Law and Sanctions

[Popeyesays]

I think this is a core issue with many faiths - not least of the Letter of the Law vs the Spirit of the Law, which seems to be a key focus of this thread.

Ultimately, where it is for men to rule on the what God wants, there will be others to call on the fallibility of such men to make such judgements. It remains a matter of faith as to which is sided with.

There have been some very interesting points of faith raised in this dicussion so far - I sincerely hope to see it continue, but perhaps with a little tempering of certain passions.

Amen.

scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Re: My participatoin here

How have my posts been hostile today? Is questioning considered hostile? I feel I have been polite, or at least neutral today.

I am not intentionally misrepresenting anything. If you feel I misrepresent things, then this has given you an opportunity to clarify them.

Scott, I still see one line of authority that has no accountability outside itself and no way for the system to be challenged or changed if injustice is perceived. It doesn't make sense to me that you say it is apart from our civil law yet then appeal to that authority to support the rulings of the Faith. But I am getting quite tired (physically, mentally and spiritually) from all this, so there may just be something I don't see.

peace,
lunamoth

I don't think you have been hostile, but when acrimony develops, both sides must just give it up. Each side is only responsible for themselves, and you've done admirably as best I can tell.

Passions can involve themselves in discussion without leading to acrimony, and acrimony like marriage requires two participants. I consider you to have laid down your arms (so to speak) today quite well.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Re: Baha'i Laws

I've said this already. I think it is similar to the condition of obesity and bottom line in some cases, no, there is no choice. Some have the fortitude to remain celibate, some obese people have the willpower or medical intervention to help them lose weight, but for some the best option is to accept that part of themself and love themself the way they are.

I'm not talking about sex--I'm talking about intimacy and a shared life experience that heterosexual couples take for granted.

And, I might be wrong that it is disorder. It might very well be exactly like skin color or gender. How would you feel about it if to the best determination of science this were proven the case? There was lots of Biblical justification for keeping slavery and women as property.
<SNIP for focus>
All that is fine, but I'm judging by what I can see now. Perhaps if things were not kept so secret I'd be able to come to better conclusions about what is going on.

And as for justice being complex, I agree. That is why I think it is better to err on the side of forgiveness at the end of the day.

Here's the nutshell from Shoghi Effendi:
"(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, January 12, 1973; cited in Messages from The Universal House of Justice, 1968-1973, pp. 110-111)
1223. Through Advice, Help of Doctors, and Prayer, Can Overcome This Handicap
"No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and homosexual relationships he looks upon as such, besides being against nature.
"To be afflicted this way is a great burden to an conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.
"God judges each soul on its own merits. The Guardian cannot tell you what the attitude of God would be towards a person who lives a good life in most ways, but not in this way. All he can tell you is that it is forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and that one so afflicted should struggle and struggle again to overcome it. We must be hopeful of God's Mercy but not impose upon it."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 26, 1950)"
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 365)

If the relationship is not sexual in nature, it isn't homosexuality under Baha`i Law.

Transexuality is not homosexuality under Baha`i Law, there are medical recourses for the individual. I know of one case personally of ambiguous gender at birth, and the Universal House of Justice was consulted when medical assistance was sought.

To sum it up "intimacy" and "comfort" can come from a member of the same sex or different sex without a sexual act. In this society, the norm is not to see the difference. That is not a GOOD norm. I would submit it needs changing. We see the sexual act in all its diversity as the proper result of giving comfort and intimacy to another human being, and the two have nothing to do with one another. A spiritual act does not require a physical act to transmit it.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

Re: Baha'i Laws

Hi All,

First I thank you for the patience you've shown toward me and my questions. I think I am getting the end of anything productive that I have to say.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. What responsibility do I have for the decisions of the Universla House of Justice that you think I might be abdicating? Are you interpreting my adherence to the clear denunciations, in the Baha'i Writings, against conflict and contention as abdicating responsibilty for something? You've lost me entirely.

Hi Rick, Let me take this off you and put it upon myself. As a Baha'i, which I chose to be freely, in which there is no clergy, in which the only authority rests in the Institutions made up from the Body of Baha'is, and which I agree are accountable to God if no one else, I believed that I accepted personal responsibility for any actions made by the Admin Order, all the way up to the UHJ. If I am freely part of a system, and I agree to never voice my objections against the decisions of that system, then I am personally responsible. Even in Nazi Germany, many times people did things but they were not freely choosing to be part of that system, not that I feel it should pardon any atrocities. "I was just following orders" kind of thing.

So, I am going to answer to God directly for the decisions made by those institutions. If they cause pain, I am part of that pain. I take that responsibility.

I see you feel differently. Fair enough.

I don't see how we can't be talking about sexual intercourse. There is nothing in Baha'i law that discourages people of the same sex from having a deeply loving, nurturing relationship. Indeed, every level of intimacy is entirely allowed except sexual intercourse.

The only way I know how to approach this now is to be specific. So I'll try.

A Lesbian Baha'i. Lives alone for many years, has never discussed her sexual orientation to anyone. One day she moves in with a woman friend, who is also a Baha'i. They are not publically affectionate, at least no more so than other good friends, but they are together at Baha'i functions and everything else as much as any married heterosexaul couple. The LSA knows about the living arrangements.

Now, at this point that couple may go on with never a hassle. Or, they may have to talk to the LSA, at which point they disclose when asked that they love each other, are "intimate," are a lesbian couple but are not asked and do not tell what that intimacy means to them. The LSA may recommend couseling or they may just drop it. But, after all is said and done, the couple remains living together. No one has ever discussed what goes on or doesn't in private.

What will happen to that couple?

Likely no different than I feel now: given that we are spiritual beings, the notion that sexual intercourse needs to be an inherent part of "intimacy" strikes me as woefully materialistic, and that chastity, in whatever flavor that operates, must be the standard we strive to achieve, not just for our individual spiritual well-being but for the well-being of society as well.

I'm with you on this.

What is achieved by imposing sanctions on the couple above?

And, if Baha'i institutions didn't maintain confidentiality, those people whose conduct falls horribly short of Baha'i ideals would be subject to much shame in the community. As I pointed out, openness is a dual-edged sword. Why should an individual's right to confidentiality be subjugated to our curiosity?

A good reason not to be worrying about personal chastity matters that affect no one else to begin with. And if there is any form of abuse going on anywhere, then disclosure is the beginning of the healing. Hiding things does not help. It has not helped the Catholic Church and it has not helped the Baha'i Faith. If one is getting help with a personal problem of course confidentiality matters. Is one is being judged and sanctioned over a social law then the problem becomes public domain. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to make these matters public. They should remain personal and private, and not judged by others. Unless there is reason to suspect harm and abuse.

We're all simply doing the best we can with what we've been given. I don't know why we should be surprised to find that doing the best we can with what we've been given often leads us to different places.

You are right.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Popeyesays]

Re: Baha'i Laws

Hi All,
<SNIP for focus>



The only way I know how to approach this now is to be specific. So I'll try.

A Lesbian Baha'i. Lives alone for many years, has never discussed her sexual orientation to anyone. One day she moves in with a woman friend, who is also a Baha'i. They are not publically affectionate, at least no more so than other good friends, but they are together at Baha'i functions and everything else as much as any married heterosexaul couple. The LSA knows about the living arrangements.

Now, at this point that couple may go on with never a hassle. Or, they may have to talk to the LSA, at which point they disclose when asked that they love each other, are "intimate," are a lesbian couple but are not asked and do not tell what that intimacy means to them. The LSA may recommend couseling or they may just drop it. But, after all is said and done, the couple remains living together. No one has ever discussed what goes on or doesn't in private.

What will happen to that couple?

Actually, I do not find this specific enough. Are they engaged in sexual acts as part of their intimate friendship? If so, it may never be an issue in the community at all. "Living arrangements" is a euphemism?

If they ARE sexually involved this is between them and God, isn't it? Whatever the presence or absence of sanctions might be. If they are not its still between them and God. No one is going to peek in their windows.

If they are and publicly acknowledge it, THEN the community in general and the administrative order might become involved. The Baha`i administrative order will accept the word of the individuals in denial or acknowledgement.

If the two are known to be gay and they live together, then there is at least an appearance of "wrong", and it might result in their being counseled to seek separate living arrangements to avoid the appearance of indiscretion. This would apply to a heterosexual couple sharing lodgings - there is the appearance of indiscretion even if it is not so, and it should be avoided - for the good of the faith.

I'm with you on this.

What is achieved by imposing sanctions on the couple above?

A good reason not to be worrying about personal chastity matters that affect no one else to begin with. And if there is any form of abuse going on anywhere, then disclosure is the beginning of the healing. Hiding things does not help. It has not helped the Catholic Church and it has not helped the Baha'i Faith. If one is getting help with a personal problem of course confidentiality matters. Is one is being judged and sanctioned over a social law then the problem becomes public domain. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to make these matters public. They should remain personal and private, and not judged by others. Unless there is reason to suspect harm and abuse.

Actually, if someone's rights are revoked the community is often not informed as to the reason. Why? Because the reason is privileged information. If the community makes assumptions then those are assumptions. Usually it is public enough that everyone is already aware, even if that is the case, the assembly will not make public the reason - again it is privileged information.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sara[h]ng]

I would like to verify something,

I am under the impression that in the Baha'i faith, intercourse is never appropriate unless used for conception. But I have some vague memory of a quote that says, 'intercourse is appropriate when between a man and his wife.' Meaning that it doesn't have to be for conception, so long as they are married? Which, if either, is the Baha'i view?

- Sarah

 

[Popeyesays]

I would like to verify something,

I am under the impression that in the Baha'i faith, intercourse is never appropriate unless used for conception. But I have some vague memory of a quote that says, 'intercourse is appropriate when between a man and his wife.' Meaning that it doesn't have to be for conception, so long as they are married? Which, if either, is the Baha'i view?

- Sarah

Sex acts within marriage are not enumerated or qualified, or even prohibited.
Birth control is available but one should consider that most IUD's work by preventing implantation of the embryo, in effect creating an abortion, but one is not prohibited from using IUD's - its a matter of conscience.

"1156. Faith Recognizes Sex Impulse but Condemns Its Illegitimate Expression
"The Bahá'í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 344)

""The Bahá'í Teachings on this matter, which is of such vital concern and about which there is a wide divergency of views, are very clear and emphatic. Briefly stated the Bahá'í conception of sex is based on the belief that chastity should be strictly practised by both sexes, not only because it is in itself highly 345 commendable ethically, but also due to its being the only way to a happy and successful marital life. Sex relationships of any form, outside marriage, are not permissible therefor, and whoso violates this rule will not only be responsible to God, but will incur the necessary punishment from society."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 344)

"In as far as possible the believers should try to realize this and rise above the level of their fellow-men who are, typical of all decadent periods in history, placing so much over-emphasis on the purely physical side of mating. Outside of their normal, legitimate married life they should seek to establish bonds of comradeship and love which are eternal and founded on the spiritual life of man, not on his physical life. This is one of the many fields in which it is incumbent on the Bahá'ís to set the example and lead the way to a true human standard of life, when the soul of man is exalted and his body but the tool for his enlightened spirit. Needless to say this does not preclude the living of a perfectly normal sex life in its legitimate channel of marriage."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 360)

This is but one of the many trials and temptations to which human beings are subject in this life. For Bahá'ís, it cannot alter the basic concept taught by Bahá'u'lláh, that the kind of sexuality purposed by God is the love between a man and a women, and that its primary (but not its only) purpose is the bringing of children into this world and providing them with a loving and protective environment in which they can be reared to know and love God.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1995 Sept 11)

Regards,
Scott

 

[sara[h]ng]

My reason for asking, is that I always rationalized prohibition of homosexual sex with the thought that sex of any sort -aside from that used for conception- makes it harder to lead a spiritual life instead of a sensual, physical one, and so all real seekers of God should avoid it. Along with that, since no homosexual sex can result in conception, it can never be acceptable.

Now that I see that I was incorrect in my reasoning, I'm not sure that I can agree with that rule. Now, it seems like any other religious dogma where the reason to follow it is, 'Well, because he told us to.' By no means do I intend to be inflammatory. Is there something that I'm missing?

- Sarah

 

[Popeyesays]

My reason for asking, is that I always rationalized prohibition of homosexual sex with the thought that sex of any sort -aside from that used for conception- makes it harder to lead a spiritual life instead of a sensual, physical one, and so all real seekers of God should avoid it. Along with that, since no homosexual sex can result in conception, it can never be acceptable.

Now that I see that I was incorrect in my reasoning, I'm not sure that I can agree with that rule. Now, it seems like any other religious dogma where the reason to follow it is, 'Well, because he told us to.' By no means do I intend to be inflammatory. Is there something that I'm missing?

- Sarah

Dear Sarah,

In my own opinion, of course, it seems any sex act outside of marriage is immoral. No particular sex act within marriage is itemized as immoral. One cannot abuse one's spouse. "Abuse" in this instance is not specified as to a particular act, but, in my opinion, seems to be defined by perception of the particular spouse.

The particular homosexual act of sex is not enumerated or described in the writings, it is solely defined by the fact that the two participants are of the same gender. Marriage between members of the same sex is not permitted, so homosexual couples cannot make their act chaste within Baha`i Law by marriage.

The ultimate purpose of marriage is not to make sex acceptable, the purpose of marriage is not to procreate. The PURPOSE of marriage is to create a "fortress of well being" for the partners in the marriage. This is a spiritual state, and a spiritual purpose.
"THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE
And when He desired to manifest grace and beneficence to men, and to set the world in order, He revealed observances and created laws; among them He established the law of marriage, made it as a fortress for well-being and salvation, and enjoined it upon us in that which was sent down out of the heaven of sanctity in His Most Holy Book. He saith, great is His glory: "Marry, O people, that from you may appear he who will remember Me amongst My servants; this is one of My commandments unto you; obey it as an assistance to yourselves."

The true marriage of Bahá'ís is this, that husband and wife should be united both physically and spiritually, that they may ever improve the spiritual life of each other, and may enjoy everlasting unity throughout all the worlds of God. This is Bahá'í marriage."

Many would read the sentence in red to mean bringing forth children in the marriage who are Baha`i within the Baha`i community, but this - in my opinion - avoids other meanings. Chief among those other meanings is that the spouses - nurtured within the fortress for well-being - are also the persons "who appear" to remember God among the servants of God.

As to the injunction against homosexuality and marriage between members of the same gender - well, how much easier would it be if that could be explained away, moderated, over-looked? The faith would be more "politically correct" today, for sure. It would be immensely easier. How much easier would it be in the "politically correct" world, if women could be elected to the Universal House of Justice. However, it is not meant to always be easy. The difficulty to be surmounted is, in my opinion, one of the spiritual tests we are all given - those inside the faith as they try to bring to agreement their personal opinion and the faith - or for those outside the faith to be more deeply attracted.

However, that is not the nature of spiritual tests. They are not supposed to be easy. They are supposed to TEST us to the degree we are capable of bearing so that in passing the test we emerge more spiritually advanced to be better servants to God and to each other.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sara[h]ng]

First off, thank you for being patient with me in such a controversial topic and please forgive my continued questioning, I'm trying to get a good grasp of this.

The ultimate purpose of marriage is not to make sex acceptable, the purpose of marriage is not to procreate. The PURPOSE of marriage is to create a "fortress of well being" for the partners in the marriage. This is a spiritual state, and a spiritual purpose ...

... The true marriage of Bahá'ís is this, that husband and wife should be united both physically and spiritually, that they may ever improve the spiritual life of each other, and may enjoy everlasting unity throughout all the worlds of God. This is Bahá'í marriage."...

... well, how much easier would it be if that could be explained away, moderated, over-looked? The faith would be more "politically correct" today, for sure. It would be immensely easier. How much easier would it be in the "politically correct" world, if women could be elected to the Universal House of Justice. However, it is not meant to always be easy. The difficulty to be surmounted is, in my opinion, one of the spiritual tests we are all given - those inside the faith as they try to bring to agreement their personal opinion and the faith - or for those outside the faith to be more deeply attracted.

However, that is not the nature of spiritual tests. They are not supposed to be easy. They are supposed to TEST us to the degree we are capable of bearing so that in passing the test we emerge more spiritually advanced to be better servants to God and to each other.

So both of these are just tests? I can't imagine that the two things I'm about to say are correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing it another way. So, it is the goal of test of the UHJ/women issue that women and sympathizers learn to accept some degree of inequality? And it is the goal of the homosexual test to suppress sexual urges though others in the community with very similar urges do not also have to suppress them? It seems a bit oppressive and arbitrary to me.

One can say, 'Well, it's God's will, accept it or don't.' But, I would imagine that if I were a homosexual Baha'i, that response would not be good enough for me. I might be very frustrated that I could not both have feelings towards the person I love, feelings equal to those of a heterosexual couple, and be a good Baha'i at the same time. Why is the homosexual not permitted to 'be united both physically and spiritually' with the person of their choice? What am I not seeing?

- Sarah

 

[smkolins]

Re: Baha'i Laws

So, in other words, more laws in the future, not less.

Will the Baha'i community ever raise its voice together to ask whether the sanctions against gay Baha'is is really just? Will they ever together consult about the paradox of Abdu'l Baha'i saying that the full equality of women is not just helpful, but imperative for peace vs. the male-only UHJ?

You're all wearing me down here.

peace,
lunamoth

The purpose is not to wear you down. We each have things to say but there is so much to say.... I've very much limited my posts, partly because I can't post every day and it takes a while to catch up.

As for when will the community at large respond - the community at large is very much aware of these issues and I see no measurable discontent. I wont say it isn't something individuals wrestle with but on the whole it's something we process rather than find stuck in our throats.

Meanwhile Baha'is tend to get almost no credit for their achievements in these kinds of issues from the same people most upset. For example in the area of the equality of women and men, I would welcome a comparative review of the national levels of leadership of every conceivable organization (government, private, NGO, religious, whatever) for a breakdown of the sexes involved, and what conditions apply for how positions are filled gender-wise (ie some kind of quota system or not.) I posted some sample data a few pages of posts ago for the Baha'i Faith. I have more.

Some elements of the western culture in which we are a part often, and I mean like all the time, bring up these issues in public discussion areas with Baha'is. Sometimes they reach the point where no other discussion can happen and everyone just avoids it. I hope that doesn't happen here. I would note that other elements of western society have no problem with these issues.

 

[smkolins]

Re: My participatoin here

How have my posts been hostile today? Is questioning considered hostile? I feel I have been polite, or at least neutral today.

I am not intentionally misrepresenting anything. If you feel I misrepresent things, then this has given you an opportunity to clarify them.

I think part of the issue comes up from declaring a position with stating it. You say something is a position and you say it is not rational. Same goes for "us". We say a position and state it is x, y, and z. But the characterization is viewed by the other side as hostile. You feel outrage and how gay Baha'is are treated and how women are treated by the laws and practices of the Baha'i Faith - and express that outrage by characterizing our laws and practices appropriate to you pov. Of course we do not agree with the characterization and view that as a hostile statement. And everything visa-versa, for example, when we speak of the Baha'i Faith's relationship with other religions when we say such things as "old" "compromised" etc.

Yes?

 

[Popeyesays]

First off, thank you for being patient with me in such a controversial topic and please forgive my continued questioning, I'm trying to get a good grasp of this.



So both of these are just tests? I can't imagine that the two things I'm about to say are correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing it another way. So, it is the goal of test of the UHJ/women issue that women and sympathizers learn to accept some degree of inequality? And it is the goal of the homosexual test to suppress sexual urges though others in the community with very similar urges do not also have to suppress them? It seems a bit oppressive and arbitrary to me.

One can say, 'Well, it's God's will, accept it or don't.' But, I would imagine that if I were a homosexual Baha'i, that response would not be good enough for me. I might be very frustrated that I could not both have feelings towards the person I love, feelings equal to those of a heterosexual couple, and be a good Baha'i at the same time. Why is the homosexual not permitted to 'be united both physically and spiritually' with the person of their choice? What am I not seeing?

- Sarah

". In a letter to an individual believer, the Guardian's secretary
wrote on his behalf: "No matter how devoted and fine the
love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression
in sexual acts is wrong. Immorality of every sort is
really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and homosexual relationships
He looks upon as such, besides being against nature." (p. 47)
(Baha'u'llah, Synopsis and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 64)

""To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.
"God judges each soul on its own merits. The Guardian cannot tell you what the attitude of God would be towards a person who lives a good life in most ways, but not in this way. All he can tell you is that it is forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and that one so afflicted should struggle and struggle again to overcome it. We must be hopeful of God's Mercy but not impose upon it.""
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 365)

I don't mean to keep throwing quotes, but I do think that it is a burden upon the soul of an individual to be "outside" society in anyway. Like the Guardian I do not know what the status of any soul with God might be, its beyond me even to judge my own soul in such regard. In any regard, this must be left up to God.

That the marriage cannot be condoned by the Baha`i administrative order and Baha`i society in general creates another burden for the individual, and it may create burdens upon others who are troubled by that stance. It is not, however, up to the adminstrative order to bring their policy into alignment with the "feelings" of anyone. Is it?

Regards,
Scott

 

[PrimaVera]

Re: Baha'i Laws

Laurie,

If I am freely part of a system, and I agree to never voice my objections against the decisions of that system, then I am personally responsible. Even in Nazi Germany, many times people did things but they were not freely choosing to be part of that system, not that I feel it should pardon any atrocities. "I was just following orders" kind of thing.

So, I am going to answer to God directly for the decisions made by those institutions. If they cause pain, I am part of that pain. I take that responsibility.

I see you feel differently. Fair enough.

Ah, I see, though I think our difference might be a bit more narrow than you'd expect. Not only is it OK for me to make my feelings known to the institutions, I am obligated to make my feelings known. I am, however, equally obligated to make my feelings known to these institutions in a way such that my own behavior does not violate Baha'i law and principles.

A good reason not to be worrying about personal chastity matters that affect no one else to begin with.

Except that, in today's society and as sociology has demonstrated rather clearly, there is no such thing as a personal, chastity matter that doesn't affect anyone else.

 

[PrimaVera]

Dear Sarah,

So both of these are just tests? I can't imagine that the two things I'm about to say are correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing it another way. So, it is the goal of test of the UHJ/women issue that women and sympathizers learn to accept some degree of inequality? And it is the goal of the homosexual test to suppress sexual urges though others in the community with very similar urges do not also have to suppress them? It seems a bit oppressive and arbitrary to me.

Not quite. I've mentioned Bahiyyih Nakhjavani's book Asking Questions before, but her thesis is that the test is a challenge to our understanding of these basic concepts. It's not so much to get us to accept inequality as it is a test that forces us to rethink what equality means.

I'll ask a rhetorical question that's merely food for thought. I don't think there is a definitive answer. Which is more important in terms of the equality between women and men, the membership of the Universal House of Justice or how I treat my wife and daughters?

 

[lunamoth]

Re: Baha'i Laws

post withdrawn

 

[smkolins]

...I can't imagine that the two things I'm about to say are correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing it another way. So, it is the goal of test of the UHJ/women issue that women and sympathizers learn to accept some degree of inequality? And it is the goal of the homosexual test to suppress sexual urges though others in the community with very similar urges do not also have to suppress them? It seems a bit oppressive and arbitrary to me.

...Why is the homosexual not permitted to 'be united both physically and spiritually' with the person of their choice? What am I not seeing?

- Sarah

Well you do assume that the heterosexual couple don't have chastity problems for one. The law of chastity isn't void just because one is married. Issues of regulation and control remain.

Understanding chastity is a prfound subject - for example it turns out to be a key issue in understanding Scripture! "The understanding of His words and the comprehension of the utterances of the Birds of Heaven are in no wise dependent upon human learning. They depend solely upon purity of heart, chastity of soul, and freedom of spirit."

As for women on the House of Justice, other arguments and considerations can apply as well. Perhaps we can examin those in a bit.

It is also commented that homosexuality is against nature. Just be dwell on that a second - consider the philosophical issues. The simple existence of sex is for reproduction. It has many other issues and qualities involved but they are, however important, not the essential reason it exists. Now, what are the implications of engaging in something NEVER for the reason for which it most is in existence? It rather transends in substance the issues of using all the fossil fuels up and causing global warming - it's more on a par with genetic engineering run amuck.

Now this line of reason is just that - a line of reason. It is personal though aspects of it can be shared. Baha'u'llah sometimes uses reason to illuminate an issue. But there are other qualities He uses as well - an informed point of view is sometimes noted for example in issues per death and dying and the next world.

 

[arthra]

This quote also came to mind when I was reading some of the posts:

"But it is clear from the teaching of Baha'u'llah that homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be reconciled, but is a distortion of his or her nature which should be controlled or overcome. This may require a hard struggle, but so also can be the struggle of a heterosexual person to control his or her desires. The exercise of self-control in this, as in so very many other aspects of life, has a beneficial effect on the progress of the soul."

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, January 12, 1973; cited in Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1968- 1973, pp. 110-111; also cited in LG, #1222, p. 365)

"But it is clear from the teaching of Baha'u'llah that homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be reconciled..."

That's pretty much where lies in my view...

There's also a compilation on the subject that might have some more ideas at

http://bahai-library.com/unpubl.compilations/homosexuality.comp.html

- Art

 

[smkolins]

Re: Baha'i Laws

What happened to A Modest Proposal?

Perhaps the same as "Never again", which is to say, compromised by the very authors. Something isn't so just because one calls it "modest".

It's quite possible that today's Baha'i heretics will be considered the future heros of the Faith.

It is also possible such people will be as famous as Arius, or all of his prominant followers. I doubt anyone I know will reach the position of Origen.