human beings are so much more than "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals". Irrespective of their sexuality they are Images of God, imprints of his presence on earth, mirrors of his glory.

Zhang

Amazing, that the Catholic church, notorious for it's routine abuse of young innocent children (sorry, not trying to insult you) is more accepting and up-to-date with science than a religion that prides itself on unity and scientific parallelism.

Thanks Yeshua, you always know what to say

Yeshua

I'm not insulted at all brother Zhang Thanks for your post!

As an aside, (off topic) the paedophile scandal needed to be brought to light, so that the clergy can renew itself and the reforms brought in to protect children from paedophiles who have managed to slip into the ranks of the clergy so as to get access to children can be prevented from doing so in future, just as the paedophile scandal emerging in the BBC with Saville and other celebrities had to be brought to light (I read an article which wisely noted how the BBC is quick to home in on Catholic priests and policeman who were abusers but they're not so prompt with themselves). However one should not think that the minute number of priests (in global terms, not locally of course) who were convicted of child-abuse or the bishops who covered it up, are representative of the majority of the clergy who are men dedicated to their parishes and lead decent lives. The media homes in on the offenders (its secular and rabidly anti-Catholic). I mean how often do they focus upon all the great priests who are feeding the poor, sick, lame etc.? They are thousands of Mother Teresa's out there whom the media ignore.

Not a criticism of you my friend, just reflecting on the media and its depiction of these sensitive topics.

God Bless you!

Zhang

Oh yeah, the media brainwashes us. -.-

Still, an amazing comparison.

Yeshua

One point to add of course is that there does seem to be diversity of opinion within the Baha'i Faith on this issue as demonstrated by our dear brother Sen.

Fadl

Friends,

It is not truthful to say that homosexuality is not an abnormality. The fact that it occurs naturally and, at least in some or many circumstances, without the control of the individual is irrelevant to the point. Abnormality refers to that which is outside the norm, and does not necessarily contain any value judgement. For example, a person may be more with more or fewer than two arms and legs, or a person might develop to the height of half a meter or three meters. None of these people would be considered evil, and, while people might lose their heads under political correctness and try to say that this is really only normal, such things are by definition outside the norm. Now suppose that a person was born with one arm. Should that person be ridiculed or discriminated? No. Would it be unethical, if possible, to give that person an additional arm, or would it be the height of intolerance and insensitivity to suggest such a thing, since, as everyone knows, there is simply nothing wrong with a person with one arm, so naturally we should not be so presumptuous as to cure someone who is not even ill or afflicted at all.

Homosexuality is an abnormality that exists due to biological and or pyschological abnormalities, and likely a combination of both that lie along a continuum rather than a simple black or white "gay/not gay" label. I say it is an abnormality, for the simple reason that there are functional reasons for the different morphologies of male and female reproductive organs, and the reason for those differences is to reproduce the species. If it were really only an alternative lifestyle that is just as healthy and valid as a heterosexual lifestyle, the, if it were possible, it would be perfectly reasonable for each to choose this lifestyle. In fact, if I decided that I wanted to live life for myself, freed from the self-sacrifice and fetters or raising children, then I should logically choose, if it were possible, for myself to be a homosexual where I would then be able to live and love freely with never a fear of an unfortunate reproductive outcome. In fact, how wonderful if we would all choose, men and women alike, to be homosexual. This way, there would be no unwanted pregnancies or births at all, and we could banish the barbaric practices of sexual reproduction to the laboratory, where everything would be much cleaner, neater, and just better. No irresponsible and bad genetic pairings just because of our ignorant and emotional feelings of romantic love, etc.

Naturally, I don't feel homosexuals, or humans with any other sort of abnormality ought to be persecuted or discriminated against. But to say that the loving relationship between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, is just as valid as that between a man and a woman is just a farce. It is an unfortunate farce too, because there may be a way to correct this abnormality if anyone cared to look. As it is, even the suggesting of it is to be scorned as a some sort of hate and bigotry. The reality though, is that this political correctness is not the truth, and is an obstruction to truth.

There was a situation a few years back, where a deaf couple had a deaf child who had a correctible form of hearing loss. The parents were in a legal battle to block their child from having the corrective procedure to restore the child's hearing. From their view, deafness is not in any way a disorder, and deaf culture is every bit as valid and wonderful as any other culture. Now, to the extent that certain conditions at any given time may not be curable, then such an attitude is probably healthy and necessary to a full and happy life, and I applaud them for such courage. But when a cure exists, I would no longer agree, and would think it sensible and ethical to be restored to normal.

wendybird9

I believe most homosexual/LGBT thoughts/orientations begin from experiences. Yes, there are certainly known situations of very small numbers of people with unusual sex chromosomal situations or those born hermaphroditic, and then it makes sense to let science, psychology, and the individual help to decide how to proceed. For most others, I honestly believe that, with psychological and spiritual help, their orientations could become straight, with normal satisfaction and contentment. The modern push to accept all orientations as equally good to choose from encourages people to choose alternative lifestyles that they otherwise might have never even considered or that they might at least have been able to happily resist.

Sen McGlinn

It's the advice of the Guardian, as head of the Faith, to an individual, intended for their benefit. It reflects the science of the day, as it should, for the principle of the harmony of science and religion means among other things that we have to take scientific evidence into account in applying religious teachings to our lives.

Zhang

True, but what happens when people see that advice as timeless and authoritative?

Sen McGlinn

It would be nice to think that one just has to point out to them how the Guardian intended his letters to be read and applied. That he did not consider himself an authority on science, that he did not want his letters of advice to individuals to be published, that he distinguished between his own words and those of his secretaries, that he did not want to limit the scope of action of the Universal House of Justice. (see my earlier post for the sources). However generally speaking, such arguments do not change hearts and minds: the excuse "the Guardian said so" is used selectively (applied to gay marriage, not applied to birth control for example) to avoid examining underlying prejudices that have nothing to do with the Bahai teachings. What changes people's hearts is a personal encounter with a human reality that cannot be denied, as in the case of Timothy Kurek. At that point things can go two ways: a heart may change, or having adopted an all-or-nothing approach to the truth of a religion, any contrary evidence can bring the whole structure down, and the person ceases to believe. Kurek is an example of someone whose heart is changed, and who re-believes in a different way as a result.