h1

“We will all, verily, abide by the will of God.”

December 31, 2010

"We will all, verily, abide by the will of God." This is the Bahai marriage vow. I always loved the sentiment here — that individuals give themselves to God, rather than the promise to obey each other. In 1984 my spouse to be and I recited this at the same time, as it seemed fitting as an expression of equality. Our partnership as two consenting adults.

So roll on a decade or two and the hot discussion in some Bahai circles is the conviction that gays and lesbians cannot do the same, cannot “verily” state their committment as equals. They are not allowed marriage, family and a lifelong committment of partnership. There are some exceptions, some Bahai communities accept their married gay Bahais, however the majority don’t.

A very important Bahai Teaching is equality.
In fact I’d even say that it is probably the most important Bahai Teaching, along with a stress on diversity. The numerous quotations from the Bahai Writings about all the flowers in the garden being of value support this. There’s nothing there about some being more equal than others, being allowed to “verily” commit while others are not.

In other postings I’ve gone more into the status of the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. First trying to see why there is this seeming contradiction with equality in the letters that condemn homosexuality. (By “homosexuality” I mean orientation, being gay or lesbian.)
On one level it is true that these letters are expressions of the values of the times of the 1930-1950s, as guidance for individuals of the times and in a some cases as guidance for an institution, and all these letters have some authority, an authority that is not clearly defined but is something less than Shoghi Effendi’s own. Because this authority is not clear, I think that any issues depending on these letters are a matter for the Universal House of Justice, which gives some flexibility, some possibility for change now or in the future.
As I see it the Bahai Faith has two aspects: Scripture (not flexible nor changeable) and Authority (executed through the Bahai administration which is flexible or changeable) or in other words the carrying out of the day-to-day administration of how that scripture applies to our lives.

Being changeable does not mean that authority is less important than scripture but I would say that scripture should inform or guide the actions taken by Bahai administration and Bahai communities. I suspect that when Bahais get upset at me when I discuss the flexibility in the Bahai Teachings, they think I’m demeaning the value and importance of the Letters Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. That is not my intent. My intent is to see how they might fit – how Shoghi Effendi might have intended them to be used and most importantly how are they used by the Bahai community at large. Are these Letters used as guidance, as inspiration or are they being used like a big stick, used to promote prejudice or intolerance? I hope not.
You might be wondering why I bother, when the authority of these Letters is not the same as the authority of Baha’u’llah’s writings, is not the authority of Abdul-Baha’s writings nor that of Shoghi Effendi when he wrote in his role as official interpretator of Bahai Scripture.

Well many Bahais place great value on these letters. And in 1983 the book “Lights of Guidance” compiled by Helen Hornby came out, and it seems now that many Bahais treat this book as if it is Bahai Scripture. Actually more like a book of rules. And in this book, Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are placed underneath various sections such as “1221. Acts of Immorality” as if this is Bahai Scripture. So one can hardly blame Bahais for assuming that Letters Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi have the same status as what Baha’u’llah wrote. [See a few of these letters which show that they do not have the same status as Bahai Scripture]

The list underneath the title: Homosexuality in the book, Lights of Guidance

Homosexuality title in Lights of Guidance

[This link goes to where this screenshot was taken from]

But I have realised that I am possibily approaching the issue of inequality from the wrong direction as it seems that when I argue about the status and authority of the Letters Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Bahais see red and in one case a Bahai responded to me recently writing that anyone treating these letters as if they were not written by Shoghi Effendi was “challenging covenantal authority.”

So it got me to thinking, why did I start down this line of thinking?

The current Bahai practice is that some people are more equal than others. That some individuals may not marry, may not raise children, may not voice themselves openly, should believe that they are diseased or need to keep their orientation secret so that they are treated with respect.
This hurts me deeply. It hurts me deeply that my Faith is allowing individuals to tell other individuals that they are not equal.
They might not use those words. These Bahais might even believe that it is equality afterall  —  as is often said, you volunteer to be a Bahai, you can leave. This is like saying, well this flower can’t blossom here. This Bahai garden is just for straight voices. I know of course, Bahais celebrate diversity, I see it everywhere. But you can’t celebrate diversity without equality.

16 comments

  1. Thank you for your courage. Keeping the conversation going is important. With the ‘Plan’ to be inclusive and build community, walking the walk of equality is the best teacher.


  2. I believe that Baha’u’llah has elevated the virtue of chastity to a new level, in which all people, at all times, are required to relate to each other on a spiritual rather than physical level; that indeed, we are spiritual beings inhabiting a physical body. Your viewpoint seems to contain the essential belief that we are physical beings, primarily physical beings. I’ve known numerous Baha’is who were very strongly physically oriented. In both cases, heterosexuals and homosexuals had equal difficulty in aligning themselves with His Teachings. I am not certain how emphasis on virtue could be construed as inequality


    • Robert, thank you for your response.

      No I am not suggesting for a moment that an emphasis or promotion of virtue is a promotion of inequality.

      There’s nothing spiritual about inequality.

      I am arguing for equality for everyone.

      Marriage is about committment and is just as virtuous as celibacy. Marriage, in my view, is not just a means for satisfying carnal lust.


  3. Thank you so much Sonja for lending such a thoughtful and reasoned article. Your research on behave of GLBT Baha’is is extremely well done, and gives hope to those of us who are persecuted by the Administrative Order for loving someone of the same gender.

    I am deeply sorry and ashamed at how the Baha’is are enabling homophobia and exclusion from their communities. It is as shocking as it is disappointing. You give those of us who are gay hope with your voice of support for the covenant and the central figures.

    Thank you ever so much for your support and bravery!


  4. D wrote: “Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I’ve long been under the impression that the great majority of Baha’is, including the Universal House of Justice itself, consider the letters of the secretaries of the Guardian to be scripture. I find this to be a peculiar situation, for it appears to grant infallibility to individuals that don’t even appear to be identifiable.”

    I cannot speak for the views of the Universal House of Justice, and that they refer to such letters when they make statements does not mean that they treat these letters as if they are scripture.

    However, I think you are correct. I am also under the impression that quite a number of Bahais treat letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if it is scripture, on the topic of homosexuality or when they wish to impose their own views on others.
    For example, as a newly wed in the 80s I was told that I should be having children instead of wasting my time studying by a Bahai. He then produced a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as proof that we should not be using contraception. Of course, I knew from my own experience as being the eldest of 9 children from a Catholic family that most Bahais in my community must be using some form of contraception and this was being ignored. So something didn’t make sense about treating these letters as if they were scripture.


  5. We made sure to recite the Baha’i vows when we were married by the state of California, and I was kicked out for doing so:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=57392452535880122&hl=en#


  6. MARRIAGE SHOULD BE SACRED FOR ALL AMERICANS.
    ALL of America’s best experts on family, mental health and children agree that America would benefit if same-sex couples could have civil marriage.
    The National Library of Medicine scientific research publications all confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individual’s ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
    Sexual orientation is similar to left-handedness: biological, unchangeable, innocent. We used to think left-handed was evil (Latin for left is “sinister”), and force lefties to use only their right hand, even though they never really changed. Research reveals variable hormonal levels in pregnancy permanently affect a child’s neural circuitry for sexual orientation and gender identity: a little more testosterone in fetal girls’ brains from an adrenal condition can cause <50% to be lesbian, 10% to be transgender. Sharing the womb with a boy co-twin (amniotic fluid has some of his testosterone) causes <15% of girl co-twins to be lesbian. These girls also have the bone structure and physical coordination of boys, so they are good in sports, thus the stereotype.

    Less testosterone for boys' brains from mother's blocking antibody from having many older brothers causes <15% of boys to be gay. These boys can have the physiology/verbal skills like girls, and excel in language and visual arts, thus the stereotype. All innocent.

    From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

    The American Anthropological Association confirms that keeping marriage for heterosexuals only is detrimental to our culture and heritage, and not essential for the preservation of our societal order.

    America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality. There is no further reason to discriminate, except ignorance or bigotry. SO WHY WOULD ANYONE FIGHT THIS??????

    Think of what you would want for yourself or your your family. Why would anyone take a stand that goes against the policies of America's child, family and mental health experts?



  7. Here are the references for my above posting:

    American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists
    http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/sexual_orientation_gender_identity_and_civil_rights

    American Psychiatric Association

    Click to access 200502.pdf

    American Psychological Association

    Click to access gay-marriage.pdf

    American Academy of Pediatrics
    http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

    National Association of Social Workers
    http://www.socialworkers.org/diversity/lgb/062804.asp

    American Anthropological Association
    http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-Family.cfm

    Child Welfare League of America
    http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm

    North American Council on Adoptable Children
    http://www.nacac.org/policy/lgbtq.html

    American Psychoanalytic Association
    http://www.apsa.org/ABOUTAPSAA/POSITIONSTATEMENTS/MARRIAGERESOLUTION/tabid/470/Default.aspx


  8. D wrote: “A person I respect once told me: “Your will is God’s will.” I just about passed out, as I have always considered God’s will to be something totally distinct from me, and something I had to strive with all my might to reconcile with my own wayward will.

    This mentor then explained to me that God only wants us to be happy and fulfilled and lead the best life possible, and that the Universe (God) always flows towards us the things that we hold most dear in our heart. The only time that God is thwarted in this munificence and bounty (answering prayers, if you will) is if the things I want are in diametrical and logical in opposition. For example, I can’t have my will (God’s will) for a peaceful and serene existence if I also want to get tangled up in a war with my neighbors over property rights. It is a logical and physical impossibility.

    This was a big “aha” moment for me because I see that whatever I want is possible, so long as it doesn’t fly in the face of some other natural law. It is possible for me to be a happy and fulfilled and spiritual homosexual because this is my nature, and it is therefore in accordance with natural law.

    I think this idea sheds an entirely new light on the marriage vow: “We will all, verily, abide by the will of God.” What exactly is the will of God? And how does it relate to the natural world and science? The spiritual teachings of the Faith with regard to unity in diversity, equality, justice (best beloved), agreement of science and religion, all seem to trump any outmoded concepts of what a traditional marriage must look like. Did the Baha’is of Persia at one time arrange marriages? Is this still practiced? If not, why the change? Are there other examples of how the approach to marriage has evolved in the Faith?”


  9. X wrote: “the Kitabi Aqdas Baha’u’llah homosexuality is in the section of “prohibitions”
    http://reference.bahai.org/search?max=10&lang=en&first=1&query=homosexuality
    I don’t know how much clearer it can be…

    Sonja, as per justice; I’m sure that pedophiles feel that it’s very unjust that they’ve not been provided “equality” to pursue sexual/emotional relationships with children…I think the justice Baha’u’llah refers to is justice that He, Himself, has defined with His unerring judgment in the Most Holy Book. How can we, enmeshed as we are in a decaying/decadent society, assume to be objective as to what justice is if we don’t turn to the One that defines it-and has left a pristine Administrative Order, governed by the Universal House of Justice, to address the issues not explicitly described?”


    Those words you link to above: “homosexuality is spiritually condemned” are not Baha’ullah’s words but the words of Ruhiyyah Khanum writing a letter of behalf of Shoghi Effendi (pasted in below), but I realise going back and forth on this with you is not productive as it seems you view anything penned by a secretary as being as set in stone, or perhaps the same the writings of Baha’u’llah.


    21 May 1954

    To an individual believer

    Dear Bahá’í Sister:
    Your letter of April 19th has been received by the beloved Guardian, and he has instructed me to answer you on his behalf.
    He is very happy to have this opportunity of welcoming you personally into the service of our Faith; and hopes that, both in your professional career as a social worker, and in your life as a Bahá’í, you will be able to help many needy and troubled souls.
    Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history, is the question of immorality, and overemphasis of sex. Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, is spiritually condemned. This does not mean that people so afflicted must not be helped and advised and sympathized with. It does mean that we do not believe it is a permissible way of life; which, alas, is all too often the accepted attitude nowadays.
    We must struggle against the evils in society by spiritual means, and medical and social ones as well. We must be tolerant but uncompromising, understanding but immovable in our point of view.
    The thing people need to meet this type of trouble, as well as every other type, is greater spiritual understanding and stability; and of course we Bahá’ís believe that ultimately this can only be given to mankind through the Teachings of the Manifestation of God for this Day.
    He will pray that you may be successful in your services to mankind as a Bahá’í.

    With kind regards,

    R. Rabbani

    [From the Guardian:]
    Assuring you of my loving prayers for your success and spiritual advancement,

    Your true brother,

    Shoghi

    reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MC/mc-205.html?query=homosexuality&action=highlight#gr1

    The point of my blog was to show that there are two aspects in our faith. What is not flexible, penned by Baha’u’llah for example and what is penned by the UHJ which is flexible, and that the authority of the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi do not seem to be clear (see examples here). I realise this is complicated and at times it feels as if I’m sifting around in the mud trying to come to grips with this myself.
    So for me the bottom line is, if it isn’t clear, then perhaps it isn’t set in stone. And the more I look around, the more it seems to me that these letters were not intended to be treated as inflexible Bahai Teachings but as guidance for the addresse. What drives me is the conviction that as a Bahai I shouldn’t have to resort to blind faith if I see a contradiction.

    If I see a contradiction I should look harder, discuss, hear other’s views and from that my belief is that I will come to a better understanding. What guides me is that the Bahai principles are principles that should not need to have ‘if’ and ‘but’ clauses. So it really is equality and it really is justice, not just for some types of people.

    Your example of the pedophile is about behaviour. For the Bahai community chastity is important. If a person runs around abusing other individuals, whether these were heterosexuals or not, that would be the issue at hand. In my discussions I’m talking about married chaste gay Bahais being denied a place in the Bahai community.
    If adults abuse children, that goes against justice and equality for children are not adults. And if these arguments do not show enough distinctions there is the Bahai principle of the harmony of science and religion. So if science shows that pedastry is harmful, and science shows that homosexuality is not harmful to others, there’s another argument Bahais could make about the distinctions between pedophilia and homosexuality aside from my own argument. Baha’u’llah mentions pedophilia in his own pen while there’s no mention of homosexuality.

    At the beginning of this discussion you suggested that I should write to the UHJ. As a Bahai I think I should try and work out understandings for myself – this is my interpretation of the Bahai pinciple of independent investigation.
    I don’t think Bahai’s should write to the UHJ for how they should see issues as I interprete this as treating the UHJ as some form of priest class. Also if all Bahai’s did this, they would be flooded with letters, when in my view the Bahai’s are being lazy. I feel that the UHJ has much more important things to do.
    If I run into an area where I’m really stuck, or need some material or if Bahai’s are threatening me, then I would consider it but I’d first search around to see if this material is not already available and would try to consult.
    I realise that some Bahais choose to read ‘homosexuality as spiritually condemned’ as if this is set in stone and so they can justify excluding homosexuals on equal terms. Although I suspect more Bahais find this troublesome, especially if they live in countries where homosexauls are not discriminated against, but feel it is wrong to discuss this. However even if these words had been written by Baha’u’llah as Bahais we may question and discuss these. One of the Bahai months is called Questions, so I’d argue that asking questions is a good thing for Bahais to engage in.
    How else will we ever come to understand?
    So let’s say this was a text written by Baha’ullah, my question would be, when was this written, since homosexuality (same sex partnerships) didn’t exist in his day. What was he referring to? Is this a condemnation of ellicit sexual acts in that case or a condemnation of the orientation? and so on. For me the Bahai Teachings are not a closed book but an ongoing investigation into how we apply these teachings into our lives – holistically – intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. We never stand stll. I am not expecting that other Bahais take my approach in asking questions and so on, but I do think that Bahai’s with differing views to mine shouldn’t jump in and assume that I am wrong for asking questions and or for having a differing point of view to theirs. And besides I learn most from those who have differing views to mine. It forces me to dig deeper. So thanks for your questions.


  10. This may sound a little trivial but I mean it quite seriously. If a set of laws a discrimatory against homosexuals, how do you define homosexuals? There are a wide variety of sexual orientations, many men who engage in sexual activitiy with other men consider themselves heterosexuals fulfilling a desire, many people only like people of the same gender until a point in life where they find themselves attracted to somebody of the opposite gender, these examples are not to suggest that there are not a group of people who will never find the opposite sex attractive, but rather to illustrate the need to ask the question, how do you define homosexual, who are these laws discrinating against?

    There are a growing number of people suggesting that sexual orientation between humans is not black and white and that, similarly with many animal species, all humans may enjoy relations with both genders to a greater or lesser extent, our need to define ourselves as heterosexual or homosexual may be cultural rather than biological.

    I am yet to be convinced that a religion that promotes love, however fine, between all people, same gender or otherwise, and forbids sex outside of a marriage between different genders is discriminating against those who do not feel sexually attracted to the other sex, to me it is basically saying “no sex” to everyone, gay or not, unless you want to be in a particular kind of relationship. It says this is the way sex is to be used according to God, either we agree or disagree, if we agree but do not wish for such a relationship then we focus on the teachings that suggest the greatest unity is in nearness to God and not sexuality.

    With respect to all American organisations saying homosexuality is a normal state of mind, there are many things outlawed by religion that society thinks it is acceptable to both crave and to enjoy, that does not make things spiritually right for us.

    I think the point is well made about the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, I looked at the reference in the Kitab-i-Aqdas mentioned above and looked at the notes in the back where it states that Shoghi Effendi said that this referred to all forms of homosexuality, so perhaps whomever published those notes is the person to ask for this reference.

    Just some thoughts I wanted to share, and that question about the definition.

    Thanks


  11. Terry, how do you define heterosexual? Do you define it by the actions of the reality shows on television where people have sex with multiple partner, or marry each other for ratings on a television show? Or do you define it by a fortress of well-being to raise a family? I take it you believe that the highest good for society is to use sexuality to create the family unit, correct? Guess what? Gays are doing this too- if you could only wrap your head around that. If you put your dogma aside, you would see that without prejudice, but I don’t think you can Terry. So instead you cling to dogma (in this case the secondhand writings of human beings writing on behalf of a Guardian) just as many other religions have clung onto their secondhand writings.. Catholics with dictates from the Pope, Muslims with their hadiths and now Bahais with their letters written on behalf of…it’s all sad dogma that puts the principles of the Faith last- principles such as equality, unity, love, harmony of science and religion, etc.
    So Terry, if you are going to compare ALL homosexuality to terrible things that one craves, then I will do the same to your heterosexuality and your fortresses of well-being. Cheers!


  12. It is not our place to judge. I will support the right of all individuals to be themselves – including marrying the person they love. I will raise my voice in support of gay marriage because it gives all people the same right to choose a legal partner. This is a social law and therefore, subject to change. The only spiritual laws that I can apply are the ones that pertain to me and my behavior, of which, not passing judgement on other people is the first. Thank you for bringing this discussion to light.


  13. “It is forbidden you to wed your fathers’ wives. We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires.”

    Bahá’u’lláh
    The Kitab-i-Aqdas (p.107)

    As a Baha’i I have to think on this subject quite a lot. I am gay (attracted to both sexes) and an adult survivor of child sexual exploitation.
    Bahá’u’lláh shrinks, ‘for very shame,’ from being able to treat the ‘subject of boys’ – a practice prevalent in the Middle East then and now, of befriending a young boy to educate and support, in return for unlimited sexual favours to the older man and often to other men.
    It seems to me understandable that the Mouthpiece of God cannot ‘treat the subject,’ so heinous are all forms of direct child-sexual abuse.
    However, it also seems harsh to saddle the responsibility with the adult homosexual world. By today’s 2019 sexual standards, it seems ridiculous to assert the law at this time.
    Either the laws will be adapted by the Universal House, which I find unlikely that they will bow to public pressure when it comes to an interpretation laid out by ‘AbdulBahá, or the worldwide Bahá’í communities gay members need to put up with celibacy: in order to what? To save face for the survivors of incest or sexual exploitation who may come looking for shelter? but many of us are, not by coincidence, not identifying heterosexuals. So the law is to save us from ourselves? To save us from embracing an identity that is contrary to identifying with the laws and possibly our own imaginings? This was as far as my questioning got. It afforded me some peace after initially feeling outraged that God could bypass issuing an appropriate penalty for child rape (to many of us survivors, we favour the death penalty as remedy.) I felt betrayed that God could not speak for me on this matter, but I also reflect that the subject is one so ghastly and traumatising and used so rampantly and without regard for human dignity as a weapon of war and a past time in inner political circles, like the core of some diseased apple, it stands out as the single worst crime against humans and humanity. Death is befitting, as it serves justice to the abuser and mercy to the violated; severs the soul-tie created by rape; provides relief from the terror that the victim carries with them at the abuse and some possible chance at salvation for the abuser. Anyone who still believes that pedophiles can be psychologically and sexually reorientated with therapy and incarceration or even castration need to follow the trends in reoffending and the sheer staggering fact that, as reported in a TIME Magazine article from 1980, convicted pedophiles have an average of 100 victims each. And that the head of one rehabilitation unit lamented that, ‘the only thing we haven’t tried is Magnum therapy.’
    So is this crime so great that neither Bahá’u’lláh or the Báb before Him, or ‘AbdulBahá or Shoghi Effendi could prescribe a remedy? I should hope that the Universal House or the World Government will establish a penalty of death. And will homosexual couples be allowed to marry in accordance with Baha’i marriage laws? The future really is there to decide. For now, the whole subject is embarrassingly open to external criticism and internal contention for the followers of Bahá’u’lláh.
    Never have I seen such passionate and obstinate “debate” on the subject online between Bahá’is as on the whole subject of homosexuality. People lose their cool over it. They lose concept of where they are, what they are doing, what other people are saying and certainly don’t seem to have much room between “standing up for the rights of homosexuals” or “standing by scripture,” whatever it is they are quoting. It’s an endless repetition of positions with an absent middle ground.
    The only equality I can make out in regards to marriage is that sex outside of it is forbidden, whatever your sexuality. The Kitab-i-Aqdas suggests their will be financial penalties for that in the future. It is also worth noting that there is no penalty given for rape either. The financial penalty for fornication is due from both parties. While it is easy to imagine that only one party would pay a fine in the case of rape, the fact that no penalty is set specifically for rape again shows a strange disregard by the Founder of our faith for the rights of the exploited and oppressed.
    I am left only to think that these laws, as they unfold, are what we are collectively capable of receiving. Rape of women and children is to my mind hand and hand with the rape of the planet’s resources and the oppression of it’s peoples. So strange that the Prophet would leave it undone. Is His refusal to treat the subject, except for the plea to, ‘Fear ye the Merciful,’ and, ‘Commit not that which is forbidden you,’ ‘for very shame,’ to save further burdening the souls of the abused? Is it because mankind is not ready to give up these vices yet, will it take another thousand years, or more, to establish? One might wonder, with men still incapable of being able to accept women on to the position of possible election to the Universal House. Every time Allah has sent a Witness, they repeat the same principle of the equality of men and women in His eyes, only us then, that cannot accept it, no wonder He had to allow for current levels of oppression to keep their stranglehold at the top and not allow women and men to serve alongside each other in that realm. How foolish and backward we are to still need this prohibition (clearly we do) and mark of distinction between men and women. When I have pointed this out online before, the women interacting agree, but the male Baha’is object. I wonder how little they know of our history and their refusal to look at the situation as anything other than a signal that we are, after all, still lesser than.
    These subjects are close to my heart. I have grappled with both. I have no solutions, except that each of us tries to be real about it, and say that perhaps these laws are prescribed in much part for our own weaknesses and tendency to feel superior to each other based on the different sexes and sexualities. That God has to restrict some in order for others to grow up. That you and I cannot cope with the religious provision for equality of women and men and for gay and straight. If you and I cannot imagine it, God cannot allow for it. He was not even able to tell us what to do about pedophilia. Apparently that is too controversial. Some people want them to get therapy to get better. Meanwhile, the survivors still sit in ash. No one has spoken for us. No one has spoken for us again.


  14. I’m going to try my very best to be sensitive here. I know how important that is to this current generation however I will speak honestly and state my views but will keep the wording and intentions clean.

    First I’ll copy paste some relevant quotes and points of fact, after which I will quote you and begin from that point.

    BAHA’I QUOTES
    ‘Bahá’u’lláh attaches no penalty to homosexuality’

    “Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery. Avoid them, O concourse of the faithful. By the righteousness of God! Ye have been called into being to purge the world from the defilement of evil passions. This is what the Lord of all mankind hath enjoined upon you, could ye but perceive it. He who relateth himself to the All-Merciful and committeth satanic deeds, verily he is not of Me. Unto this beareth witness every atom, pebble, tree and fruit, and beyond them this ever-proclaiming, true and trustworthy Tongue.”

    Quote of commenter
    “some Bahai circles is the conviction that gays and lesbians cannot do the same, cannot “verily” state their committment as equals. They are not allowed marriage, family and a lifelong committment of partnership.”

    First I would like to say I have no personal issue with people ‘choosing’ to be gay (Yes I do believe it is the result of a choice and or often a result of sexual abuse).
    I believe God made everyone who they are and nobody was a mistake.
    God in all of his religions has condemned or forbade homosexuality for good reason. He also told us to go forth and pro-create. If individuals choose this lifestyle they rob the world of their genetic input going into the future. Sex and love are not the end all in this world. One must have a larger and longer look into mankind and our future. Essentially putting love and sex behind, being gay is saying “i feel my genetics that are laden with specific traits and characteristics I’m likely to pass on are no good, not worth it, or should not exist on past my life”
    I make a similar argument to atheist’s as well. Given they have “as a group” some of the lowest birth rates their genetic traits and imput “any relating to the likelihood of being a non believer” will not be passed on, and as time goes on the fewer and fewer the atheist will be found.
    They claim to have the truth but their lifestyle is one of self genocide.
    I don’t believe any truth of belief can claim truth if this is the result.
    This is my basic point. Another is robbing yourself of the family experience which I believe is part of a full life and ones growth spiritually. This ofc does not happern for gays because that’s not how procreation works and another reason why God would forbid the act. To tolerate this is to accept it as ok which it is not. A society that does will see the results of this and I certainly see it now.

    Having read your post it seems to me the source of your views & opinions are truly grounded in liberalism and not the baha’i faith. You might wanna re-examine which one of these ideals and approaches to the world and it’s issues are the correct one.

    The baha’i faith teaches equality by law and before God. It has never taught or stated that men and women are truly equal nor that between the races. Obviously there are differences or races would not exist nor male or female.
    To be united in diversity as the garden of many flowers statements refer to, does not mean also the weeds and the rodents and the leaves of fall. The point is to unite under the banner of one mankind (DIVERSE and to maintain it is good) and 1 religion. Unite does not mean to erase differences, diversity does not mean tolerance of all things.
    Become tolerant of the intolerant and you can kiss your civilisation goodbye.
    One should learn to be highly intolerant of many things.
    From your liberal perspective you feel that the baha’i faith isn’t tolerant for not allowing gays to marry though you can fully participate in the religion as a member.
    I feel from my point of view that it is you that is not being tolerant of Baha’i teachings and law.
    The root of this post is grounded in rejection and revolutionary thinking. You do not accept the teaching of the baha’i faith on this matter as it’s very clear. Thus you wish to change it as you have deemed the religion to be hypocritical as it does not meet your standards.
    I think it’s great you are a Baha’i. I am one too for nearly 25 years now. I have had my crisis of faith twice in that time. I kept the reasoning for them to myself and I prayed for answers. Though they did not come right away and things got very dark and difficult for me. Eventually I got my answers and I remain a Baha’i to this day.

    In all honesty I think you should really think about this deeply, pray, mediate all that. If God not allowing you to get married through his newest revelation is that important to you then you should absolutely not be a member as you will become spiteful and hold anger in you that will manifest as revolutionary idea’s and tendencies which lead too schism’s and heresies, division, and destruction and not to mention extreme damage to your soul.

    I suggest being happy with the faith as it is. You can be an openly gay participating member. I think that’s pretty darn fair don’t you?
    You can always have the state marry you. But God not allowing this?
    Don’t act surprised and don’t assume because you are gay and tolerant of so many things that this is the right way. It’s the currently acceptable way of the modern culture, something I find to be extremely sick and broken on nearly every level and I believe I have Baha’i scripture to back me on that.

    I wish you luck in finding the answers you seek or the contentment that you may find.

    Alláh-u-Abhá


  15. My apologies Eternal entropy, I only just noticed your comment which is why I only accepted it today.

    re: “Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery.”

    See my blog which examines the original texts.

    A Bahá’í View of Homosexuality and Gay Rights?

    Homosexuality is an orientation while sodomy is a sexual activity or practice performed by someone of any orientation. I would agree that ‘Bahá’u’lláh attaches no penalty to homosexuality’

    You assume that having biological children is what marriage is all about and have assumed that couples in a same sex marriage do not raise children. Almost all my gay or lesbian friends are raising children. In one case, a lesbian couple first took in one child that would otherwise go from foster home to foster home, and then they did such a great job they were asked to take in another child, and so it went until they raised 10 children!
    X told me that she wasn’t against having biological children but there was such a need for these children that needed a loving home, she and her partner decided not to take the steps to do this.

    You wrote “the source of your views & opinions are truly grounded in liberalism and not the baha’i faith. You might wanna re-examine which one of these ideals and approaches to the world and it’s issues are the correct one.”

    Here’s something from Shoghi Effendi on the topic: “It should also be borne in mind that the machinery of the Cause has been so fashioned, that whatever is deemed necessary to incorporate into it in order to keep it in the forefront of all progressive movements, can, according to the provisions made by Bahá’u’lláh, be safely embodied therein.” p 22-23, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh
    https://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-12.html

    When someone uses the terms liberalism or revolutionary thinking in a negative sense – as if the world is just pro or anti liberalism, it informs me that they are not looking at the bigger picture beyond partisan politics. So labelling me and then chastising me for the label that you have assigned me seems to me, silly. Why not engage with the issues at hand instead?

    Whether one thinks a gay person chooses their orientation or not, the issue at hand is why discriminate against a human being for who they fall in love with? And if a religion has equality and justice as a major teaching then why discriminate against gays? Why tell them that they are not allowed to marry and not allowed to raise children? And more importantly, I think, what sort affect does this have on a religious community itself when it excludes gays and lesbians on an equal basis with others.
    Here’s something from Baha’u’llah which I think is how gays should be treated:
    The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes. https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/hidden-words/2#642922139



Leave a reply to Kate O'Hanlan, MD Cancel reply