When you read what Baha ullah says about homosexuality, it is in answer to a query from a believer and refers to a specific practice in vogue in Iran at that time. The Prophet's love laced words seem reticent to answer but then are obligated to provide this curious soul an answer. Had not this soul asked the question, Shoghi Effendi would have had nothing to further illuminate for his followers and his illumination was probably prompted by further probing questions by Baha'is on this topic.
@Passat3901 I don't care to whom Bahá'u'lláh was answering or whether he was referring to an Iranian perversion.
The point is that the official Bahá'í position on same sex relationships is that Bahá'u'lláh "condemns" them. That is what the UHJ says.
THEY say it.
If you don't like endorsing a religion that says God condemns mutually consenting adults for their private sexual choices, don't be a Bahá'í. But please, stop insulting your intelligence by pretending your scripture does not condemn.
Humankind needs an Divine Educator to learn how to live an ordered life and construct a peaceful society, No where in the Baha'i Faith does it say "hate the sin but love the sinner". It says we are all acquainted with our own perversions, we have all sinned and exhibited shameful behaviors and that God is the Forgiver of sin, the Concealer, the Compassionate etc. As one leaf to another I only wish to direct your eyes to the path that allows you to escape this circular argument with the wayward.
@Passat3901 If humankind is so bereft of discernment that it needs divine intervention to learn, then we are simply too stupid to be entrusted to decide who is speaking on behalf of any gods.
On the other hand, if we have the ability to discover truth without any god's help, then we can only rely on actual evidence and reason to decide what is true — otherwise, it will be impossible to decide between the claims of one prophet and another one who counters him.
The writings of any religion seem to be written in such manner as to hog tie anyone from being outward looking in there approach to spirituality. In one place it may say some act is a sin but in another it will tell you it is impossible for anyone to give reproach to another. There is prohibition on hate. The problem is not theTeachings, but how some Baha'i have chosen to use them to assert superiority over others. There is so much suffering out there to be remedied but man is wayward in action
@Passat3901 It is not necessary to Hate a people for them to feel alienated, shamed, and marginalized. Those feelings will always arise when you tell them that a totally harmless aspect of their identity is against nature, sinful, or shameful.
Is not God the Most Merciful the Ever Forgiving? Why is it that humankind cannot conduct itself in this manner or being merciful and forgiving in the treatment of others? For the ones we love we have a sin-covering-eye but for those whom we do not love we seem to allow our errant behavior to manifest itself! We are the leaves of one tree and the fruit of one branch. Why not let each soul answer for it's sin before God if those souls in no wise endanger the normal course of human society?
@Passat3901 If you teach people that one class of (natural, harmless and beautiful) human relationships are sinful, people will judge. No amount of "thou shall not judge" can mitigate that.
"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is psychologically irresponsible when the behaviour being identified as "sinful" is not immoral at all.
The problem isn't people "judging" one another. The problem is the Bahai Faith identifying one sexual orientation between humans as "unnatural," "shameful," and "perverse."
What also concerns me is the manner in which the Baha'i Faith derives it's policy on homosexuality. Shoghi Effendi interpreted a passage about child abuse to be a condemnation of loving relationships between mutually consenting adults. The Faith ought to be called to moral accountability on this point.
Thank you for this rational, compassionate vid. How Queer people are treated in the Baha'i community has caused me great personal dismay; I left after 20 years because I could not take it any more.
@AJatheistgod Oh cool, it's Hajir Moghaddam! I thought I recognized your ignorant, obscurantist ramblings. I see you're now posing as an atheist on YouTube. How dishonest and crazy of you. But very consistent. Bye Hajir!
It is unscientific of you to say if anything is or is not immoral. It is your burden of proof to show me that your personal understanding of morality is any greater than my own personal understanding of morality. Get a clue, are you a real atheist?
@AJatheistgod Ethics is the study of how things ought to be (ethics is about possibility). Science is the study of how things are (science is about actuality). Conclusions about what is good or bad are justified in light of values that we (the interlocutors) aim to preserve. There is nothing "unscientific" about that. Just because you are apparently ignorant of how ethical arguments are made does not make me not an atheist.
@mavaddat It is unscientific to attack the personal moral choices other individual make or choose to follow. I also do not have a right to tell you how you should construct your own ethical framework. We can, through consultation, and as a society, come up with a set of ethics we both agree to, but what ever else I choose to practice is none of your business.
@AJatheistgod I am criticizing religion's ignorant and hateful attitude toward homosexuality. Criticize ≠ Attack. Consult the dictionary.
Again, there is nothing unscientific about criticizing people's moral conclusions. Your ethical choices are my business if they affect me or the ones I care about.
You are ignorant about ethical argumentation. Follow your own advice, stop criticizing me for criticizing others. Feel free to shut up. Just don't expect me to shut up.
@mavaddat Very Good. Anyone that harasses, discriminates, abuses, or disrespects homosexuals is cursed by me. None of my ethical choices would affect anyone else unless they freely choose to partake in them themselves.
you amaze me.i think you have some brilliant things to say.things my mind is worked up with all the time.but i would like to know.what do you believe in?what is ur belief system?
@banjarameher I say beliefs should not be acquired through a "system," but instead we should proportion (adjust in proper relation) our acceptance of any proposition to the evidence or reason in support for that proposition. Moreover, we should always be willing to change or modify or abandon our beliefs when presented with contrary evidence or reason(s). Most importantly, we should be willing to say, "I don't know," in response to questions whose topic we haven't sufficiently studied.
Thanks for this wonderful, provocative & thoughtful video. I like the point-by-point response format so I can understand Kevan's statements. I'm on my own personal journey, trying to be comfortable in my own skin. Hats off to this generation for taking the cat (homosexuality) out of the box (religious taboos) so we can see the box as a stage in the evolution of human consciousness (spiritual * material) & replace fear of it with love for Baha'u'llah! Good luck to all of us.
The Baha'i Faith does not allow polygamy, Abdul Baha says that you must treat both wives equally, which is impossible. He made it impossible on purpose.
@shaztekk In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha’u'llah writes, "God hath prescribed matrimony unto you. Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two."
Abdu'l-Baha's comment on having a single wife being easier for administering justice was regarding Quranic law, not Bahai law. Abdul-Baha did not say that the precondition of justice can not be met. In fact, he says the opposite.
Google search "Bahai Rants polygamy" and you will see that the Bahai Faith allows polygamy.
@mavaddat You're basically disregarding what Abdul-Baha said :/ Sorry mate, I've had this discussion many times before, with much more knowledgeable Baha'is they have confirmed what I have said, and showed it too me.
@shaztekk Ironically, you are the one disregarding what 'Abdu'l-Bahá said. Strange!
'Abdu'l-Bahá comment about having multiple wives being difficult for justice was a commentary on the Qur'án. ON THE QUR'ÁN. Instead of believing what you already think, go find the quotation in its context.
Try Googling "Bahai Rants polygamy". This box is too small to provide the quote.
You didn't actually search this out, did you? You're so confident that you cannot be wrong, you didn't even bother to check.
@mavaddat Sorry, I made a mistake, Baha'ullah said that you could have two wives if you treated and loved then equally, then later Abdul-Baha explained the impossibility, it was a two step law, at the time of Baha'ullah it would have seemed ridiculous to say what he did, so he made it an impossibility
@mavaddat I have looked at your website, I find none of it to be true, you're doing exactly what you say I am just from an atheist point of view or what ever you believe, what is your religion (if you don't mind me asking) by the way?
@shaztekk That's not my website. It's some guy's named "Baquia."
I am pointing out a fact that you are refusing to acknowledge. How is that in any way true in reverse? I've acknowledged the points you've made and refuted them. For your part, you just blindly deny what is clearly available to everyone:
'Abdu'l-Bahá explicitly writes in Amr wa Khalq, Volume 4, p. 174 that "Concerning bigamy, this has been promulgated, and no one must abrogate it."
@shaztekk Ignore the man (meaning mavaddat). He seems to like to push peoples buttons, and fell in love with himself rather than God. He is one of those whom the Baha'i writings say "leave them to themselves."
@aaronlee75 Ah, the irony.... What could be more arrogant than presuming to psychoanalyze a total stranger (declaring he is "in love with himself") based on sparse YouTube interaction? Yet that is precisely the conceit that being a "follower of Baha" allows you to arrogate to yourself: You can pretend that you know other people's innermost personalities, because God (the magic-man in the sky who gives you unobscured access to the Truth) whispers to you in your ear. Yes, religion is truly fucked.
@mavaddat The full line was "fell in love with himself rather than God." I guess I may be presumptuious. You do, though, prefer your own opinion over any theological doctrine or teaching...correct? If I am wrong, then I do apologize. Likewise, do correct me if that's the case.
@aaronlee75 You "guess"? Being Bahai quite obviously gives you free licence to pretend you know intimate facts about people that you couldn't possibly know.
Your theological doctrine is your own opinion. You simply choose a religion that conforms to that opinion, pretend you've recognized "God's word" in what is actually your own opinion, and feign humility.
@mavaddat that's not an answer to the question I posed...Do you prefer your own opinions over any theological doctrine or teaching (open that up to include any of the Abrahamic religions, and most other traditions)? If I was wrong, then please do correct me.
@aaronlee75 I answered your question by demonstrating there is no way to prefer theological doctrines to one's own opinion, because people's opinions are either informed by what they think is theologically true, or they abandon their religious commitments that don't conform to their opinions. So one way or another, everyone's religion is just a reflection of their own opinions. Again, the only difference between us is that you pretend your opinions are infallible while mine are open to revision.
@mavaddat It seems more accurate that upon accepting a religion a person will attempt to conform their opinions to the percieved authority at the center of that religion. Often religions have doctrines that are contrary to the believers initial opinions. (this may have been what you meant by "informed...") Yes, everyone's "world view" is a reflection of their opinions/understandings. Sometimes world view and religion are used interchangebly. Yes...everyone's POV should be open to revision.
@mavaddat A world view is made up largely of workable assumptions based on data and life experience to date. As that data changes so often do one's conclusions. I incorporate religion as a major part of my world view because it hasn't yet failed. It also provides a road map for personal conduct and provides a framework to place major, and minor, world events. I will use that to help inform my opinions, but those opinions are never infallible.
@mavaddat Let me then revise the question...do you see any value in any theological doctrines? Do you limit those to only the ones that correspond to your own opinions, or do you accept that there is some value in those that you disagree with?...if only to inspire investigation, or seeing something from another POV.
@aaronlee75 No, there is no value in theological doctrines.
Theology is merely humanity's way of pretending that our conditioned, provisional conclusions can transcend the realm of uncertainty and attain unchanging, absolute "Truth."
Theology is (and has always been) our way of codifying our best guesses about how to live into unchanging dogmas.
The Bahai Faith is no different (spare me "independent investigation" marketing rhetoric).
@mavaddat So, after much noise, your answer seems to be "yes"...you do prefer your own opinions/pov to anything from any theological source. Then I stand by my original post to "shaztekk."
@aaronlee75 As do you. You also prefer your own opinion and perspective to anything from any theological source. That is what I was trying to show you.
Also, thanks for confirming the deep arrogance that religion gives you licence.
@mavaddat If either of us is truly sincere in that our opinions "are open to revision" then we need to at least have a live and let live policy and try not to attack another's POV...If we do attack them then it is difficult to see from the other person's side...and therefore have data allowing "revision".
Arrogance...we don't need religion to give us license. It is something that we should both try to put asside.
@aaronlee75 You just spewed out a bunch of empty clichés?
"Live and let live" - I am not forcing my criticisms on you. You sought out my videos. You're free to stop commenting.
"try not to attack" - I am rationally criticizing (not "attacking") what I see as offensive, untrue, and immoral precepts in the Baha'i Faith. If you aren't interested in morality or truth, please be gone.
"we don't need religion to be arrogant" - True, but religion *almost always* makes you arrogant. You are a case.
@mavaddat "Know thou that polygamy is not permitted under the law of God, for contentment with one wife hath been clearly stipulated. Taking a second wife is made dependent upon equity and justice being upheld between the two wives, under all conditions. However, observance of justice and equity towards two wives is utterly impossible. The fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute prohibition. Therefore it is not permissible for
@shaztekk That quotation was taken out of context and placed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas by Shoghi Effendi. You won't look into this, of course. It would be too radical for you, I guess.
@mavaddat Now you're denying Shoghi Effendi! Who himself said he could make mistakes, but he could not make mistakes within the Bahai faith, sorry, you're wrong
In reality, however, it's clear from looking at the Tablet those words came from that Shoghi Effendi manipulates and obscures 'Abdu'l-Bahá's original words to absolve the Bahá'í Faith of its sexist, anachronistic standard of marriage. In fact, 'Abdu'l-Bahá explicitly states that the standard of justice can be met with more than one wife. Again, all you had to do was Google.
I didn't know the Baha'i Faith discriminates against homosexuals. I know they don't allow homosexual practice but, I didn't know they discriminate against homosexuals. I know they also don't allow alcohol to be consumed by the body but, I know they don't discriminate against alcoholics. Please explain to me how they discriminate against homosexuals. I guess my brain doesn't work as well as yours.
@BASHMENT916 Yes, it isn't easy for those close to the Bahai Faith to see their discrimination.
The problem isn't "discrimination," but unfair discrimination. See, there's nothing morally or medically wrong with homosexuality. This is established in the courtroom, for example, in the recent California trial against Proposition 8, but it's also obvious to anyone willing to investigate.
So your comparison to "alcoholics" (which is not the same as people who choose to drink, notice) simply fails.
Mavaddat I fail to comprehend you reason to appose the laws of a faith that you calim discriminates. You certianly not up for a good debate from an autonomous individual wherefore your whole agenda fails. Think about that for a moment. When you are presented with medical or moral opinion you reject it. Good cos as I said below we Humanity have that ability, to reject and discriminate. But which is more important to you. Justice or Moral ethics and does it better society?
After you achieve that justice, what would this world be like? who in our history would we as a society emulate? Is it Sodom a Gomorah again?
How much more history would you need as examples of indecency and abnormal societies? Do you want society to prosper or are you going to keep standing its way? You lack discernment and fail on spirituality. I pitty you and your kind. If you going top nit pick a faith then start with your value and faith. I'm done here
@DivineInterllect Sodom and Gomorah might have been wonderful places if the genocidal God of the Bible hadn't wiped them off the map. Actually, San Francisco, Lisbon, or Vancouver are good examples of cities that are open to people of different sexualities.
@mavaddat "genocidal God" Its amazing what extent you would name call a God just so your agenda achieves success. Many civilisations were wiped out for many good reasons. Take Egypt for one, they enslaved masses by force. Are you still going to claim God as genocidal?
"Actually, San Francisco, Lisbon, or Vancouver are good examples of cities that are open to people of different sexualities." You clearly boastful here. Just your mere condoning this activity says a lot about your morality.
@DivineInterllect Why do you equate gay couples instantly with immorality? Why do you believe that a man and woman in "holy" matrimony are automatically moral and good for society? I've known a number of pitiful, bitter relationships called Bahai marriage. Yet these people are given a high status in society with rights and spiritual acceptance. Yet two loving same sex adults who are doing the exact same thing are in your bigoted opinion are examples of debauchery. You are prejudiced thats all!
@PeyBar "Why do you equate gay couples instantly with immorality?" Any couple including prisoners, pedophiles & bisexuals involved with anal sex/oral sex/indecent sex acts could be considered immoral. Not just gays. Its a health risk.
" I've known a number of pitiful, bitter relationships called Bahai marriage." I hear you and yes you raise a valid point and in other religions too. Therefore they should not be given such status. Does that still make me a bigot? You missing my point it seems
I realise its a sensitive subject and really find it difficult to address sensitively. Its always going to seem I'm prejudice but you wrong. I have no hatred towards Gay people except I'm offering perspectives regarding health etc. Read my comments here and on other. Well I'm not homophobic & If I had a child that were Gay I'd love him/her equally & would probably do my best to understand them. I don't have religion so I don't care what they say, its just my view so try to savvy it
cont... Because I raise sexual acts then it becomes an issue in discussion...Why?
I got blocked on the other forum albeit offering medical research and perspectives. Why is that so hard for Gay people to discuss? Then I'm told this was not the topic. Then I'm called a Bigot. Is that not name calling and is it not a contradication? Are we not allowed to produce fact? likewise gay people argue whats natural and normal presenting fact. I don't dispute except offer another set of facts.
@DivineInterllect Then you must be ok with two lesbians using safe sex toys in each other's vaginas? It's complety safe and healthy. And actually a penis in a vagina can be very unhealthy for a woman if not done correctly. A woman can be hurt as well in your "moral" way of having sex. I'm sorry, but you really are a bigot. You haven''t given any science, any proof. All you give us is your opinion of what is moral and immoral based on your prejudices. Not much to discuss with you then is there?
@DivineInterllect Snipits of your comments are enought to show you are a bigot. Again, only your bigoted opinion no proof. And btw, it cracks me up that you consider "bigot" name calling against you- when that is what you portray. Yet somehow we are not supposed to find your constant association of homosexual loving relationships with immorality, indecency etc. as name calling. Yeah, you don't hate gays, but you can still be a bigot. You are a homophobe.
@PeyBar Fine call me what you like but you fail on something. Youy don't want medical facts hey. Is it cos you will learn TRUTH, something you run from?
@DivineInterllect What medical facts? Have you looked at the medical facts regarding vaginal sex? A large penis can hurt a woman with a small vaginal in your "natural/moral" way of having sex. You seem to ignore that. And again if your problem is with the spread of diseases and physicall being hurt- then really the best form of sex is masturbation or lesbian sex. These spread the least diseases and physicall hurt the individual the least. Why are you not a proponent of only those forms?
@DivineInterllect HOneslty, if you would just come out and say "I believe the safest sex is masturbation and NO ONE should have sex" I could at least respect you more. BUt you don't- you target gay people wiht your pseudo science. THAT says a lot about you. Good luck trying to convice us otherwise.
Why don't you view my channel and those that I support before you ignorantly accuse me of being a troll.
Its clear you just pissed off and you the one looking for amicable debate...sorry pal you have psychological issues. Maybe when you stop being defensive and listen to peoples opinions and research empirical data involving risks of being gay then you'd savvy what we on. Being gay is a risk to self and society, period
@DivineInterllect You didn't actually acknowledge a single point I made and you're telling *me* to stop being defensive? You are clearly projecting your own psychological issues onto other people. You just write to disagree without coherent argument. So by every sign, you are a troll. Be gone.
@mavaddat What have you claimed thats worth being acknowledged?
I can say the same to you pal. Nevertheless it is not my intention to sound as if I'm hateful...no no no.
So Peace in Wisdom my friend and may all your endeavours be acknowledge in the way its intended. I do see your point from that start however we both should admit we went off track from your initial awareness you aim to create.
Are animals and human beings intellectual equals? No!
In short, animals are not the species aiming to reach social advancement. Would it be safe to categorise them as lower than humans? A small difference that separates us and them is ABILITY.
In the animal kingdom it is found that some eat their offspring, “Infanticide”. Others eat their own faeces. Most, if not all, do not care for their elders. Humankind ruled out cannibalism, don’t eat their offspring or their faeces.
Regarding sexual habits, Monkeys masturbate in front of the whole troop. Ask yourself, should we imitate these actions? Certainly not!
We must learn to realise that animals can have sex with whoever they choose without considering humanity’s ethical principles. Therefore Homosexuality in animals should not assert the ‘naturalness’ in humans.
The very foundation of the human civilization is the ability to practise carnal restraint. Our entire social consciousness is based on laws/guides that strictly curtail primal instinct. While animals act without discrimination human beings discriminate for invaluable principle. Many adopted taboos achieved sexual boundaries and still aims to govern those contradicting civility.
Our intellectual advancement rests upon our ABILITY to consciously reject animalistic behaviour. Animals do not evolve through ability, humans do. This very ABILITY is instrumental in our progress on the evolutionary scale. Wherefore it remains nonsensical to equate animal behavior to morality or endeavour to justify perversion hoping to accomplish endorsement from civilised societies.
This agenda hoping to penetrate these established codes of decency, by attempting to normalise that which is aberrant in humankind, expresses ignorance. By continuing justification this way is reason enough to reinstate homosexuality as a mental disorder. Unless a third gender (androgynous) is accepted and acknowledged by society then only can we not discriminate against what is and is not normal.
I think the focus here being that Bahai's discriminate against Homosexuality is bias. All religions do so and they came way before Bahais. Besides they offer prayer as a solution so how can that be termed as discrimination to begin with. Firstly we must acknowledge that Homosexuals created much of their own discrimination by psychologically assuming and generalising that other communities profess hatred, failing to acknowledge those whom want to help this aberration.
Many religious communities interpret their scripture as embracing homosexuality. For example, Presbyterian and Anglican churches, Reform Judaism, American Anglican Church, Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalism, the United Church of Christ, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all of the ancient Greek religions do not condemn gays. Even if they did, we'd have to reject all religions, since a God who condemned people for their consensual sexual decisions would be a God unworthy of worship.
@mavaddat I'm afraid their interpretation is incorrect. Original Christianity did not allow this. Sects of Christianity came way after and chose a suited paradigm.
As far as I know the ancient greeks had a third gender, androgynous. This obviously was misunderstood (today as homosexual). It is purported in very ancient scripts that all mankind at the very begining were all androgynous and then later evolved to male and female genders.
@DivineInterllect Yes, I understand that *you* think that their interpretation is incorrect. However, that doesn't matter, because there is no objective reason to prefer your interpretation above theirs. You think they "chose a suited paradigm," while they think you failed to separate God's truth from man's ignorant prejudice. As far as I can see, they are correct!
You're wrong about Greeks. They didn't have a third gender. Except in Sparta, gay acts were considered and even necessary...
@mavaddat I'm not even going to further a discussion with someone who is unaware of a third gender in early greeks. Do you even know it exists today?
All mankind was originally that gender. Go do some research.
Also note that those "sects" of christianity you mentioned was created to suite. Do more research on that too. Just like every other religion did...all to suite their needs.
As for "God's truth", no such thing exists except within ignorant societies. You should read more
@DivineInterllect Look who has exposed himself as the condescending and patronizing one...
In fact, you are confusing one Greek creation myth of an original androgynous gender (as described by Aristophanes in Plato's "Symposium") with the general acceptance of homosexual activity between men. I have studied Greek history and literature. You are the one who needs educating.
I'm glad you admit that the Baha'i Faith is a creation of humans to suite their needs. I completely agree.
@mavaddat My apology friend for feeling defensive. Lets chat. I know this is a sensitive subject and would like to learn more on this. First let me learn understand you, if you don't mind. I'd like to know:
What would you hope to achieve in your expression? What are those challenges you faced with?
@DivineInterllect With respect to the Bahá'í position on homosexuality, I have only two goals: First, that Bahá'ís cease to spread false, scientifically debunked claims about homosexuality being "curable" or changeable. Second, that Bahá'ís cease to regard homosexuality as condemned by God or morally problematic.
The challenges I face are that Bahá'ís are primarily not interested in morality or science. They are committed to dogmatically adhering to their doctrines, no matter what.
@mavaddat I understand and respect your challenges. Please enlighten me, perhaps a link where Bahai's claim this or present themselves dogmatically to help me gain perspective.
Let me clear first that I am not Bahai nor any religion but not atheist either. Thought I'd share that so I do not appear bias in any way. However I would respect your permission to an open amicable discussion. Lets start by sharing scientific views then we could go onto morality. What are your views?
@DivineInterllect Studies show sexual orientation cannot be changed by therapy or choice. They show one can change one's outward sexual behaviour, not one's inner attractions. Every accredited medical and psychological institution (including the American Medical Association, Am. Psychiatric Assoc., Am. Psychological Association, Am. Psychoanalytic Assoc, Am. Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers) agrees homosexuality is not changeable by therapy or choice.
@mavaddat "They show one can change one's outward sexual behaviour" Agree
"not one's inner attractions" What are those inner attractions, if you could shed some light?
"Every accredited medical and psychological institution..." This is based on psychological aspects as I understand it wherefore would it make a difference if physical aspects are addressed by medical study?
Also for the readers sake, lets define Homosexuality.
@DivineInterllect "Inner attractions" are those feeling of sexual excitement or romantic admiration that one feels for those to whom one feels drawn.
I'm not sure I understand your attempted distinction between "psychological aspects" and "physical aspects." Do you mean "physiological"? But a person's psychological preferences will invariably influence their physiological responses, right?
Homosexuality is a tendency to feel sexual or romantic attraction for the same sex.
@mavaddat "Homosexuality is a tendency to feel sexual or romantic attraction for the same sex." So as I understand, its a feeling based on physical attraction...No?
"I'm not sure I understand your attempted distinction" The distinction is based on if Medical professionals present study claiming "Harmful" effects would that make any difference from your perspective. By harmful I refer to physical & biological and what is conducive to the body.
@DivineInterllect I'm not sure how your "feeling based on physical attraction" adds anything important. How is asking this question helping you understand the definition of homosexuality better?
If you're referring to specific sex acts being potentially unhealthy, then I agree that medicine has something to say about that. But it's a totally different question whether a sexual orientation is healthy. There are unsafe heterosexual activities too. That doesn't make being straight wrong.
@mavaddat "How is asking this question helping you understand the definition of homosexuality better?" It would help me understand more.
"That doesn't make being straight wrong." You have a point but is that reason enough to justify? We can also debate which holds greater risks but thats not my intention here.
How does the potential health risk impact you personally?
@DivineInterllect Sorry, your question about "physical attraction" is not meaningful so I cannot answer it. I have sufficiently elucidated the concept. I think you want to believe homosexual attraction is somehow shallow or lustful, which is a common bigoted, homophobic prejudice. I gather this is what you're driving at and I refuse to entertain it.
Remember we're talking science and nature. The health risks are for each individual to assess on their own and decide what precautions to take.
@mavaddat It so typical that when I approach this subject I am accused of homophobic prejudice and that I'm a common bigot etc. As I said on many forums regarding this: Homosexuals are sensitive when they are confronted even decently confronted...Why? My point on physical attraction is based on your definition of homosexual. Read it again. You claim we talking science and nature but find it necessary to justify your claim with a wrong found in hetrosexual. Why?
I don't see how Homosexuals are going to achieve societal respect if this is the way a decent debate is going to continue. Either you want to consult the matter and put to rest all dogma or you wish to continue in private with all those ongoing challenges. Please understand their are genuine people (myself) who would like more understanding on this. If we are pushed away then our misunderstand would always result in discrimination that may seem unfair to you alone.
@DivineInterllect You seem to assume that I am gay and then want to excuse yourself from being moral or educated since if I am "rude" to you that therefore you aren't responsible for being ignorant and prejudiced.
I don't really care about people who aren't interested in being good for its own sake (not because it's convenient or polite). You can go on your way for all I care. I'm not here to convert you.
@DivineInterllect Do you think it might because you are indeed homophobic or bigoted? Why seek an alternative explanation?
Don't confuse politeness with being unprejudiced. Many White supremacists will tell others quite politely that they deserve to be eliminated. It's not rude or "name calling" to identify bigotry as bigotry.
I was emphasizing the difference between sex acts and sexual orientation, which you seemed to have confused.
@mavaddat I really don't care if you gay or not. Furthermore your defensive actions could assume you are.
Seriously you have not enlightened my search in any way and learned that you plan to expose bahai's for their dogma but you certainly going about it the wrong way. Valueable information can kill dogma...I should not have to tell you that.
I gather you want to end this discussion or you feel its okay to name call me while you assume I do so to homosexuals. You wrong AGAIN
@DivineInterllect I think it's fairly obvious you're not interested in "enlightenment" or knowledge. Wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, you wouldn't be having discussions on YouTube instead of actually reading scientific studies.
@mavaddat Well let me prove you wrong once again. Read and learn the harmful effects and perhaps you'll understand my concern to discourage it. Its not even a religious view. You speak of science as is you have all the emperical study at your disposal. Wrong my firend
Anal intercourse is potentially physically harmful. It can cause anal fissures (cracks), thereby allowing the quick transfer of blood born diseases such as hepatitis and HIV. There are also other consequences of fissures.
I believe that there has been some research that suggests that the rectal wall does not provide much of a barrier to the AIDS virus, and that the recipient of anal intercourse is quite vulnerable to contracting the disease if the penetrator has the disease and ejaculates.
Less widely known is the fact that men who engage in receptive anal intercourse have a higher rate of anal cancer than the general population. This may be associated with the fact that men who have sex with men also have a greater incidence of anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection.
Feces contain bacteria, which can cause a urinary tract infection (urethritis), in men who do not wear condoms.
Diplomate American Osteopathic Board of Proctology
Question:
Is having anal sex bad for your health in any way?
Awnser:
This is a complicated question to answer as there are many people for whom anal intercourse is a regular and enjoyed sexual activity. But it is medically risky behavior nevertheless, even if condoms are used as a barrier for STDs.
@mavaddat With regards to the definition of Homosexuality, "sexual excitement or romantic admiration" I am compelled to ask what makes an attraction difficult towards women? are there any at all? I know its a general question but from your perspective...
@DivineInterllect I assume you're asking why gay men are not attracted to women ("find it difficult")? This is a fairly nonsensical question, wouldn't you agree? What makes it difficult to enjoy eating dirt? It's just your preference not to eat dirt, that's all. It's no different for why straight or gay men and women aren't attracted to certain sexes. It's just their psychological, biological orientation.
Of course, sexual orientation is not so black and white. Many people are in between...
@mavaddat I really don't think its nosensical. The analogy of dirt implies one sexual preference as cleaner than the other wherefore I would not go that far to read too much into it.
Maybe asking being attracted to women, instead should have asked what is it about the same sex one is attracted to?
@DivineInterllect I want to be clear that some Bahá'ís reject what their scripture says about homosexuality, and they cannot be called dogmatic. It is the Bahá'í scripture itself that requires dogmatism, not individual Bahá'ís themselves. To see some examples, go to the website mavaddat.homestead{dot}com/files/bahaidogmatism{dot}html.
My scientific views are that
1) homosexuality is natural, biologically determined and
2) that homosexuality cannot be reverse or changed by therapy or choice.
@mavaddat "I want to be clear that some Bahá'ís reject what their scripture says about homosexuality" What are their scripture saying? and why is it thought of as Dogmatic? Lets clear this for readers as well. Alternatively I will read thge link.
" homosexuality is natural" My definition on nature:
Nature is the agency which orchestrates processes of all creation translating its purpose through matter.
Natural would then mean that when it exists in nature its natural.
Can we equate that which occurs in the animal kingdom becomes natural for human beings? The reason I ask is that Homosexuality is found in animals. Apparently in about 1500 species. My view is that its observed in captivity although research shows it occurs in the wild. My opinion is that the full life of animals are not observed therefore does not make this credible. In reality, animals on our planet are in captivity. National parks, zoos etc. Is man an animal equal?
As spiritual beings we translate nature's intent by observing design & physicality. When we observe water we learn its myriad intents and the same goes for the plant kingdom. As for animals we observe behaviour and by assimilation we learn that animals fall in a lower catergory than mankind. Besides the physical design we are different by intellect. We evolve differently and by different time frames. We have something animals do not have...ABILITY
@DivineInterllect Sorry, but you are mistaken. There is no physical or mental that capacity that humans possess that other animals don't also have to some lesser or greater degree. We have greater intellect, but this is only because of greater memory and pattern recognition (that even dogs possess). There's nothing especially unique about humans any more than any other animal is uniquely adapted to its environment.
@mavaddat "Every animal has ability." Okay lets look at this another way. Dopes animals have ability to socialy advance, ability to discriminate, ability to reject?
These are key unique elements that make us humans different and is instrumental in the evolutionary scale.
Our entire social consciousness is based on laws/guides that strictly curtail primal instinct. While animals act without discrimination human beings discriminate for invaluable principle.
@DivineInterllect Yes, animals can socially advance, discriminate and reject. You really aren't familiar with social norms and rules of conduct within groups of dogs, crows, chimpanzees, racoons, or other social animals are you?
You are totally wrong that animals are bound by instinct while humans are not. In fact, humans and other apes are equally bound by instinct and choice. With all due respect, you seem to be totally unfamiliar with very basic cross-species science...
@DivineInterllect Your description of humans as virtually free from instinct while non-human animals are bound by it belies your claim to being informed. This is a thoroughly debunked classical, pre-scientific dogma (see Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works" for example).
Every social animals has mechanisms (such as shunning) for enforcing rules of conduct including cooperation, sharing, trading information, food, sex, shelter, etc. These form the building blocks of morality in human beings.
@DivineInterllect You are quite confused, aren't you? You make a false claim about how humans are different from non-human animals and I demonstrate how your claim is false, and then you turn around and ask, "why are you justifying homosexuality this way? Why?" Do you have a crippled short term memory? You don't know why I demonstrated that animals can socially advance? YOU RAISED THE TOPIC, NOT ME... geez.
@DivineInterllect Because he believes in justice. Something you don't give a crap about. When you see two men raising kids, all you see is immorality and anal fissure don't you Divinereflect? It's sad how your homophobia shines through. Not really worth discussin anything with you. And oh btw, you don't have to hate gays to be a homophobe. There are a lot of people who say "why i'm not racist, I have black friends!". They can still be racist. As you can be a bigot as well.
@PeyBar Racism has nothing to do with homosexuality. Clearly your ignorant analogy says a lot about you. Why don't we debate FACT? why do you nit pick on other issues and not prepared to argue FACT? are you afraid of TRUTH?. Do you think calling me a bigot changes anything?
Let me reitterate that mankinds ability to discriminate for invaluable princple is most necessary for social evolution.
I have not only associate homosexuals with anal sex, I mentioned all those involved in it.
@DivineInterllect And yet again you still don't get it. Every time you assoiate loving gay couples with a sex act and not do the EXACT same thing with a married straight couple- then there is no hope for you. When you actually give us facts to work on- we'll engage you. Otherwise, I think Madavatt was right. Time to just ignore you.
@PeyBar I do get it and you don't. My associating sex acts can hardly be compared to married couples. Lets see, whats the difference...Oh! off-course the physical body's design. Gee you need'nt be a rocket scientist I guess. You want facts from a medical professionals regarding anal sex. Thats what you mean by facts isn't it? link to proctology us analsex php
So engage me if you have the knowledge. or ignore it as your ignorance dictates
@DivineInterllect Vaginismus- look it up. Vaginismus is vaginal tightness causing discomfort, burning, pain, penetration problems, or complete inability to have intercourse. It happens in normal intercourse to a small percentage of women. So your safe, moreal, God-sanctioned for of having sex by married couples can in fact cause great pain to some women. So please re-evaluate your stance on gay sex being bad and married straight sex being automatically good. Otherwise, yeah you are a bigot/
@DivineInterllect Yes, whatever tendencies are common to animals are therefore natural. This doesn't make them all morally acceptable, but then I didn't confuse "natural" with "good." The Bahai Faith does.
The proliferation of homosexual behaviour in animals (especially the higher primates) shows that there is an evolutionary advantage to a proportion of any species population having certain homosexual tendencies. This shows that homosexuality is not "against nature" as the Bahá'í Faith claims.
@mavaddat "This shows that homosexuality is not "against nature" as the Bahá'í Faith claims." fair enough and yes the term "against nature" is not relevant since its found in nature.
"The proliferation of homosexual behaviour in animals (especially the higher primates) shows that there is an evolutionary advantage to a proportion of any species population having certain homosexual tendencies." How is this an advantage? also I think we overlooking a pertinent issue "Captivity"
@DivineInterllect You're wrong that these homosexual activities were observed mostly among animals in captivity. See Jane Goodall's work on chimpanzees, for example.
There are many ways that homosexual behaviour can be evolutionarily advantageous. Among social animals, it has a clear advantage of creating social bonds between animals of the same sex that is conducive to group survival and further reproduction (remember that many animals with homosexual tendencies will also reproduce).
@DivineInterllect For what the Bahá'í Faith says on homosexuality, please read my journal entry here: mavaddat{dot}livejournal{dot}com/21160{dot}html
When you ask "why is it thought of as Dogmatic?" do you mean why do Bahá'ís think it's dogmatic? But they don't. They think they are reasonable folks who are justified in blindly accepting what their religion says.
You will find in my link that the Bahá'í scripture says that homosexuality is a "shameful sexual aberration" that is "against nature"
I also have to add that I too find religious people very readily accept without investigating and therefore results in blind discrimination. So my view is that we all should consult clemently and not just remark by hear say. "shameful sexual aberration" that is "against nature"
I will look into this, however I have to admit that through my limited search, I to considered it an aberration in nature. My reasons are different if you'll allow explainat
@mavaddat However I hear you clearly with reagrds to God unworthy of worship. Good point.
It also depends how ones sees/understands God. My view of God is very different and rather rely on mankinds individual & collective responsibilty. We set our domains and rules
@DivineInterllect You are right, however, that many of the people who oppose gay marriage are merely condescending, paternalistic, and patronizing... not hateful. Thank you for making this distinction!
@mavaddat I guess its difficult for any not to sound condescending or patronising. Its a sign that humanity has not grown enough. While humanity chooses to discriminate ignorantly they must excercise discernment for their actions. I sincerely believe that all societal issues must be consulted with understanding and love and remain sensitive to the pain of those misunderstood. Afterall this world, (our experience) is a consultative process. No one is better than any.
Ummmmm how sure of this site one n two I know for a fact it's not permitted.....in the Bahai faith it's a accumulation of the privious religion inns way n the prophet Mohammed didn't permit that so why wud the next step up permit that... It doesn't so I think u should do moe research buddy....
@rebrat90 I know you don't think so! That is because you don't know very much about Islam or the Bahá'í Faith. But the dangerous thing is, you *think* you know something, so you tell people who disagree with you to go research, when in fact, it's you who is missing the facts.
Ironic, yes?
Muhammad permitted polygamy and so did Bahá'u'lláh. Why are you arguing with me instead of looking at the link I provided in the video description? It proves what I'm saying.
@rebrat90 I have provided a link to the relevant source in the video description. Don't worry. Most Bahá'ís aren't really aware of what their own religion teaches. You are not alone.
I suggest again you view this video to make your... mind... about the sanity of the psychiatric institutions promoting homosexuality as a normal way of life...
We are all born with certain predispositions and tendencies. Some people get angry easily and have to control their behavior; others are easily jealous and have to control it. Another thing that needs control is sex. If a man is attracted to another man, that doesn't make him bad, just that that's his test in life. We all have tests. To grow spiritually, we need to pass the tests. And chastity involves abstaining from sex/lechery in all cases except between a man and his wife.
You are, of course, correct that some tendencies must be controlled or resisted altogether. However, some tendencies are also beautiful and worthy of embrace in the right context.
The Bahá'í Faith says that is there is no context in which homosexual tendencies are acceptable to embrace. Since there is nothing any more wrong with homosexual tendencies than with heterosexual tendencies, this is an immoral teaching.
Thanks for your reply. You are correct re there being no context where homosexual tendencies are acceptable -- just as there are no contexts where sexual tendencies toward children and animals are appropriate. But it isn't "immoral" to ban those things; in fact, by definition they are immoral.
In terms of what is moral, we need to turn to the Source of infallible Knowledge and Wisdom for guidance (God). Without it, each person has his own opinion on what is moral.
On the contrary, there is no comparison between homosexual relationships and a child and an animal having sex.
Gay people fall in love, they form committed, consenting relationships, they're mutually attracted to each other and bring each other joy.
That you would think to compare this to a child having sex with an animal is a sign of the perversity that the Baha'i Faith instills in its followers. That is why the Faith's position on gay relations is deeply immoral. You should truly be ashamed.
Mutual love isn't necessarily a valid justification for having a relationship. E.g., men can fall in love with multiple women... but should they marry all the women they love? Or should they just pick one? If they should pick just one, then that means a relationship isn't necessarily valid if there is mutual love. Therefore, saying "gay people fall in love" doesn't necessarily justify homosexual relationships.
Actually, there is nothing wrong with a man falling in love with multiple women if the women are in love with him (and they are alright with him being in a relationship with all of them). In fact, many people are fine with this kind of arrangement. It's called "polyamory".
I can see you haven't thought much about this, since you're simply appealing to your parallel sexual prejudices. If you try to think for yourself, you will see that there is no reason to oppose gay relationships.
You're simply asserting your opinions, then claiming people who don't accept them are prejudiced (which is itself intolerant). There are homosexual advocates who would disagree with you about polyamory or polygamy, so I hope you see the need to turn to God for what is moral -- not human beings. God, via His Word, tells us that homosexual relationships are immoral and harm the soul. It is not a virtue to give in to any impulses or desires we have; they need to be controlled.
I'm not asserting, I'm arguing. I'm providing reasons -- of which you are apparently incapable.
It is not God that tells us, but the religion we attribute to God. You choose to view God as a petty, sexually perverse dictator. That I do not accept this view doesn't mean I'm disobeying God. It means I refuse to insult God the way you do.
You haven't shown reasons why gay relations are wrong. Condemning a perfectly fine act is immoral. Thus, the Bahai condemning of gay relations is immoral.
Right and wrong is something religion tells us, not what our fallible minds think or what MTV says. We are shaped by society, and today's society overemphasizes sex and is accepting of many forms of sexual laxity and aberrant sexual behavior. When man stops worshipping God, he begins to worship his lusts and desires. That's slavery -- slavery to our animal passions.
"That which beseemeth man is submission unto such restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance" (Bahá'u'lláh).
We're talking about moderated gay sex, not worshipping lusts.
Again, you choose to view God as a sexually perverse dictator. So you join a religion that confirms your view. Others join religions that celebrate all human love (gay too). But you both join religions that reflect your moral sense. Thus, you can't get the moral sense from religion, since it comes before.
Human beings create religions to codify their moral intuitions. So too the Bahai Faith is a purely human (man-made) invention.
People who try to turn others away from God and spread hatred against His Religion are perhaps "perverse." Any "religion" which picks & chooses which laws to follow is not a religion. If you study religion, you'll find homosexual relationships condemned in the Abrahamic faiths. You're not providing any proof that homosexuality is legitimate; you're just appealing to pathos by using words like "celebrate all human love" or other warm-fuzzy terms for homosexuality.
I have been providing proof that homosexuality is legitimate, and you are perpetually ignoring it:
Gay relationships (that include gay sex) are not a cause of harm to anyone (not any more than straight relationships). This fact is affirmed by every single accredited medical and psychological institution in the United States.
Gay relations are a cause of joy and happiness.
It is immoral to condemn what is both harmless and a cause of joy. Thus, the Bahai condemning of homosexuality is immoral.
Warm and fuzzy? How about REAL families who are raising wonderful children- better than many Bahai I have met. These are real lives and real people who are being discriminated against. Your version of the Bahai Faith is fundamentalist as are evangelica Christians or the Mullahs in Iran- no different. So if that is the world order you want to create, then be ready for A LOT of people to fight you and yes help turn people away from discrimination. Fortunately, not all Bahais think like you.
Why then is polygamy allowed in the Bahai Faith? If a man has already married a number of women, then he can become a Bahai and is not asked to divorce his wifes. You would think the Faith would ask the man to choose one and maybe help support the others or allow them to find another husband. But it doesn't- it allows polygamy. Same way, a gay couple (legally married or civil union) decides to become Bahais- then the community should accept them. Otherwise- yep, it is discrimination.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Mavaddat -->
The religion is just as bad as Islam, and if it ever acquired any power, I'm confident it would be just as ugly, if not worse.
--
For you to Say that my dear friend, is very saddening. At the end of the day there will always be people with some sort of underlying issue, and honestly you have obviously been hurt by an individual. Do you honestly think that if AbdulBaha met a homosexual he would not talk to him? Nor assist him in anything? And treat him badly?
However, it is a common strategy of religious people to distract a conversation about the merits of their faith by suggesting that anyone critical is simply "angry" or "hurt". This strategy underscores the deep irrationality of religion.
Here, e.g., instead of dealing with reasons, you get personal.
Treating gays pitifully is not the same as treating them well (much less as equals). That you don't see this is the real tragedy.
This has been flagged as spam show
When you read what Baha ullah says about homosexuality, it is in answer to a query from a believer and refers to a specific practice in vogue in Iran at that time. The Prophet's love laced words seem reticent to answer but then are obligated to provide this curious soul an answer. Had not this soul asked the question, Shoghi Effendi would have had nothing to further illuminate for his followers and his illumination was probably prompted by further probing questions by Baha'is on this topic.
Passat3901 2 months ago
@Passat3901 I don't care to whom Bahá'u'lláh was answering or whether he was referring to an Iranian perversion.
The point is that the official Bahá'í position on same sex relationships is that Bahá'u'lláh "condemns" them. That is what the UHJ says.
THEY say it.
If you don't like endorsing a religion that says God condemns mutually consenting adults for their private sexual choices, don't be a Bahá'í. But please, stop insulting your intelligence by pretending your scripture does not condemn.
mavaddat 2 months ago
Humankind needs an Divine Educator to learn how to live an ordered life and construct a peaceful society, No where in the Baha'i Faith does it say "hate the sin but love the sinner". It says we are all acquainted with our own perversions, we have all sinned and exhibited shameful behaviors and that God is the Forgiver of sin, the Concealer, the Compassionate etc. As one leaf to another I only wish to direct your eyes to the path that allows you to escape this circular argument with the wayward.
Passat3901 2 months ago
@Passat3901 If humankind is so bereft of discernment that it needs divine intervention to learn, then we are simply too stupid to be entrusted to decide who is speaking on behalf of any gods.
On the other hand, if we have the ability to discover truth without any god's help, then we can only rely on actual evidence and reason to decide what is true — otherwise, it will be impossible to decide between the claims of one prophet and another one who counters him.
In sum, god is always unnecessary.
mavaddat 2 months ago
The writings of any religion seem to be written in such manner as to hog tie anyone from being outward looking in there approach to spirituality. In one place it may say some act is a sin but in another it will tell you it is impossible for anyone to give reproach to another. There is prohibition on hate. The problem is not theTeachings, but how some Baha'i have chosen to use them to assert superiority over others. There is so much suffering out there to be remedied but man is wayward in action
Passat3901 2 months ago
@Passat3901 It is not necessary to Hate a people for them to feel alienated, shamed, and marginalized. Those feelings will always arise when you tell them that a totally harmless aspect of their identity is against nature, sinful, or shameful.
That is what the Bahai Faith does.
mavaddat 2 months ago
Is not God the Most Merciful the Ever Forgiving? Why is it that humankind cannot conduct itself in this manner or being merciful and forgiving in the treatment of others? For the ones we love we have a sin-covering-eye but for those whom we do not love we seem to allow our errant behavior to manifest itself! We are the leaves of one tree and the fruit of one branch. Why not let each soul answer for it's sin before God if those souls in no wise endanger the normal course of human society?
Passat3901 2 months ago
@Passat3901 If you teach people that one class of (natural, harmless and beautiful) human relationships are sinful, people will judge. No amount of "thou shall not judge" can mitigate that.
"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is psychologically irresponsible when the behaviour being identified as "sinful" is not immoral at all.
The problem isn't people "judging" one another. The problem is the Bahai Faith identifying one sexual orientation between humans as "unnatural," "shameful," and "perverse."
mavaddat 2 months ago
What also concerns me is the manner in which the Baha'i Faith derives it's policy on homosexuality. Shoghi Effendi interpreted a passage about child abuse to be a condemnation of loving relationships between mutually consenting adults. The Faith ought to be called to moral accountability on this point.
Wheat4476Land 3 months ago
@Wheat4476Land You are absolutely right, of course.
mavaddat 3 months ago
Thank you for this rational, compassionate vid. How Queer people are treated in the Baha'i community has caused me great personal dismay; I left after 20 years because I could not take it any more.
GreenRad2012 4 months ago
@GreenRad2012 Thank you for your support! Much love.
mavaddat 4 months ago
Baha'u'llah has appeared. God doesn't exist! May the Baha be upon thee
AJatheistgod 7 months ago
@AJatheistgod Oh cool, it's Hajir Moghaddam! I thought I recognized your ignorant, obscurantist ramblings. I see you're now posing as an atheist on YouTube. How dishonest and crazy of you. But very consistent. Bye Hajir!
mavaddat 7 months ago
It is unscientific of you to say if anything is or is not immoral. It is your burden of proof to show me that your personal understanding of morality is any greater than my own personal understanding of morality. Get a clue, are you a real atheist?
AJatheistgod 7 months ago
@AJatheistgod Ethics is the study of how things ought to be (ethics is about possibility). Science is the study of how things are (science is about actuality). Conclusions about what is good or bad are justified in light of values that we (the interlocutors) aim to preserve. There is nothing "unscientific" about that. Just because you are apparently ignorant of how ethical arguments are made does not make me not an atheist.
mavaddat 7 months ago
@mavaddat It is unscientific to attack the personal moral choices other individual make or choose to follow. I also do not have a right to tell you how you should construct your own ethical framework. We can, through consultation, and as a society, come up with a set of ethics we both agree to, but what ever else I choose to practice is none of your business.
AJatheistgod 7 months ago
@AJatheistgod I am criticizing religion's ignorant and hateful attitude toward homosexuality. Criticize ≠ Attack. Consult the dictionary.
Again, there is nothing unscientific about criticizing people's moral conclusions. Your ethical choices are my business if they affect me or the ones I care about.
You are ignorant about ethical argumentation. Follow your own advice, stop criticizing me for criticizing others. Feel free to shut up. Just don't expect me to shut up.
mavaddat 7 months ago
@mavaddat Very Good. Anyone that harasses, discriminates, abuses, or disrespects homosexuals is cursed by me. None of my ethical choices would affect anyone else unless they freely choose to partake in them themselves.
AJatheistgod 7 months ago
you amaze me.i think you have some brilliant things to say.things my mind is worked up with all the time.but i would like to know.what do you believe in?what is ur belief system?
banjarameher 7 months ago
@banjarameher I say beliefs should not be acquired through a "system," but instead we should proportion (adjust in proper relation) our acceptance of any proposition to the evidence or reason in support for that proposition. Moreover, we should always be willing to change or modify or abandon our beliefs when presented with contrary evidence or reason(s). Most importantly, we should be willing to say, "I don't know," in response to questions whose topic we haven't sufficiently studied.
mavaddat 7 months ago
Thanks for this wonderful, provocative & thoughtful video. I like the point-by-point response format so I can understand Kevan's statements. I'm on my own personal journey, trying to be comfortable in my own skin. Hats off to this generation for taking the cat (homosexuality) out of the box (religious taboos) so we can see the box as a stage in the evolution of human consciousness (spiritual * material) & replace fear of it with love for Baha'u'llah! Good luck to all of us.
PhilSisson94 8 months ago
The Baha'i Faith does not allow polygamy, Abdul Baha says that you must treat both wives equally, which is impossible. He made it impossible on purpose.
shaztekk 10 months ago
@shaztekk In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha’u'llah writes, "God hath prescribed matrimony unto you. Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two."
Abdu'l-Baha's comment on having a single wife being easier for administering justice was regarding Quranic law, not Bahai law. Abdul-Baha did not say that the precondition of justice can not be met. In fact, he says the opposite.
Google search "Bahai Rants polygamy" and you will see that the Bahai Faith allows polygamy.
mavaddat 10 months ago
@mavaddat You're basically disregarding what Abdul-Baha said :/ Sorry mate, I've had this discussion many times before, with much more knowledgeable Baha'is they have confirmed what I have said, and showed it too me.
shaztekk 10 months ago
@shaztekk Ironically, you are the one disregarding what 'Abdu'l-Bahá said. Strange!
'Abdu'l-Bahá comment about having multiple wives being difficult for justice was a commentary on the Qur'án. ON THE QUR'ÁN. Instead of believing what you already think, go find the quotation in its context.
Try Googling "Bahai Rants polygamy". This box is too small to provide the quote.
You didn't actually search this out, did you? You're so confident that you cannot be wrong, you didn't even bother to check.
mavaddat 10 months ago
@mavaddat Sorry, I made a mistake, Baha'ullah said that you could have two wives if you treated and loved then equally, then later Abdul-Baha explained the impossibility, it was a two step law, at the time of Baha'ullah it would have seemed ridiculous to say what he did, so he made it an impossibility
shaztekk 10 months ago
@shaztekk That is false. Shoghi Effendi took something that 'Abdu'l-Bahá wrote about the Qur'ánic law regarding polygamy and applied it to Bahá'í Law.
I find it fascinating that you refuse to actually do any research outside of looking at what your religion tells you is true!
I guess I should expect it, but it's just so oddly interesting how uniquely close-minded religion makes people.
mavaddat 10 months ago
@mavaddat I have looked at your website, I find none of it to be true, you're doing exactly what you say I am just from an atheist point of view or what ever you believe, what is your religion (if you don't mind me asking) by the way?
shaztekk 10 months ago
@shaztekk That's not my website. It's some guy's named "Baquia."
I am pointing out a fact that you are refusing to acknowledge. How is that in any way true in reverse? I've acknowledged the points you've made and refuted them. For your part, you just blindly deny what is clearly available to everyone:
'Abdu'l-Bahá explicitly writes in Amr wa Khalq, Volume 4, p. 174 that "Concerning bigamy, this has been promulgated, and no one must abrogate it."
You just voluntarily ignore this.
mavaddat 10 months ago
@shaztekk Ignore the man (meaning mavaddat). He seems to like to push peoples buttons, and fell in love with himself rather than God. He is one of those whom the Baha'i writings say "leave them to themselves."
Peace
aaronlee75 9 months ago
@aaronlee75 Ah, the irony.... What could be more arrogant than presuming to psychoanalyze a total stranger (declaring he is "in love with himself") based on sparse YouTube interaction? Yet that is precisely the conceit that being a "follower of Baha" allows you to arrogate to yourself: You can pretend that you know other people's innermost personalities, because God (the magic-man in the sky who gives you unobscured access to the Truth) whispers to you in your ear. Yes, religion is truly fucked.
mavaddat 9 months ago
@mavaddat The full line was "fell in love with himself rather than God." I guess I may be presumptuious. You do, though, prefer your own opinion over any theological doctrine or teaching...correct? If I am wrong, then I do apologize. Likewise, do correct me if that's the case.
aaronlee75 9 months ago
@aaronlee75 You "guess"? Being Bahai quite obviously gives you free licence to pretend you know intimate facts about people that you couldn't possibly know.
Your theological doctrine is your own opinion. You simply choose a religion that conforms to that opinion, pretend you've recognized "God's word" in what is actually your own opinion, and feign humility.
mavaddat 9 months ago
@mavaddat that's not an answer to the question I posed...Do you prefer your own opinions over any theological doctrine or teaching (open that up to include any of the Abrahamic religions, and most other traditions)? If I was wrong, then please do correct me.
aaronlee75 9 months ago
@aaronlee75 I answered your question by demonstrating there is no way to prefer theological doctrines to one's own opinion, because people's opinions are either informed by what they think is theologically true, or they abandon their religious commitments that don't conform to their opinions. So one way or another, everyone's religion is just a reflection of their own opinions. Again, the only difference between us is that you pretend your opinions are infallible while mine are open to revision.
mavaddat 9 months ago
@mavaddat It seems more accurate that upon accepting a religion a person will attempt to conform their opinions to the percieved authority at the center of that religion. Often religions have doctrines that are contrary to the believers initial opinions. (this may have been what you meant by "informed...") Yes, everyone's "world view" is a reflection of their opinions/understandings. Sometimes world view and religion are used interchangebly. Yes...everyone's POV should be open to revision.
aaronlee75 9 months ago
@mavaddat A world view is made up largely of workable assumptions based on data and life experience to date. As that data changes so often do one's conclusions. I incorporate religion as a major part of my world view because it hasn't yet failed. It also provides a road map for personal conduct and provides a framework to place major, and minor, world events. I will use that to help inform my opinions, but those opinions are never infallible.
aaronlee75 9 months ago
@mavaddat Let me then revise the question...do you see any value in any theological doctrines? Do you limit those to only the ones that correspond to your own opinions, or do you accept that there is some value in those that you disagree with?...if only to inspire investigation, or seeing something from another POV.
aaronlee75 9 months ago
@aaronlee75 No, there is no value in theological doctrines.
Theology is merely humanity's way of pretending that our conditioned, provisional conclusions can transcend the realm of uncertainty and attain unchanging, absolute "Truth."
Theology is (and has always been) our way of codifying our best guesses about how to live into unchanging dogmas.
The Bahai Faith is no different (spare me "independent investigation" marketing rhetoric).
mavaddat 9 months ago
@mavaddat So, after much noise, your answer seems to be "yes"...you do prefer your own opinions/pov to anything from any theological source. Then I stand by my original post to "shaztekk."
aaronlee75 9 months ago
@aaronlee75 As do you. You also prefer your own opinion and perspective to anything from any theological source. That is what I was trying to show you.
Also, thanks for confirming the deep arrogance that religion gives you licence.
mavaddat 9 months ago
@mavaddat If either of us is truly sincere in that our opinions "are open to revision" then we need to at least have a live and let live policy and try not to attack another's POV...If we do attack them then it is difficult to see from the other person's side...and therefore have data allowing "revision".
Arrogance...we don't need religion to give us license. It is something that we should both try to put asside.
aaronlee75 9 months ago
@aaronlee75 You just spewed out a bunch of empty clichés?
"Live and let live" - I am not forcing my criticisms on you. You sought out my videos. You're free to stop commenting.
"try not to attack" - I am rationally criticizing (not "attacking") what I see as offensive, untrue, and immoral precepts in the Baha'i Faith. If you aren't interested in morality or truth, please be gone.
"we don't need religion to be arrogant" - True, but religion *almost always* makes you arrogant. You are a case.
mavaddat 9 months ago
@mavaddat Some sayings may be cliche, but that hardly means they are devoid of meaning.
aaronlee75 9 months ago
@aaronlee75 Agreed.
Peace
shaztekk 9 months ago
@mavaddat "Know thou that polygamy is not permitted under the law of God, for contentment with one wife hath been clearly stipulated. Taking a second wife is made dependent upon equity and justice being upheld between the two wives, under all conditions. However, observance of justice and equity towards two wives is utterly impossible. The fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute prohibition. Therefore it is not permissible for
shaztekk 10 months ago
@shaztekk . Therefore it is not permissible for a man to have more than one wife." (Notes from the Kitab-i-Aqdas)
shaztekk 10 months ago
@shaztekk Go ahead and disagree with that.
shaztekk 10 months ago
@shaztekk That quotation was taken out of context and placed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas by Shoghi Effendi. You won't look into this, of course. It would be too radical for you, I guess.
mavaddat 10 months ago
@mavaddat Now you're denying Shoghi Effendi! Who himself said he could make mistakes, but he could not make mistakes within the Bahai faith, sorry, you're wrong
shaztekk 10 months ago
@shaztekk Right, within Bahá'í dogma, Shoghi Effendi cannot misapply 'Abdu'l-Bahá's words. That's true!
In reality, however, it's clear from looking at the Tablet those words came from that Shoghi Effendi manipulates and obscures 'Abdu'l-Bahá's original words to absolve the Bahá'í Faith of its sexist, anachronistic standard of marriage. In fact, 'Abdu'l-Bahá explicitly states that the standard of justice can be met with more than one wife. Again, all you had to do was Google.
But you won't.
mavaddat 10 months ago
I didn't know the Baha'i Faith discriminates against homosexuals. I know they don't allow homosexual practice but, I didn't know they discriminate against homosexuals. I know they also don't allow alcohol to be consumed by the body but, I know they don't discriminate against alcoholics. Please explain to me how they discriminate against homosexuals. I guess my brain doesn't work as well as yours.
BASHMENT916 11 months ago
@BASHMENT916 Yes, it isn't easy for those close to the Bahai Faith to see their discrimination.
The problem isn't "discrimination," but unfair discrimination. See, there's nothing morally or medically wrong with homosexuality. This is established in the courtroom, for example, in the recent California trial against Proposition 8, but it's also obvious to anyone willing to investigate.
So your comparison to "alcoholics" (which is not the same as people who choose to drink, notice) simply fails.
mavaddat 11 months ago
Mavaddat I fail to comprehend you reason to appose the laws of a faith that you calim discriminates. You certianly not up for a good debate from an autonomous individual wherefore your whole agenda fails. Think about that for a moment. When you are presented with medical or moral opinion you reject it. Good cos as I said below we Humanity have that ability, to reject and discriminate. But which is more important to you. Justice or Moral ethics and does it better society?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
cont..mavaddat
After you achieve that justice, what would this world be like? who in our history would we as a society emulate? Is it Sodom a Gomorah again?
How much more history would you need as examples of indecency and abnormal societies? Do you want society to prosper or are you going to keep standing its way? You lack discernment and fail on spirituality. I pitty you and your kind. If you going top nit pick a faith then start with your value and faith. I'm done here
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Sodom and Gomorah might have been wonderful places if the genocidal God of the Bible hadn't wiped them off the map. Actually, San Francisco, Lisbon, or Vancouver are good examples of cities that are open to people of different sexualities.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat "genocidal God" Its amazing what extent you would name call a God just so your agenda achieves success. Many civilisations were wiped out for many good reasons. Take Egypt for one, they enslaved masses by force. Are you still going to claim God as genocidal?
"Actually, San Francisco, Lisbon, or Vancouver are good examples of cities that are open to people of different sexualities." You clearly boastful here. Just your mere condoning this activity says a lot about your morality.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Why do you equate gay couples instantly with immorality? Why do you believe that a man and woman in "holy" matrimony are automatically moral and good for society? I've known a number of pitiful, bitter relationships called Bahai marriage. Yet these people are given a high status in society with rights and spiritual acceptance. Yet two loving same sex adults who are doing the exact same thing are in your bigoted opinion are examples of debauchery. You are prejudiced thats all!
PeyBar 1 year ago
@PeyBar "Why do you equate gay couples instantly with immorality?" Any couple including prisoners, pedophiles & bisexuals involved with anal sex/oral sex/indecent sex acts could be considered immoral. Not just gays. Its a health risk.
" I've known a number of pitiful, bitter relationships called Bahai marriage." I hear you and yes you raise a valid point and in other religions too. Therefore they should not be given such status. Does that still make me a bigot? You missing my point it seems
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
conti...
I realise its a sensitive subject and really find it difficult to address sensitively. Its always going to seem I'm prejudice but you wrong. I have no hatred towards Gay people except I'm offering perspectives regarding health etc. Read my comments here and on other. Well I'm not homophobic & If I had a child that were Gay I'd love him/her equally & would probably do my best to understand them. I don't have religion so I don't care what they say, its just my view so try to savvy it
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
cont... Because I raise sexual acts then it becomes an issue in discussion...Why?
I got blocked on the other forum albeit offering medical research and perspectives. Why is that so hard for Gay people to discuss? Then I'm told this was not the topic. Then I'm called a Bigot. Is that not name calling and is it not a contradication? Are we not allowed to produce fact? likewise gay people argue whats natural and normal presenting fact. I don't dispute except offer another set of facts.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Then you must be ok with two lesbians using safe sex toys in each other's vaginas? It's complety safe and healthy. And actually a penis in a vagina can be very unhealthy for a woman if not done correctly. A woman can be hurt as well in your "moral" way of having sex. I'm sorry, but you really are a bigot. You haven''t given any science, any proof. All you give us is your opinion of what is moral and immoral based on your prejudices. Not much to discuss with you then is there?
PeyBar 1 year ago
@PeyBar No I'm not okay with it and your logic (if you have any) is ridiculous. Again you choose not to look at fact.
"A woman can be hurt as well in your "moral" way of having sex." Substantiate
"I'm sorry, but you really are a bigot." Name calling won't make you better in your debate
"You haven''t given any science, any proof." read my comments and I will mail you links if you like
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Snipits of your comments are enought to show you are a bigot. Again, only your bigoted opinion no proof. And btw, it cracks me up that you consider "bigot" name calling against you- when that is what you portray. Yet somehow we are not supposed to find your constant association of homosexual loving relationships with immorality, indecency etc. as name calling. Yeah, you don't hate gays, but you can still be a bigot. You are a homophobe.
PeyBar 1 year ago
@PeyBar Fine call me what you like but you fail on something. Youy don't want medical facts hey. Is it cos you will learn TRUTH, something you run from?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect What medical facts? Have you looked at the medical facts regarding vaginal sex? A large penis can hurt a woman with a small vaginal in your "natural/moral" way of having sex. You seem to ignore that. And again if your problem is with the spread of diseases and physicall being hurt- then really the best form of sex is masturbation or lesbian sex. These spread the least diseases and physicall hurt the individual the least. Why are you not a proponent of only those forms?
PeyBar 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect HOneslty, if you would just come out and say "I believe the safest sex is masturbation and NO ONE should have sex" I could at least respect you more. BUt you don't- you target gay people wiht your pseudo science. THAT says a lot about you. Good luck trying to convice us otherwise.
PeyBar 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect You are a semi-literate ignorant YouTube troll telling me to think?
Oh the irony.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat " semi-literate ignorant YouTube troll"
Why don't you view my channel and those that I support before you ignorantly accuse me of being a troll.
Its clear you just pissed off and you the one looking for amicable debate...sorry pal you have psychological issues. Maybe when you stop being defensive and listen to peoples opinions and research empirical data involving risks of being gay then you'd savvy what we on. Being gay is a risk to self and society, period
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect You didn't actually acknowledge a single point I made and you're telling *me* to stop being defensive? You are clearly projecting your own psychological issues onto other people. You just write to disagree without coherent argument. So by every sign, you are a troll. Be gone.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat What have you claimed thats worth being acknowledged?
I can say the same to you pal. Nevertheless it is not my intention to sound as if I'm hateful...no no no.
So Peace in Wisdom my friend and may all your endeavours be acknowledge in the way its intended. I do see your point from that start however we both should admit we went off track from your initial awareness you aim to create.
Peace
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
Are animals and human beings intellectual equals? No!
In short, animals are not the species aiming to reach social advancement. Would it be safe to categorise them as lower than humans? A small difference that separates us and them is ABILITY.
In the animal kingdom it is found that some eat their offspring, “Infanticide”. Others eat their own faeces. Most, if not all, do not care for their elders. Humankind ruled out cannibalism, don’t eat their offspring or their faeces.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
cont..
Regarding sexual habits, Monkeys masturbate in front of the whole troop. Ask yourself, should we imitate these actions? Certainly not!
We must learn to realise that animals can have sex with whoever they choose without considering humanity’s ethical principles. Therefore Homosexuality in animals should not assert the ‘naturalness’ in humans.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
The very foundation of the human civilization is the ability to practise carnal restraint. Our entire social consciousness is based on laws/guides that strictly curtail primal instinct. While animals act without discrimination human beings discriminate for invaluable principle. Many adopted taboos achieved sexual boundaries and still aims to govern those contradicting civility.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
cont..
Our intellectual advancement rests upon our ABILITY to consciously reject animalistic behaviour. Animals do not evolve through ability, humans do. This very ABILITY is instrumental in our progress on the evolutionary scale. Wherefore it remains nonsensical to equate animal behavior to morality or endeavour to justify perversion hoping to accomplish endorsement from civilised societies.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
cont..
This agenda hoping to penetrate these established codes of decency, by attempting to normalise that which is aberrant in humankind, expresses ignorance. By continuing justification this way is reason enough to reinstate homosexuality as a mental disorder. Unless a third gender (androgynous) is accepted and acknowledged by society then only can we not discriminate against what is and is not normal.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
I think the focus here being that Bahai's discriminate against Homosexuality is bias. All religions do so and they came way before Bahais. Besides they offer prayer as a solution so how can that be termed as discrimination to begin with. Firstly we must acknowledge that Homosexuals created much of their own discrimination by psychologically assuming and generalising that other communities profess hatred, failing to acknowledge those whom want to help this aberration.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
Many religious communities interpret their scripture as embracing homosexuality. For example, Presbyterian and Anglican churches, Reform Judaism, American Anglican Church, Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalism, the United Church of Christ, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all of the ancient Greek religions do not condemn gays. Even if they did, we'd have to reject all religions, since a God who condemned people for their consensual sexual decisions would be a God unworthy of worship.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat I'm afraid their interpretation is incorrect. Original Christianity did not allow this. Sects of Christianity came way after and chose a suited paradigm.
As far as I know the ancient greeks had a third gender, androgynous. This obviously was misunderstood (today as homosexual). It is purported in very ancient scripts that all mankind at the very begining were all androgynous and then later evolved to male and female genders.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Yes, I understand that *you* think that their interpretation is incorrect. However, that doesn't matter, because there is no objective reason to prefer your interpretation above theirs. You think they "chose a suited paradigm," while they think you failed to separate God's truth from man's ignorant prejudice. As far as I can see, they are correct!
You're wrong about Greeks. They didn't have a third gender. Except in Sparta, gay acts were considered and even necessary...
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat I'm not even going to further a discussion with someone who is unaware of a third gender in early greeks. Do you even know it exists today?
All mankind was originally that gender. Go do some research.
Also note that those "sects" of christianity you mentioned was created to suite. Do more research on that too. Just like every other religion did...all to suite their needs.
As for "God's truth", no such thing exists except within ignorant societies. You should read more
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Look who has exposed himself as the condescending and patronizing one...
In fact, you are confusing one Greek creation myth of an original androgynous gender (as described by Aristophanes in Plato's "Symposium") with the general acceptance of homosexual activity between men. I have studied Greek history and literature. You are the one who needs educating.
I'm glad you admit that the Baha'i Faith is a creation of humans to suite their needs. I completely agree.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat I'd like to know why you getting so pissed off with my comments?
How have I offended you?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect I'm not getting "pissed off" at all! Why do you feel defensive? Please, friend... stay a while.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat My apology friend for feeling defensive. Lets chat. I know this is a sensitive subject and would like to learn more on this. First let me learn understand you, if you don't mind. I'd like to know:
What would you hope to achieve in your expression? What are those challenges you faced with?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect With respect to the Bahá'í position on homosexuality, I have only two goals: First, that Bahá'ís cease to spread false, scientifically debunked claims about homosexuality being "curable" or changeable. Second, that Bahá'ís cease to regard homosexuality as condemned by God or morally problematic.
The challenges I face are that Bahá'ís are primarily not interested in morality or science. They are committed to dogmatically adhering to their doctrines, no matter what.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat I understand and respect your challenges. Please enlighten me, perhaps a link where Bahai's claim this or present themselves dogmatically to help me gain perspective.
Let me clear first that I am not Bahai nor any religion but not atheist either. Thought I'd share that so I do not appear bias in any way. However I would respect your permission to an open amicable discussion. Lets start by sharing scientific views then we could go onto morality. What are your views?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
cont..mavaddat
Regarding "curable or changeable": Are you saying homosexuality is not curable or changeable? and what are your reasons.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Studies show sexual orientation cannot be changed by therapy or choice. They show one can change one's outward sexual behaviour, not one's inner attractions. Every accredited medical and psychological institution (including the American Medical Association, Am. Psychiatric Assoc., Am. Psychological Association, Am. Psychoanalytic Assoc, Am. Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers) agrees homosexuality is not changeable by therapy or choice.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat "They show one can change one's outward sexual behaviour" Agree
"not one's inner attractions" What are those inner attractions, if you could shed some light?
"Every accredited medical and psychological institution..." This is based on psychological aspects as I understand it wherefore would it make a difference if physical aspects are addressed by medical study?
Also for the readers sake, lets define Homosexuality.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect "Inner attractions" are those feeling of sexual excitement or romantic admiration that one feels for those to whom one feels drawn.
I'm not sure I understand your attempted distinction between "psychological aspects" and "physical aspects." Do you mean "physiological"? But a person's psychological preferences will invariably influence their physiological responses, right?
Homosexuality is a tendency to feel sexual or romantic attraction for the same sex.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat "Homosexuality is a tendency to feel sexual or romantic attraction for the same sex." So as I understand, its a feeling based on physical attraction...No?
"I'm not sure I understand your attempted distinction" The distinction is based on if Medical professionals present study claiming "Harmful" effects would that make any difference from your perspective. By harmful I refer to physical & biological and what is conducive to the body.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect I'm not sure how your "feeling based on physical attraction" adds anything important. How is asking this question helping you understand the definition of homosexuality better?
If you're referring to specific sex acts being potentially unhealthy, then I agree that medicine has something to say about that. But it's a totally different question whether a sexual orientation is healthy. There are unsafe heterosexual activities too. That doesn't make being straight wrong.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat "How is asking this question helping you understand the definition of homosexuality better?" It would help me understand more.
"That doesn't make being straight wrong." You have a point but is that reason enough to justify? We can also debate which holds greater risks but thats not my intention here.
How does the potential health risk impact you personally?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Sorry, your question about "physical attraction" is not meaningful so I cannot answer it. I have sufficiently elucidated the concept. I think you want to believe homosexual attraction is somehow shallow or lustful, which is a common bigoted, homophobic prejudice. I gather this is what you're driving at and I refuse to entertain it.
Remember we're talking science and nature. The health risks are for each individual to assess on their own and decide what precautions to take.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat It so typical that when I approach this subject I am accused of homophobic prejudice and that I'm a common bigot etc. As I said on many forums regarding this: Homosexuals are sensitive when they are confronted even decently confronted...Why? My point on physical attraction is based on your definition of homosexual. Read it again. You claim we talking science and nature but find it necessary to justify your claim with a wrong found in hetrosexual. Why?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
cont...mavaddat
I don't see how Homosexuals are going to achieve societal respect if this is the way a decent debate is going to continue. Either you want to consult the matter and put to rest all dogma or you wish to continue in private with all those ongoing challenges. Please understand their are genuine people (myself) who would like more understanding on this. If we are pushed away then our misunderstand would always result in discrimination that may seem unfair to you alone.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect You seem to assume that I am gay and then want to excuse yourself from being moral or educated since if I am "rude" to you that therefore you aren't responsible for being ignorant and prejudiced.
I don't really care about people who aren't interested in being good for its own sake (not because it's convenient or polite). You can go on your way for all I care. I'm not here to convert you.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Do you think it might because you are indeed homophobic or bigoted? Why seek an alternative explanation?
Don't confuse politeness with being unprejudiced. Many White supremacists will tell others quite politely that they deserve to be eliminated. It's not rude or "name calling" to identify bigotry as bigotry.
I was emphasizing the difference between sex acts and sexual orientation, which you seemed to have confused.
Also you seem to assume I am gay..?
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat I really don't care if you gay or not. Furthermore your defensive actions could assume you are.
Seriously you have not enlightened my search in any way and learned that you plan to expose bahai's for their dogma but you certainly going about it the wrong way. Valueable information can kill dogma...I should not have to tell you that.
I gather you want to end this discussion or you feel its okay to name call me while you assume I do so to homosexuals. You wrong AGAIN
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect I think it's fairly obvious you're not interested in "enlightenment" or knowledge. Wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, you wouldn't be having discussions on YouTube instead of actually reading scientific studies.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat Well let me prove you wrong once again. Read and learn the harmful effects and perhaps you'll understand my concern to discourage it. Its not even a religious view. You speak of science as is you have all the emperical study at your disposal. Wrong my firend
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
Anal intercourse is potentially physically harmful. It can cause anal fissures (cracks), thereby allowing the quick transfer of blood born diseases such as hepatitis and HIV. There are also other consequences of fissures.
I believe that there has been some research that suggests that the rectal wall does not provide much of a barrier to the AIDS virus, and that the recipient of anal intercourse is quite vulnerable to contracting the disease if the penetrator has the disease and ejaculates.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
Less widely known is the fact that men who engage in receptive anal intercourse have a higher rate of anal cancer than the general population. This may be associated with the fact that men who have sex with men also have a greater incidence of anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection.
Feces contain bacteria, which can cause a urinary tract infection (urethritis), in men who do not wear condoms.
This is an article from proctology on anal sex
would you like more article like this?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@mavaddat
Rick A. Shacket, DO
Diplomate American Osteopathic Board of Proctology
Question:
Is having anal sex bad for your health in any way?
Awnser:
This is a complicated question to answer as there are many people for whom anal intercourse is a regular and enjoyed sexual activity. But it is medically risky behavior nevertheless, even if condoms are used as a barrier for STDs.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@mavaddat With regards to the definition of Homosexuality, "sexual excitement or romantic admiration" I am compelled to ask what makes an attraction difficult towards women? are there any at all? I know its a general question but from your perspective...
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect I assume you're asking why gay men are not attracted to women ("find it difficult")? This is a fairly nonsensical question, wouldn't you agree? What makes it difficult to enjoy eating dirt? It's just your preference not to eat dirt, that's all. It's no different for why straight or gay men and women aren't attracted to certain sexes. It's just their psychological, biological orientation.
Of course, sexual orientation is not so black and white. Many people are in between...
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat I really don't think its nosensical. The analogy of dirt implies one sexual preference as cleaner than the other wherefore I would not go that far to read too much into it.
Maybe asking being attracted to women, instead should have asked what is it about the same sex one is attracted to?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect I want to be clear that some Bahá'ís reject what their scripture says about homosexuality, and they cannot be called dogmatic. It is the Bahá'í scripture itself that requires dogmatism, not individual Bahá'ís themselves. To see some examples, go to the website mavaddat.homestead{dot}com/files/bahaidogmatism{dot}html.
My scientific views are that
1) homosexuality is natural, biologically determined and
2) that homosexuality cannot be reverse or changed by therapy or choice.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat "I want to be clear that some Bahá'ís reject what their scripture says about homosexuality" What are their scripture saying? and why is it thought of as Dogmatic? Lets clear this for readers as well. Alternatively I will read thge link.
" homosexuality is natural" My definition on nature:
Nature is the agency which orchestrates processes of all creation translating its purpose through matter.
Natural would then mean that when it exists in nature its natural.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
cont..mavaddat
Can we equate that which occurs in the animal kingdom becomes natural for human beings? The reason I ask is that Homosexuality is found in animals. Apparently in about 1500 species. My view is that its observed in captivity although research shows it occurs in the wild. My opinion is that the full life of animals are not observed therefore does not make this credible. In reality, animals on our planet are in captivity. National parks, zoos etc. Is man an animal equal?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
cont..mavaddat
As spiritual beings we translate nature's intent by observing design & physicality. When we observe water we learn its myriad intents and the same goes for the plant kingdom. As for animals we observe behaviour and by assimilation we learn that animals fall in a lower catergory than mankind. Besides the physical design we are different by intellect. We evolve differently and by different time frames. We have something animals do not have...ABILITY
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Sorry, but you are mistaken. There is no physical or mental that capacity that humans possess that other animals don't also have to some lesser or greater degree. We have greater intellect, but this is only because of greater memory and pattern recognition (that even dogs possess). There's nothing especially unique about humans any more than any other animal is uniquely adapted to its environment.
Every animal has ability.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat "Every animal has ability." Okay lets look at this another way. Dopes animals have ability to socialy advance, ability to discriminate, ability to reject?
These are key unique elements that make us humans different and is instrumental in the evolutionary scale.
Our entire social consciousness is based on laws/guides that strictly curtail primal instinct. While animals act without discrimination human beings discriminate for invaluable principle.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Yes, animals can socially advance, discriminate and reject. You really aren't familiar with social norms and rules of conduct within groups of dogs, crows, chimpanzees, racoons, or other social animals are you?
You are totally wrong that animals are bound by instinct while humans are not. In fact, humans and other apes are equally bound by instinct and choice. With all due respect, you seem to be totally unfamiliar with very basic cross-species science...
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat I think I am very fimiliar with this study. Give me a good example of social advancement in animals that perhaps assimilates to humans.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Your description of humans as virtually free from instinct while non-human animals are bound by it belies your claim to being informed. This is a thoroughly debunked classical, pre-scientific dogma (see Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works" for example).
Every social animals has mechanisms (such as shunning) for enforcing rules of conduct including cooperation, sharing, trading information, food, sex, shelter, etc. These form the building blocks of morality in human beings.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat At what degree compared to humans. Besides why are you justifying homosexuality this way? Why?
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect You are quite confused, aren't you? You make a false claim about how humans are different from non-human animals and I demonstrate how your claim is false, and then you turn around and ask, "why are you justifying homosexuality this way? Why?" Do you have a crippled short term memory? You don't know why I demonstrated that animals can socially advance? YOU RAISED THE TOPIC, NOT ME... geez.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat How have you falsified my claims...Show me...or are you insanely complexed in believing that citing one reference in reason to convince.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Because he believes in justice. Something you don't give a crap about. When you see two men raising kids, all you see is immorality and anal fissure don't you Divinereflect? It's sad how your homophobia shines through. Not really worth discussin anything with you. And oh btw, you don't have to hate gays to be a homophobe. There are a lot of people who say "why i'm not racist, I have black friends!". They can still be racist. As you can be a bigot as well.
PeyBar 1 year ago
@PeyBar Racism has nothing to do with homosexuality. Clearly your ignorant analogy says a lot about you. Why don't we debate FACT? why do you nit pick on other issues and not prepared to argue FACT? are you afraid of TRUTH?. Do you think calling me a bigot changes anything?
Let me reitterate that mankinds ability to discriminate for invaluable princple is most necessary for social evolution.
I have not only associate homosexuals with anal sex, I mentioned all those involved in it.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
conti... Why do you feel it necessary to only pick out one catagory? Is it your tactic to gain fame or is it ignorance?
Your ridiculous arguments are showing your ignorance...so knock yourself out.
Lets discuss fact...IF *YOU* capable
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect And yet again you still don't get it. Every time you assoiate loving gay couples with a sex act and not do the EXACT same thing with a married straight couple- then there is no hope for you. When you actually give us facts to work on- we'll engage you. Otherwise, I think Madavatt was right. Time to just ignore you.
PeyBar 1 year ago
@PeyBar I do get it and you don't. My associating sex acts can hardly be compared to married couples. Lets see, whats the difference...Oh! off-course the physical body's design. Gee you need'nt be a rocket scientist I guess. You want facts from a medical professionals regarding anal sex. Thats what you mean by facts isn't it? link to proctology us analsex php
So engage me if you have the knowledge. or ignore it as your ignorance dictates
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Vaginismus- look it up. Vaginismus is vaginal tightness causing discomfort, burning, pain, penetration problems, or complete inability to have intercourse. It happens in normal intercourse to a small percentage of women. So your safe, moreal, God-sanctioned for of having sex by married couples can in fact cause great pain to some women. So please re-evaluate your stance on gay sex being bad and married straight sex being automatically good. Otherwise, yeah you are a bigot/
PeyBar 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect Yes, whatever tendencies are common to animals are therefore natural. This doesn't make them all morally acceptable, but then I didn't confuse "natural" with "good." The Bahai Faith does.
The proliferation of homosexual behaviour in animals (especially the higher primates) shows that there is an evolutionary advantage to a proportion of any species population having certain homosexual tendencies. This shows that homosexuality is not "against nature" as the Bahá'í Faith claims.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat "This shows that homosexuality is not "against nature" as the Bahá'í Faith claims." fair enough and yes the term "against nature" is not relevant since its found in nature.
"The proliferation of homosexual behaviour in animals (especially the higher primates) shows that there is an evolutionary advantage to a proportion of any species population having certain homosexual tendencies." How is this an advantage? also I think we overlooking a pertinent issue "Captivity"
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect You're wrong that these homosexual activities were observed mostly among animals in captivity. See Jane Goodall's work on chimpanzees, for example.
There are many ways that homosexual behaviour can be evolutionarily advantageous. Among social animals, it has a clear advantage of creating social bonds between animals of the same sex that is conducive to group survival and further reproduction (remember that many animals with homosexual tendencies will also reproduce).
mavaddat 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect For what the Bahá'í Faith says on homosexuality, please read my journal entry here: mavaddat{dot}livejournal{dot}com/21160{dot}html
When you ask "why is it thought of as Dogmatic?" do you mean why do Bahá'ís think it's dogmatic? But they don't. They think they are reasonable folks who are justified in blindly accepting what their religion says.
You will find in my link that the Bahá'í scripture says that homosexuality is a "shameful sexual aberration" that is "against nature"
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat I will read your journal, thx
I also have to add that I too find religious people very readily accept without investigating and therefore results in blind discrimination. So my view is that we all should consult clemently and not just remark by hear say. "shameful sexual aberration" that is "against nature"
I will look into this, however I have to admit that through my limited search, I to considered it an aberration in nature. My reasons are different if you'll allow explainat
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@mavaddat However I hear you clearly with reagrds to God unworthy of worship. Good point.
It also depends how ones sees/understands God. My view of God is very different and rather rely on mankinds individual & collective responsibilty. We set our domains and rules
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
@DivineInterllect You are right, however, that many of the people who oppose gay marriage are merely condescending, paternalistic, and patronizing... not hateful. Thank you for making this distinction!
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat I guess its difficult for any not to sound condescending or patronising. Its a sign that humanity has not grown enough. While humanity chooses to discriminate ignorantly they must excercise discernment for their actions. I sincerely believe that all societal issues must be consulted with understanding and love and remain sensitive to the pain of those misunderstood. Afterall this world, (our experience) is a consultative process. No one is better than any.
DivineInterllect 1 year ago
Ummmmm how sure of this site one n two I know for a fact it's not permitted.....in the Bahai faith it's a accumulation of the privious religion inns way n the prophet Mohammed didn't permit that so why wud the next step up permit that... It doesn't so I think u should do moe research buddy....
rebrat90 1 year ago
@rebrat90 I know you don't think so! That is because you don't know very much about Islam or the Bahá'í Faith. But the dangerous thing is, you *think* you know something, so you tell people who disagree with you to go research, when in fact, it's you who is missing the facts.
Ironic, yes?
Muhammad permitted polygamy and so did Bahá'u'lláh. Why are you arguing with me instead of looking at the link I provided in the video description? It proves what I'm saying.
mavaddat 1 year ago
To peybar... Having more than one spouse is not allowed in the Bahai faith idk where u people r gettig your info from???
rebrat90 1 year ago
@rebrat90 I have provided a link to the relevant source in the video description. Don't worry. Most Bahá'ís aren't really aware of what their own religion teaches. You are not alone.
mavaddat 1 year ago
mavaddat ~ both your being and your responses herein are luminous with intelligence and the light of awareness.
Blessings upon blessings to you Boy Loveliness, beyond your very wildest of dreams.
In the very deepest of respect and appreciation,
Sakshin
AwakeToTheMystery 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I suggest again you view this video to make your... mind... about the sanity of the psychiatric institutions promoting homosexuality as a normal way of life...
Watch : " Monarch: Chapter 3C: Ewen Cameron "
Thanks for your respectful consideration.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
Dear Friends,
We are all born with certain predispositions and tendencies. Some people get angry easily and have to control their behavior; others are easily jealous and have to control it. Another thing that needs control is sex. If a man is attracted to another man, that doesn't make him bad, just that that's his test in life. We all have tests. To grow spiritually, we need to pass the tests. And chastity involves abstaining from sex/lechery in all cases except between a man and his wife.
Bahai1844 2 years ago
Thank you kindly for your thoughts.
You are, of course, correct that some tendencies must be controlled or resisted altogether. However, some tendencies are also beautiful and worthy of embrace in the right context.
The Bahá'í Faith says that is there is no context in which homosexual tendencies are acceptable to embrace. Since there is nothing any more wrong with homosexual tendencies than with heterosexual tendencies, this is an immoral teaching.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Hello brother,
Thanks for your reply. You are correct re there being no context where homosexual tendencies are acceptable -- just as there are no contexts where sexual tendencies toward children and animals are appropriate. But it isn't "immoral" to ban those things; in fact, by definition they are immoral.
In terms of what is moral, we need to turn to the Source of infallible Knowledge and Wisdom for guidance (God). Without it, each person has his own opinion on what is moral.
Bahai1844 2 years ago
On the contrary, there is no comparison between homosexual relationships and a child and an animal having sex.
Gay people fall in love, they form committed, consenting relationships, they're mutually attracted to each other and bring each other joy.
That you would think to compare this to a child having sex with an animal is a sign of the perversity that the Baha'i Faith instills in its followers. That is why the Faith's position on gay relations is deeply immoral. You should truly be ashamed.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Dear friend,
Mutual love isn't necessarily a valid justification for having a relationship. E.g., men can fall in love with multiple women... but should they marry all the women they love? Or should they just pick one? If they should pick just one, then that means a relationship isn't necessarily valid if there is mutual love. Therefore, saying "gay people fall in love" doesn't necessarily justify homosexual relationships.
Bahai1844 2 years ago
Actually, there is nothing wrong with a man falling in love with multiple women if the women are in love with him (and they are alright with him being in a relationship with all of them). In fact, many people are fine with this kind of arrangement. It's called "polyamory".
I can see you haven't thought much about this, since you're simply appealing to your parallel sexual prejudices. If you try to think for yourself, you will see that there is no reason to oppose gay relationships.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Dear friend,
You're simply asserting your opinions, then claiming people who don't accept them are prejudiced (which is itself intolerant). There are homosexual advocates who would disagree with you about polyamory or polygamy, so I hope you see the need to turn to God for what is moral -- not human beings. God, via His Word, tells us that homosexual relationships are immoral and harm the soul. It is not a virtue to give in to any impulses or desires we have; they need to be controlled.
Bahai1844 2 years ago
I'm not asserting, I'm arguing. I'm providing reasons -- of which you are apparently incapable.
It is not God that tells us, but the religion we attribute to God. You choose to view God as a petty, sexually perverse dictator. That I do not accept this view doesn't mean I'm disobeying God. It means I refuse to insult God the way you do.
You haven't shown reasons why gay relations are wrong. Condemning a perfectly fine act is immoral. Thus, the Bahai condemning of gay relations is immoral.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Right and wrong is something religion tells us, not what our fallible minds think or what MTV says. We are shaped by society, and today's society overemphasizes sex and is accepting of many forms of sexual laxity and aberrant sexual behavior. When man stops worshipping God, he begins to worship his lusts and desires. That's slavery -- slavery to our animal passions.
"That which beseemeth man is submission unto such restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance" (Bahá'u'lláh).
Bahai1844 2 years ago 2
We're talking about moderated gay sex, not worshipping lusts.
Again, you choose to view God as a sexually perverse dictator. So you join a religion that confirms your view. Others join religions that celebrate all human love (gay too). But you both join religions that reflect your moral sense. Thus, you can't get the moral sense from religion, since it comes before.
Human beings create religions to codify their moral intuitions. So too the Bahai Faith is a purely human (man-made) invention.
mavaddat 2 years ago
People who try to turn others away from God and spread hatred against His Religion are perhaps "perverse." Any "religion" which picks & chooses which laws to follow is not a religion. If you study religion, you'll find homosexual relationships condemned in the Abrahamic faiths. You're not providing any proof that homosexuality is legitimate; you're just appealing to pathos by using words like "celebrate all human love" or other warm-fuzzy terms for homosexuality.
Bahai1844 2 years ago
I have been providing proof that homosexuality is legitimate, and you are perpetually ignoring it:
Gay relationships (that include gay sex) are not a cause of harm to anyone (not any more than straight relationships). This fact is affirmed by every single accredited medical and psychological institution in the United States.
Gay relations are a cause of joy and happiness.
It is immoral to condemn what is both harmless and a cause of joy. Thus, the Bahai condemning of homosexuality is immoral.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Warm and fuzzy? How about REAL families who are raising wonderful children- better than many Bahai I have met. These are real lives and real people who are being discriminated against. Your version of the Bahai Faith is fundamentalist as are evangelica Christians or the Mullahs in Iran- no different. So if that is the world order you want to create, then be ready for A LOT of people to fight you and yes help turn people away from discrimination. Fortunately, not all Bahais think like you.
PeyBar 1 year ago
Why then is polygamy allowed in the Bahai Faith? If a man has already married a number of women, then he can become a Bahai and is not asked to divorce his wifes. You would think the Faith would ask the man to choose one and maybe help support the others or allow them to find another husband. But it doesn't- it allows polygamy. Same way, a gay couple (legally married or civil union) decides to become Bahais- then the community should accept them. Otherwise- yep, it is discrimination.
PeyBar 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mavaddat -->
The religion is just as bad as Islam, and if it ever acquired any power, I'm confident it would be just as ugly, if not worse.
--
For you to Say that my dear friend, is very saddening. At the end of the day there will always be people with some sort of underlying issue, and honestly you have obviously been hurt by an individual. Do you honestly think that if AbdulBaha met a homosexual he would not talk to him? Nor assist him in anything? And treat him badly?
ashkanuntouchable 2 years ago
@ashkanuntouchable
In fact, I've never been hurt.
However, it is a common strategy of religious people to distract a conversation about the merits of their faith by suggesting that anyone critical is simply "angry" or "hurt". This strategy underscores the deep irrationality of religion.
Here, e.g., instead of dealing with reasons, you get personal.
Treating gays pitifully is not the same as treating them well (much less as equals). That you don't see this is the real tragedy.
mavaddat 2 years ago