Michael Elliott ([info]kindelingboy) wrote in [info]ljbahai,
@ 2007-03-29 02:02:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
The Baha'i Faith and Homosexuality
Hello, Michael from the Year of Faith project here!

March is quickly coming to a close, so I am trying to make up for my lack of activity on the site by posting as much as I can at Year of Faith in the closing week.

But I have a burning question for this community, relating to my most recent post.

What is your stance on homosexuality?  I am aware of what the Baha'i position is, but I am curious if you agree or disagree.  Why or why not?

I myself am unable to reconcile the Baha'i prohibition against homosexual behavior with the stance of the oneness of humanity.  It seems contradictory to put so much emphasis on tolerance, mutual understanding, and equality, and yet maintain such a conservative view on sexuality and marriage.  I also have trouble seeing how the Baha'i community could augment this, or any one of it's ideas, without a new Prophet to set us straight on God's Will.

Hope that gets the ball rolling ^_^.

Allah'u'Abha.

(Post a new comment)


[info]mavaddat
2007-03-29 11:22 am UTC (link)
From the post you wrote on yearoffaith.net, you seem to be very well-informed about the Bahá'í position on homosexuality. So I will just answer your question. Here is my story:

The Bahá'í attitude toward homosexuality was not always a challenge for me. My belief as a Bahá'í was that homosexuality was wrong. It was wrong because God defined marriage to be between a man and a woman. God defined marriage as between a man and a woman to ensure that the union of two people might produce offspring. I saw this as the natural order. Since a homosexual relationship cannot produce children, I thought, homosexuals cannot be married and it is unnatural for them to do so. Moreover, since no sex act is legitimate outside the context of marriage, I thought that homosexuality itself was illegitimate, and thus immoral.

I soon realized, however, that the purpose of marriage was not defined by God, but by humans. For example, some people choose to get married for the purpose of getting resident alien status. Others get married for financial reasons. And some radical people get married just out of love. I could not accept that every marriage that was not motivated by the desire to create children was illegitimate. Furthermore, the Bahá'í Faith explicitly condones the marriage of two people who cannot have children (from infertility or old age), so the purpose of marriage cannot be bearing children exclusively even if God did define it. What's more, having children is not always a good idea (sometimes, it's just downright immoral), especially in an age of over population and lack of resources. Homosexuality also appeared to occur naturally in humans and other animals irrespective of culture or era. Lastly, allowing homosexuals to marry seemed to me like a positive reinforcement of the institution of marriage, insofar as it lent that institution greater legitimacy by discouraging sexual relationships out of wedlock. All of this left me unable to understand what it was about merely the specification of two persons' genders that could give me any insight into the morality or immorality of their sexual conduct. From this confusion, I began to doubt the moral infallibility of my religion, and I soon abandoned it to think for myself.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ex_melimeli728
2007-03-29 12:31 pm UTC (link)
Wow! Was it indeed through considering the moral implications of the Baha'i stance on homosexuality that you started to reconsider your belief in that religion? I mean- the teachings on homosexuality in particular, and then reasoning for yourself about them-- was that specifically what got the ball rolling?

Personally I think that this is a good process-- I find that a lot of Baha'is born into the Faith have the ideas that you mention in your first paragraph, whereas those who come to the Faith later on seem to have more complex views. I think that the coming generations are going to redefine Baha'i interpretations of homosexuality, and I think that the kind of confusion you're describing is going to bear later fruit in that respect.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-30 02:02 am UTC

[info]grover173
2007-03-29 12:35 pm UTC (link)
Before I say anything, I admit that I have not followed your Year of Faith project as closely as I originally intended; I find the idea fascinating, especially as you go through your month with the Baha'i Faith. It provides a really interesting, involved-yet-detached perspective on the Faith, one I don't think I've ever come across. I hope you all found the experience positive, even the Fasting...:) I considered giving you some hints about fasting, especially on how to eat in the mornings, but wasn't sure if that would be fair to your experiences or not.

Also, anything below is my own opinion based on my imperfect knowledge of Baha'i laws and guidance and shouldn't be considered authoritative. :)

The Baha'i stance on homosexuality has caused its fair share of controversy in recent years. My own opinion on homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals is very liberal/sympathetic; I support full civil/political equality including the right of gay couples to a civil marriage (i.e. I do not believe churches or other religious bodies should be compelled to marry gays, but the government should be). Do my ideas conflict with the official Baha'i stance? At first glance, perhaps, but increasingly I think that they are complementary ideas. I think this because of the following reasons:
1) Baha'is do not involve themselves in the political discussion of homosexual rights or denial thereof. As an institution we do not have an opinion on the broadening or restriction of gay rights in any country by any government.
2) Baha'i institutions do not ban or excommunicate homosexuals. In very extreme cases Bahai's have the latitude to deny voting rights where a Baha'i is blatantly and purposefully disregarding Baha'i laws, but it is my understanding that this action is exceedingly rare. It is also not restricted to the issue of homosexuality.
3) Baha'is have been explicitly instructed not to shun or condemn homosexual individuals, but rather disagree with the idea that homosexual *acts* are "okay" (more on this in a second).
4) Baha'is do not consider the transgression of homosexual acts any more or less serious than any other sin. There are no "degrees" of sin. Homosexuality in itself is not a sin. Acting upon it is, according to the Faith; but so are (for example) backbiting, lying, taking a sip of alcohol, and gambling.
5) Baha'is recognize that nobody is free from sin.
6) Baha'is do not enforce nor attempt to enforce Baha'i law on non-Baha'is. This concept is important to me. This may sound a little bit like "change your ways or you're out" but that's not what I'm getting at; what I'm getting at is that in a (future hypothetical) society where Baha'is are a major contributor, I certainly hope and believe that the Faith will not attempt to impose its will on the non-Baha'i population (such as happens with other religions in so many countries today). Individuals will always have the ability to "opt out" (not "be kicked out") of the Faith if they so choose, without suffering repercussions, if there ever comes a day where a society is governed by Baha'is.

(more in followup comment)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]grover173
2007-03-29 12:35 pm UTC (link)
(...continued)

Regarding the idea of rejecting homosexual acts and the Baha'i view thereof--that homosexuality is something that can be "overcome"--I do not believe this is in direct conflict with science. (Baha'is believe, after all, that science and religion must agree.) Science says that homosexuality is "natural and normal". I concur with that. So is sex; so is accumulating wealth. So is getting intoxicated, for that matter. These things are not necessarily bad according to natural law. They are, however, *natural* law: animalistic urges and tendencies. We all have animalistic urges and tendencies. No Baha'i is bereft of these urges. However, society and religion have built a layer of "human law" above that of natural law. Humans must work to exceed the standards of natural law: refraining from extramarital sex (marriage, and perhaps even monogamy, is not a condition of natural law), refraining from mind-altering substances, refraining from hoarding wealth. The key, i believe, to the Baha'i idea is that we must *progress* towards following human law--we can not just snap our fingers and suddenly be an adherent as soon as we sign our declaration card. And we may never outgrow natural urges. But we must try. Fasting is a perfect symbolic representation of a Baha'is desire to detach oneself from the material and animalistic desires of the world. Is food bad? :) Certainly not, but God has asked us to refrain from it for certain periods each year as a representation of our ability to consciously supersede natural law with human law.

I have never had a personal experience within my Baha'i community with the issue of homosexuality (I have talked about it at great length with Baha'i friends and with gay friends who showed interest in the Baha'i Faith, but I have never come face-to-face with a convergence of the two universes), so I cannot say whether or not Baha'is themselves adhere to authoritative guidance on the issue. I have certainly heard stories of people who have experienced prejudice from individual Baha'is, which saddens me because I think it is so counter-intuitive to the Baha'i writings. Baha'is have the right to express disagreement with homosexuality but, in my opinion, do not have the right to treat someone differently because of it. Like everything else, this requires individual transformation and is not an instantaneous change.

Lastly, I don't think that disapproval of homosexual acts violates the ideas of unity and equality. As a crude analogy, Baha'is do not consider alcoholics to be unequal or unworthy of the Faith. (I *do* have personal experience with this issue.) A Baha'i would expect, however, that an alcoholic wishing to become a Baha'i would want to make an effort to overcome his alcoholism. As any recovering alcoholic will tell you, you're never "cured" of alcoholism; it affects you every day. I know of an alcoholic who has been sober for over 17 years and he will tell you flat-out that he thinks about drinking on a regular basis. But he refrains. As another crude analogy, Baha'i teenagers have the same raging hormones that every other teenager in the world has; but their religion teaches them to make a conscious decision not to act on their sexual urges (gay or straight). Sex is not evil; premarital sex is not evil. But it's not what God has prescribed for us. It's the same idea for homosexuality.

I hope all that proves helpful. I've gone out of my way to try to avoid comparing homosexuality to what are commonly accepted as "bad" things (lying, stealing, violence, etc) so I hope I accomplished that. It's tough to talk about homosexuality in a Baha'i context without sounding condescending or preachy; so if I ever came across that way the fault is mine, not Baha'u'llah's. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-30 07:40 am UTC

[info]mavaddat
2007-03-30 07:20 am UTC (link)
What is a civil marriage? I've heard of civil unions and marriages, but never of civil marriage. If yo are for the legalization of gay marriage, how can you say that homosexuality is immoral (as an act)? Don't you think that immoral acts should be illegal? Isn't that the whole reason why we have laws?

Also, how can we expect individual Bahá'ís to not impose their views on the population as a whole? If a Bahá'í sincerely believes that homosexuality (as an act) is immoral, why would we not expect them to vote against legislation that would seek to legalize gay marriage? Won't individual Bahá'ís who see gay marriage as harmful to the well-being of society as a whole tend to vote accordingly (i.e., against gay marriage), as citizens?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]grover173, 2007-03-30 04:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-30 04:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]grover173, 2007-03-30 04:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-30 04:43 pm UTC

[info]netsrik
2007-03-29 01:00 pm UTC (link)
I can't say that I represent the whole Baha'i population. Many of my Baha'i friends agree with these thoughts but many do not, as well. That disclaimer aside:

To me, all religions are a way of organizing society. Many laws that religious teachers have brought us only apply to a certain time period because as society grows, they're no longer relevant. For example, Moses telling Jews not to eat pork had much to do with plague and lack of ability to preserve meat or to raise it in clean ways. There are several teachings in various religions that strike me to follow the same reasoning.

Also, while religion can help an individual to develop spiritually, I see that as a separate function of religious teachings. When looked at from this group vs individual perspective, things are easier for me to understand. For example, Christians are told to attend church. That does not mean that if an individual misses one meeting, s/he will go to hell or even that they're a bad person. It means that as a group, it's good to build a healthy community of support and people should go; there are many exceptions on an individual level.

Another example: Baha'is are taught not to drink alcohol, even given an example of not eating "flaming plum pudding." But bread made with yeast naturally contains some alcohol when freshly made and I don't think that most Baha'is even know that, let alone avoid fresh bread. Also, Dijon mustard and other foods with minor amounts of alcohol may or may not be used. The point of the teaching is not to avoid alcohol but to avoid the breakdown of society that comes with drunkeness and alcoholism. Specific interpretation is left to the individual.

The UHJ has offered the idea that we think of homosexuality as a disease rather than a deliberate immorality. This is a religious directive, towards a society. I suspect that there will be new perspectives on this subject as religion and humanity develop. Individually, we all have to live the way that we sincerely believe we should and stop worrying so much about what other people are doing. We have to trust that others are doing what they think is best. We're all growing, all making different decisions, all ultimately headed in the same direction (toward enlightenment). In human society as well as other natural populations, homosexuality is found. I think that it's perfectly natural to have a homosexual population and I don't have a problem with that. It seems to me that the problem a religious leader would have with it is that in this current society, it is sometimes a cause of too-great a focus on sex, to the extent that people forget other responsibilities. Similarly, if a Baha'i has a glass of wine, they are not corrupting society. But if they become addicted to alcohol, they may harm their family (as a whole as well as individual members) and be less effective in their community, harming that as well. The problem seems to be addiction and unhealthy priorities, not alcohol or sexual partners.

I don't look down on anyone who is homosexual, just as I don't look down on unwed parents, people who watch TV (I don't) or people who buy different milk than I do. They may or may not be doing what's best for them, and I can't possibly know it; nor does it matter if I do. Our job is to grow and to love, and to think for ourselves about our own actions and development. That's it.

As in every religion, there are fanatic Baha'is who are so short-sighted as to only see the exact, literal teachings. But just as in other religions, the literal words on the page aren't anywhere near the entirety of what's to be learned.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]netsrik
2007-03-29 01:29 pm UTC (link)
One more thought - Baha'is believe (unlike many other religions) that they do not have the one true way to believe or the final answer to every question. Rather, they're part of an ongoing progression of spiritual development and thought. So although teachers (who have come to lead Baha'is after the original manifestation) may have a valid interpretation for their era, it may be quite flawed on a cosmic scale and is subject to change as the population develops. This has been true of all past religions.
As a Baha'i, disagreeing with Baha'i leaders is often seen as blasphemy but as a believer of the Baha'i principles, one must realize that there is more change to come as perspective, religion, and humanity evolve.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
:) - [info]ex_melimeli728, 2007-03-29 03:56 pm UTC
Re: :) - [info]netsrik, 2007-03-29 06:27 pm UTC
Re: :) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-30 07:47 am UTC
Re: :) - [info]netsrik, 2007-03-30 03:00 pm UTC
Re: :) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-30 04:12 pm UTC

[info]ex_melimeli728
2007-03-29 01:14 pm UTC (link)
Ya min ahiba'i!

I had a similar situation after coming to the Faith- similar to the trouble you're having, and to the process Mavaddat described below, though I resolved it in a different way.

Now, perhaps like or perhaps unlike you and M, I had always had a view of religions as being dynamic-- their interpretations change from age to age, from year to year, from person to person. How else could they have been sources for so many different responses and behaviors at different times and in different places? They are a starting place that produce a spiritual something, a spiritual attitude perhaps? But they do not arouse the exact same interpretation in each different time/place/person-- obviously.

So what does that say to me? Well-- Baha'i views on governance, on social relations among races, among genders-- all those things have in fact changed over time. I don't have sources before me, but I believe that if you looked at the individual opinions of local spiritual assemblies on the future of race relations or gender relations, you would find different opinions than what you find today. We might have the same spiritual starting place-- unity, equality, the idea of the same family--- but we interpret that to mean different specific things. And that's natural, and in line with what we know about human beings' reactions to messages from God all throughout history. I believe that Muhammad brought a message with the same spiritual principles as those of Baha'u'llah, but they were played out in a different way in that time and age. To put it very, very crudely.

Regarding a new prophet-- well, we do believe that there will be a new prophet at some point. There is a quote in the writings about 1000 years, and most Baha'is interpret that literally, but I think a person could agree or disagree, as a lot of Baha'i sacred texts are written in a symbolic manner. So who knows.

But I personally think that the Baha'i consensus is going to change. There is a tension between Shoghi Effendi's interpretations of Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha on homosexuality on the one hand, and Abdul Baha and Baha'u'llah's statements on science (and.. tolerance). I think that the way that we resolve those tensions will evolve. I don't know how-- but nothing in a religion is static. And not in the Baha'i Faith by a long shot.

Personally-- I hope this will not be interpreted as backbiting. But I think that Baha'is are as fallible as everyone, and part of human fallibility is mixing up culture and religion. And I think that occurs at times, among us. I have seen it occur in other contexts, and I think it occurs in relation to the homosexuality question as well. And I think that those kinds of fallibility are things that the community will learn to work on and self-examine to correct. And I think things are already changing in the young generation.

In every religion there are apparent inconsistencies in different texts of the same tradition, and they become reconciled through the active work of human spirits, of human believers, who try to approach the questions of the day and the questions of yesterday in the spirit of their religion. I think the -in the spirit-- idea is very important, because I think that this Baha'i spirit is what will carry our interpretations in the line of what God wants from us.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ex_melimeli728
2007-03-29 01:14 pm UTC (link)
And regarding those inconsistencies-- also I don't think that they are evidence of any defect in the religion. Personally, I think they are challenges, tests that God gives to his community, to his servants. You know in education we call it "learning by doing"? I think he doesn't just give us the full principles set out-- we are going to have to talk and learn and meditate and consider and pray for guidance--- and in this way the principles of the religion, remaining the same in essence, can also move in line along with a society. Not everything can be known at once. When Muhammad revealed his message, he did so slowly, progressively (:)), in line with the understandings and capacities of his followers. I think we will also progress in our understanding of the Baha'i faith and its teachings for us progressively-- it's just a human thing, we don't grasp things all at once, it takes us time. As an individual and as a group--- even a group over time, over generations.

Finally-- if we were looking only at Baha'u'llah's words, I think the words that he uses in his verses- I think there are two verses referring to homosexuality. And looking at the Persian words used is instructive. One verse is: "Ye are forbidden to commit adultery (zinaa'), sodomy (liwaat)
and lechery (khiiyaanah)." Now, liwaat was a word also used at that time to refer to pederasty-- sex with small boys. (Khiyanan, lechery, literally means deception or faithlessness.) The second verse says something like: "And on the subject of boys, we shrink from the very mention!" However, in the original Persian, the word used is ghulam-- which was used then to refer to little boys (this was a big problem-- sorry, this still /is/ a big problem in many societies).

Personally, again, I think that eventually same-sex marriage will become legal, and when it is the law of the land, I think that Baha'i views will hav to evolve considerably. But I think that they will be able to.

Finally, I think that the Baha'i position of today, despite its imperfections, is not something to just denigrate, because it does emphasize an important truth that is missed in today's society of permissiveness and sexual liberation (remember, everything in moderation)-- which is the meaninglessness of the desires of the material world, and the greatness of our creator, and how he asks of us to be the best that we can, striving always to be less of the material and more of the spiritual. And I think that is a point quite lost today. That God demands trials of us. That the seat of love is not its demonstration or its consummation, but in patience and perserverance through trials. And also, that we are to love God first and above all.





(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]netsrik, 2007-03-29 01:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2007-03-29 03:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-30 07:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]julietma, 2007-03-30 04:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-30 04:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]julietma, 2007-03-30 07:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-31 02:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]julietma, 2007-03-31 07:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-31 07:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]julietma, 2007-03-31 08:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_melimeli728, 2007-03-31 04:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mt_st_helens, 2007-04-11 09:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]julietma, 2007-04-12 12:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_melimeli728, 2007-04-13 01:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_melimeli728, 2007-04-13 01:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-15 12:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mallinson, 2007-04-24 02:26 am UTC

[info]joansies
2007-03-29 02:34 pm UTC (link)
I have many of the same thoughts and feelings as you regarding the discrepancy between tolerance and oneness vs the Faith's tenets regarding homosexuality. I believe it is possible that, much like the Bible, things have been lost in translation, or changed unnecessarily due to human imperfection. I would hope the latter isn't the case, but even the most influential human being has done ghastly things. So whether or not anyone wants to believe that, it's still a possibility, however slim.

As for my own stance on homosexuality: I have friends that are homosexual, and none of them have indicated that they CHOSE to be homosexual. One girl who is in my counseling practicum with me has a student who she found passed out in the shower. He had taken an entire bottle of sleeping pills and chased it with a bottle of Vodka. When she met his parents at the hospital, do you know what they said? "You should have just let him die." Why would ANYONE say such a horrible thing about their son? Why? Because he is homosexual, and his parents hate homosexuality, and think it's wrong because whatever religion they follow says it's wrong. I have a very hard time believing that God would set a tenet that would breed such hate that parents would wish their own flesh and blood dead.

I support homosexual legal rights to have the same benifits as everyone else. For me, homosexual rights is a civil issue, not a religious one. I firmly believe that religon needs to be kept out of the government, and the government needs to stay out of religion. Make civil unions legal, but if a homosexual couple wants a religious ceremony, then that is between them and their church/mosque/temple/etc...In short, it is up to religions to rethink (if necessary) their stance on homosexuality. it is NOT up to the government to tell any religion "You have to do this." That's no better than a religion forcing its own views on a government or a people who don't follow said religion.

As I said, I fully support the civil rights movement for homosexuality, but religion needs to stay out of it. Alternately, I certainly hope religions will think about their stance on homosexuality. I agree with someone's statement above that it would be nice if God would send us another prophet to set things straight. However, I do wonder if sometimes God would like his children to figure some things out on their own...

(Reply to this)


[info]pthalogreen
2007-03-29 03:37 pm UTC (link)
eh, i'm an asexual lesbian, Bahá'í since birth. i mostly try not to think about it, but since i'm currently more asexual than lesbian (sometimes i am more lesbian than asexual), it doesn't really bother me so much right now.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ex_melimeli728
2007-03-29 04:00 pm UTC (link)
That was the best answer ever :)

My friend in Nablus once said- sometimes it's good not to think about it too much. I got annoyed, but he was right, sometimes, in some ways. To preserve- what is precious. I'm a mostly asexual heterosexual, cherie, and I try not to think about it too much as well :) It is freaking hard though!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]pthalogreen, 2007-03-29 04:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_melimeli728, 2007-03-29 04:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pthalogreen, 2007-03-29 05:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]grover173, 2007-03-30 02:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-30 08:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pthalogreen, 2007-03-30 10:50 am UTC

[info]callmesquanky
2007-03-29 04:05 pm UTC (link)
I struggled with this issue myself many years ago, actually, but eventually came to a personal resolution on the subject. The talk "Sexuality, Self, and the Shape of Society" by Holly Hanson really helped my understanding; here are a few points she's raised that may be worth thinking about:

The gay-affirming side views sexual desire as something that defines human beings: experiencing same sex desire makes a person a homosexual: a person can acknowledge that, and define himself as gay; a person who experiences same sex desire but does not adopt a gay identity is gay and experiencing internalized homophobia. There is not any other choice, it is permanent, and it is defining. The gay-rejecting side also views sexual desire as defining, because it asks people to stop experiencing same-sex desire, which is bad, and change themselves so they experience heterosexual desire, which is good. Again, sexual desire defines people.

Both sides share a vision that in order to be happy and fulfilled, an adult person needs to find a partner who will meet one's needs for emotional intimacy, physical closeness and sexual expression, for financial support, for practical life support, for socializing, and for reproduction... Both sides are looking to this legally defined, possession-laden unit to make people happy; they are relying on it, to the exclusion of any other relationship or social institution, to meet people's needs. Of course marriage, life-partnership, is a powerful institution that supports people. But we have impossible expectations of what it will accomplish for us. One partner-person cannot give us emotional, physical, and financial security, and children, and sexual satisfaction, and fun and companionship, and help with life's difficulties, and a sense of purpose, for all of our lives. No one can do that for us. Complete dependence on one other person will not work. But partnership as the exclusive strategy for personal happiness is an underlying assumption of the gay-affirming and gay-rejecting points of view.

The underlying assumptions of both sides of this conflict are wrong. Sexual desire does not define human beings. A long term relationship with one person is not the cause of human happiness. And no one is the living model for the society God wants us to create. To think about the world in this way is a really bad idea. I am not saying that recognition of the existence of homosexuality is a bad idea, I am saying the whole cultural framework, our whole perception of heterosexuality and homosexuality and of human nature as fundamentally material, sexual, and acquisitive is a bad idea. Our culture's way of thinking about sexuality flattens, narrows, and diminishes what it is to be human; it distorts us. Furthermore, it interferes with the process of imagining and creating a just society, because it naturalizes oppressive gender roles, acquiesces in the loss of social responsibility of members of a community for each other. It freezes attention on the simple question of what do people do with desire, blocking out consideration of any other dimension of what might be just or unjust about society.

While our culture's conflict over sexuality is focussed on whether or not people who experience same-sex desire can change or should change, the Baha'i perspective is that all of us need to change. We need to change ourselves for our own sake, and for the well-being of society. We do not think that people who are now defined as homosexuals, need to stop being who they are and start being people who are straight with family values. We think that everyone, whatever we desire, however we understand ourselves, needs to deliberately engage in a process of individual and social transformation to make the world into what God wants it to be.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mavaddat
2007-03-30 08:02 am UTC (link)
I actually think everything here is dead right. However, despite agreeing with everything you wrote, I'm still left wondering why homosexuality is condemned by God according to the Bahá'í writings. Or is this just a way of saying, Just do what God says? But then shouldn't we be careful about what we believe is from God and what is not? How do we decide? Don't we ultimately have to appeal to our values? And aren't our values inherently relative to our society? If so, should we believe that there is one true religion for all of humanity in this day?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]callmesquanky, 2007-03-30 10:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-31 07:59 am UTC

[info]fyerewitch
2007-03-29 04:17 pm UTC (link)
it's a busy week for me, so unfortunately, there's no long lengthy reply that i can give now... but here the skinny:

i am bisexual, baha'i since birth, and i deviated from the faith for two years before coming back. i struggled with this answer and i still continue to struggle with this to this day. however, i have found a satisfactory answer that satiates my wondering of why gay baha'is cannot marry, or share acts of love. i believe that our homosexual friends are special, in the sense that they can love without feeling constrained to love the other gender. perhaps, this is the way we shall be in the next world, souls loving souls, without regard to gender (as i'm assuming there is none). perhaps homosexuals are just people whose soul is falling for another soul, who happens to be of the opposite gender. but i believe that homosexuals are challenged to find other ways (non-physical) to love another. i don't know if i'm making sense, and i know i must sound every ephemeral, but that's the way i reason it out in my head.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]callmesquanky
2007-03-29 04:26 pm UTC (link)
I feel that way myself, actually. Though I think that we should all have a higher capacity of love for one another regardless of gender. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)
(no subject) - [info]julietma, 2007-03-30 04:10 pm UTC

[info]prema
2007-03-29 06:17 pm UTC (link)
I have a very simplistic response to this matter. Many of the responses above, including Mavaddat's thoughts on natural order, have been part of my rational thought process about it. But lately, I find that I have developed a new understanding about the laws of the Faith by reconsidering what it meant to me to accept Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God.

A personal investigation and decision that He was indeed the Manifestation made me certain that I have to follow His laws, regardless of my past personal opinions. Some laws I take on faith, and as a result have found confirmations and new understanding on why they are there. Some examples of such laws were the obligatory prayers, chastity, even obedience to laws of the government. But as I attempt to accept them unconditionally, I begin to understand why they were given.

I've found that it's important for me to put aside my agreements or disagreements with some nuances of the religion, and accept on faith initially. Obedience and prayer has served me well in the past to offer enlightenment.

That said I believe that Baha'is should never be prejudiced about or judge the behaviour of those who are homosexual, be they Baha'i or not. The institutions are equipped to deal with these matters in a loving manner and often do so. The oneness of humanity is not dependent on those who are homosexual (or not) (or any of the other categories we inflict upon ourselves).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mavaddat
2007-11-27 09:21 pm UTC (link)
Prema, it seems like your reconsideration of what it means to accept Bahá'u'lláh as a Manifestation of God has led you to accept his maxims in spite of yourself. You have, it seems, eschewed your own ability to think freely and make judgements about the good on your own in lieu of "faith." But this is a rather sinister kind of faith, is it not? After all, it seems there is nothing one couldn't justify by an appeal to this kind of faith.

But aren't we supposed to identify the Manifestations of God by their supposed goodness? If so, then isn't Bahá'u'lláh's (supposed) condemnation of a perfectly innocent sexual orientation a good reason to reject the possibility of Bahá'u'lláh's being a Divinely inspired?

At least, isn't this fact (that we identify the Manifestation of God by his goodness) a good reason not to adopt apparently evil doctrines on "faith"?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-03-30 12:07 am UTC (link)
this has been an interesting thread. I'm just commenting to say that it makes me happy to read the thoughtful answers, and that I can honestly say that I agree, in different ways, with every single response above-- and it makes me see how, even when i see things in my own way, they are so far from being the truest or best way. i'm glad to have my own colors, but i'm glad to read and learn from yours. thank you, ya ahl al-baha. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ex_melimeli728
2007-03-31 03:55 pm UTC (link)
(from me)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]eliseamelie
2007-03-30 12:59 am UTC (link)
It's one of the few things I disagree with in the Faith. I believe a person is born hetero or homosexual. It's ingrained in our DNA as much as our eye color. I also think homosexuals should be allowed to get married. Marriage in general is mostly intended for procreation, but I'm married to a man and we're not going to have kids. Should we not be allowed to be married because we don't want children?

Moral of my story: live and let live. We are on this earth to love. Love who you will.

(Reply to this)


[info]hopscotch62
2007-03-30 06:29 am UTC (link)
Perhaps we have forgotten that one of the very purposes of religion is to guide us in that which is right for us as human beings on our journey of moving closer to our Creator. The spiritual laws and guidances that are conveyed to man through the Manifestations are the things that are best for us and are given freely to us as an aid to our progress and spiritual and social health. But being the children that we are, we always want to have our say and proclaim that this or that law is not to our liking, so it must be wrong. We really want to make our own rules and frequently check what is the current thinking about various issues and adjust our ideas accordingly, either consciously or unconsciously. However when we come to recognize the Messengers as being sent by the All-knowing Creator, the standard that we use to judge how things should be shifts to the teachings of the sacred verses and we can spend our energies instead on trying to understand the wisdom behind these teachings. Baha'u'llah has written: "Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures."

On another aspect, just because something is in our DNA doesn't mean that it is a good thing. The tendency toward diabetes, hemophilia, alcoholism, many cancers, etc. etc. are all related to our DNA. For some people it is "natural" to over-eat, over-sleep, gamble, complain a lot, talk badly about others, etc. etc. , but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to control what we do. The human sexual drive is a natural thing, but it has no moral values by itself. It is we, who have to think about and find the proper and most beneficial use for it. Maybe these on-going discussions and sharing of experiences is for most people a sincere effort to do just that.

(Reply to this)


[info]sholeh
2007-03-30 10:50 am UTC (link)
It is interesting to me that many people seem to try to rationalize this matter so as not to offend, or to make it ok in their own minds. I really must say that I agree with hopscotch62's answer above...right on.

One of the beautiful things about the Baha'i Faith is the Administrative Order, and the fact that the Universal House of Justice is the governing body. The Covenant does not allow for the Faith to split, there is an inherent protection for us in this, as well as the fact that the Universal House of Justice has the authority to legislate on matters not addressed in the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha.

"The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is
the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of
His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who
representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His
Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this
duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived
thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of
every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of
transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him
Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are
inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other.
Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of
Divine inspiration."

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]julietma
2007-03-30 04:16 pm UTC (link)
That is exactly the quote that has come to mind over and over reading this thread.

I put my faith in God that these teachings - all of them, down to those that seem minor - are for our own eternal benefit.

Being a Baha'i is hard work. It involves a lot of decision-making and problem-solving. Critical thinking is a must. Personal investment is paramount. But there's the comfort of trusting that obedience to the laws and teachings - even against our personal feelings - is our protection. That means a lot to me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-03-30 04:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sholeh, 2007-04-01 10:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-02 04:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sholeh, 2007-04-04 05:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-05 09:11 pm UTC

[info]medo_scythian
2007-03-30 11:46 pm UTC (link)
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)

Ask yourself this: would you be able to transform your sexual orientation from heterosexual to homosexual by means of prayer and personal exertion? Could you actually see yourself making that change successfully, without a great deal of harm to your psyche, if at all?

This issue is interesting insofar as it offers a chance for the Universal House of Justice to excercise one of its principal prerogatives, namely, to "... enact laws and ordinances not expressly recorded in the Sacred Texts; to abrogate, according to the changes and requirements of the time, its own enactments; (The Universal House of Justice, The Constitution of The Universal House of Justice, p. 5)

The special virtue of the Bahai Faith is that it has an administrative system that has been endowed with the obligation to adapt, amend and abrogate laws revealed by Baha'u'llah in order to meet the "requirements and exigencies" of "an ever advancing civilization."

The second classification or division comprises social laws and regulations applicable to human conduct. This is not the essential spiritual quality of religion. It is subject to change and transformation according to the exigencies and requirements of time and place
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 274)

Is the prohibition of homosexuality an immutable spiritual law or a mutable social law?

In the first quote, Shoghi Effendi interprets Baha'u'llah as viewing homosexuality to be "...against nature." But modern science has demonstrated that homosexuality occurs in nature and is "... an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males." (Wikipedia, homosexuality).

Science has also gone a long way in demonstrating the biological basis of homosexuality among humans. The assertion that homosexuality is immoral because it is "against nature" seems dubious in light of the aforementioned.

Then there's this quote to throw into the mix: "Religion must conform to science and reason; otherwise, it is superstition."(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 287) .

I believe there's a strong case to be made that the prohibition against homosexuality should be repealed b/c the reasoning undergirding Shoghi Effendi's interpretation conflicts with science. But this might be construed as being at odds with the authoritative and supposedly infallible status of Shoghi Effendi's interpretations. This issues reveals the cleavage between liberal and conservative Bahais.

Concourse on Low

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mavaddat
2007-03-31 11:06 pm UTC (link)
I think you're right that this issue sharpens the distinction between different types of Bahá'ís. I see three classes of Bahá'ís emerging from this discussion. Among the Bahá'ís who want to interpret the religion to fit their moral perspectives, there are those who believe that homosexuality is wrong (or harmful) and those who believe it is not wrong (or harmful). A third group of Bahá'ís are those who do not seek to fit the religion to their moral outlook, but they just take it as given that the popular or "obvious" interpretation is the one to which all Bahá'ís should adhere. Who ultimately prevails will be a matter for the community to decide. However, I do see a tendency (especially on [info]ljbahai) for people to realize that homosexuality is not immoral or unhealthy.

Another reason to doubt the arguments from what is natural is that there are many things that are natural that we deem to be immoral. For example, anthropology teaches us that cannibalism is quite natural for the human species. Most of our ancestors probably would not have survived in the harsh weather of the ice age if they had not killed and eaten their neighbouring tribes with whom they were in competition. A state of war is also quite natural for humans. But would we deem these things to be morally acceptable? I should hope not.

On the other hand, the human race is possessed of certain other unnatural tendencies that we are quite proud of. For example, civilization itself is an unnatural tendency in the animal kingdom. All forms of organized education are also unnatural, having only been developed in the last few thousand years or so. Do we want to say that these things are immoral or unhealthy just because they are unnatural?

Lastly, who knows what direction our evolutionary path will take us? Perhaps in the future, the Earth will create a situation where it will be more dangerous or less advantageous to be a heterosexual than to be homosexual. Will it still be immoral to be homosexual then? I doubt we could argue that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]callmesquanky, 2007-03-31 11:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_melimeli728, 2007-04-13 01:38 am UTC

[info]hopscotch62
2007-04-01 10:51 am UTC (link)
From the foregoing discussions it would seem to me that we might conclude that homosexuality may be considered as being both natural and unnatural. It is natural in that it arises spontaneously in response to certain physical , emotional, and/or psychological stimuli and yet it is unnatural in the light of what the Manifestations of God have taught us about the proper use of the sexual impulse in relation to our spiritual development. Abdu'l-Baha sheds some light on this subject in the following excerpts which I offer as food for thought. In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. Abdu'l-Baha (Paris Talks page 60) The purpose and object of schools, colleges and universities is to educate man and thereby rescue and redeem him from the exigencies and defects of nature and to awaken within him the capability of controlling and appropriating nature's bounties.......... it is not intended that the world of humanity should be left to its natural state. It is in need of the education divinely provided for it. The holy, heavenly Manifestations of God have been the Teachers. .........It is evident, then, that the intended and especial function of man is to rescue and redeem himself from the inherent defects of nature and become qualified with the ideal virtues of Divinity. Shall he sacrifice these ideal virtues and destroy these possibilities of advancement? God has endowed him with a power whereby he can even overcome the laws and phenomena of nature, wrest the sword from nature's hand and use it against nature itself. The Promulgation of Universal Peace page 353 I think it is also important when trying to understand the teachings of a certain religion to resist the temptation to only consider those religions that agree with our pre-conceived ideas. Are we the all-knowing (teacher)? It would be more useful to look at the teachings as a whole and to study the life of the Messenger and the power to transform that the teachings have had on individuals and society. Otherwise we may be in danger of rejecting a whole box of invaluable precious gems all because we do not like the color and shape of the one on the top. In the words of Baha'u'llah: O My brother! When a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading unto the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge...... good traveling to us all....

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mavaddat
2007-04-02 03:46 pm UTC (link)
I find it interesting that Bahá'ís think that rejecting Bahá'u'lláh's infallibility means that we are rejecting all his principles or his "whole box of gems," as you say. To me, Bahá'u'lláh's pronouncement on homosexuality is a good reason to think that Bahá'u'lláh is not an infallible source of moral principles, but that doesn't mean that everything he said was wrong. It only means we should not take everything he says as true without thinking about whether there are good reasons to believe it to be true.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]kindelingboy, 2007-04-02 07:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-02 03:47 pm UTC

[info]mt_st_helens
2007-04-02 03:10 pm UTC (link)
You may be interested in checking the community gay_bahai as well for additional perspectives about homosexuality and the Baha'i Faith.

I don't have time to comment at length, but as a lesbian and a Baha'i, this is a difficult issue for me, and one that may ultimately cause me to leave the Faith. I've read your post, and it speaks to my own difficulty in reconciling the teachings with themselves and with the reality of my life as a "homosexual."

Feel free to email me mtxstxhelens@gmail.com if you want to chat about this more. Also, there have previous discussions about homosexuality in this community that may be hanging out in the memories (?).

(Reply to this)


[info]chiuczek
2007-04-02 05:07 pm UTC (link)
Just a sec... I think there is too much of a reliance on "what science thinks" in this thread and in many discussions about similar issues. The example of science believing humans to be just as much animal as anyone else is a perfect one, and illustrates the difference between accepting that science and religion must work in harmony and the idea that religious beliefs should conform to current scientific belief. A good example of this is the old idea that certain races (or women, for that matter) are inferior - this was completely accepted by scientists of the time, but we know now that this is nonsense.

The fact is that science at present is not in any way harmonious with religion. Scientists' views, their interpretations of results (cf. evolution and the human animal thing) are completely materialistic, and their agendas are governed by the prevailing norms of society. Baha'u'llah teaches that science must work in harmony with religion, which this strict materialism inherent in the current scientific community does not display. The Baha'i view is that the world is not completely governed by physical forces - there are spiritual aspect to life that cannot be measured in the physical sense of the word, but exert an effect through the actions of individuals, their thoughts and feelings. Thus any scientific theory or explanation must be re-interpreted in this light.

Before anyone says anything, I'm not saying the scientific method is wrong, or that we should ignore any scientific evidence. Science is very much about posing questions and collecting evidence to answer them - the trick is to be sure which questions are being asked, and to properly interpret the answers.

I think this is the problem with the homosexuality debate - there is a prevailing opinion that homosexuality is natural and healthy and that surpressing it is unhealthy, and so the questions asked and interpretations of the answers all come from that point of view. It's particularly true of disciplines such as psychology that any data are notoriously open to different interpretations, and that the types of questions asked have a huge effect on the results obtained. I say all this as a scientist myself - science is a great tool, an amazing window on understanding - but it ain't perfect.

And if you add to that a materialistic way of looking at people which uses material urges and desires to define a person, you get a whole lot of confusion and misunderstanding, and that is what Baha'u'llah teaches is one reason for the periodic Manifestation of God, and the progressive revelation of His Word.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mavaddat
2007-04-03 01:09 am UTC (link)
Why do you say that science is in discord with religion? Personally, I think that science and true religion are in harmony, but you just have to pick your religious views carefully. ;-) History teaches us that when we start with beliefs about the world and work backwards to justify those beliefs, we often end up with very strange pictures of the world. This is what happened with the sexism and racism that worked its way into scientific language that you mention. It's the usual story of bias and prejudice.

In his writings about science, 'Abdu'l-Bahá was apparently of a very close persuasion as the Christian philosophers of the seventeenth century (e.g., Galileo, Bacon, Boyle, Newton, etc.). They thought, as 'Abdu'l-Bahá also did, that since science and religion are fundamentally describing one reality (though not always the same aspects of that reality), they cannot be in contradiction. He actually says in many places that true religion must actively conform to good science, not merely that one or the other should make concessions to accommodate the other (I can find the verbatim, if it helps).

Personally, the thing that I find helpful about the scientific approach to whether homosexuality is "healthy" or "unhealthy" is that the scientist actually tests his hypotheses rather than taking it for granted that they are true. He or she comes up with an operational definition of healthiness, and actually goes out and makes observations about whether homosexuality is healthy or unhealthy according to that standard. Thus, she lets her opinions conform to the data rather than searching for just the data that supports her opinion.

In the final analysis, it's undeniable (I think?) that science can never tell us what is moral or immoral, but merely what is and what is not. As [info]hopscotch62 argued (very effectively, I think) above, neither the naturalness or the unnaturalness of a tendency tells us anything about whether that tendency is moral or immoral. So, I think we should focus on why homosexuality is moral/immoral or conforms to/dis-conforms with moral law, rather than whether it is natural or not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
(no subject) - [info]medo_scythian, 2007-04-03 01:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]medo_scythian, 2007-04-03 01:42 am UTC
Good science, bad science - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-03 07:22 am UTC
Re: Good science, bad science - [info]chiuczek, 2007-04-03 10:01 am UTC
Re: Good science, bad science - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-03 02:40 pm UTC
Re: Good science, bad science - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-03 03:10 pm UTC
Re: Good science, bad science - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-03 08:38 pm UTC
Re: Good science, bad science - [info]chiuczek, 2007-04-04 12:27 am UTC
Re: Good science, bad science - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-04 03:39 pm UTC
Re: Good science, bad science - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-04 03:42 pm UTC
Re: Good science, bad science - [info]mavaddat, 2007-04-04 04:54 pm UTC

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…