Talk:Homosexuality and the Bahá'í Faith/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Slight Modification?

Under the section "Basis from texts, the first sentence quotes the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, with "we shrink, for very shame, from treating the subject of boys". Because it is a direct quote, and should the first word 'we' be capitalized? It is the beginning of the sentence and doesn't contradict Wiki's NPOV, as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.114.233 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and make the changes. -LambaJan (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bahai attitudes toward LGBT people and the concept of science-religion agreement

I think that it is worth noting that, regardless of the way in which LGBT bahais are treated within the community (I have been a Bahai for years and have never noticed any poor treatment), it seems to me that the attitude of the BF as a whole and the UHJ in particular toward LGBT persons flies in the face of the much-touted Bahai concept of the agreement between science and religion. To be fair, this is a progressive idea that (almost all) Bahais take quite seriously, with one curious exception: referring to homosexuality as a "disease" or "handicap" (I believe Shoghi Effendi used that word) when the best medical science shows that it is neither of those things. For fear of "rocking the boat" I have never discussed this issue with other Bahais outside of my circle of close friends, but I do think it would be worth it to work into the article in some way. It needn't be negative; just pointing it out in a neutral way would suffice. If anyone has any thoughts, I would like to hear them. 134.84.96.56 (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing about Wikipedia is that everything we say must be be able to be referenced to reliable sources. It sounds like you want us to draw conclusions ourselves, but this is against Wikipedia policy (no matter how correct or incorrect the conclusions). On the other hand, if you can find reliable sources for us to use that draw such conclusions, that would be perhaps be worth adding to the article. Do you know of any, or can you find them? If so, you are welcome to add them yourself, or if you prefer, you can post them here for discussion (often a good idea anyway, especially if you are uncertain about whether they are acceptable). Aleta ^Sing 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a forum, making these discussions awkward here. These are probably best addressed by bringing them up with friends who you respect — but may disagree with. Honest consultation is a good way to investigate the truth. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is already addressed in the article, at least the response by the Universal House of Justice referring to research showing homosexuality is natural. They said that genetic predispositions exist for a variety of things, including alcoholism. Then the question is deciding what habits should be encouraged or discouraged, and science doesn't make judgments on morality. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the responses. I quite familiar with Wikipedia policies (esp. not a forum), though I don't feel that this discussion is in the least awkward in the context of things that might be done to better this article. Of course, anything that might done must be properly sourced; if I happen to come across anything in the future I will revisit this issue. Certainly, if there are conclusions to be drawn (and I am not necessarily saying that there are) we cannot do that ourselves. This is obviously a controversial issue that many people feel strongly about, although I do not really count myself among those people. Certainly, the BF is far friendlier to LGBT people than most institutional religions I am familiar with. I merely noted what to me (and others I know) is an odd discrepancy in Bahai thinking. 134.84.96.56 (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move to "LGBT topics and the Bahá'í Faith"

Somebody from the LBGT project has taken it upon themselves to rename this article to "LGBT topics and the Bahá'í Faith" — without discussion here.

I don't think that this is appropriate. "LBGT and such and such" as a typical format for ariticle names runs counter to both WP:ABREV and WP:MOSABBR. To wit:

• "Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form."
• "Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g., NASA and radar)."

The redirect works fine for those who are scrolling through an "LBGT and …" list. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is unfortunate that this was not discussed, but I don't suppose most people involved in a project with this name (LGBT) would see this as problematic or even controversial. There is no other term that covers LGBT people, which is broader than 'homosexuality', as it includes transgender and bisexual people (which could be included in this article, as there may not be enough detail for four separate articles). LGBT is a well established reference to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and can include matters relevant to intersex people as well. The article itself does not maintain a consistent use, alternating between 'homosexual' and 'gay', people who are 'gay' tend not to use 'homosexual', but 'gay' or 'lesbian'. Mish (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my question to Yob below. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We did discuss that 'LGBT matters' was preferable to 'LGBT issues' for articles, and 'LGBT topics' for categories. That there would be scope for articles about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc. specific matters as well as on 'homosexuality', but that rather than the confused unstructured approach that exists at the moment, what is necessary is a consistent approach that follows a convention that can be applied across all the relevant articles that concern this aspect of the project. This will improve the encyclopedia, because if readers looking for information, can do so by typing 'LGBT... and see at at a glance what is availble, and from those articles, there would be links to more specific articles, which would also be available by typing 'homosexuality...'. Ditto for categories. At the moment, it can take several attempts at searches to find a specific article that may be relevant. Mish (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirects can cover that quite easily. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced instances where 'homosexual' has been used as a noun to refer to a group of people (as in 'homosexuals'), and replaced with with 'gay people'. Where the term has been used as an adjective I have left it as is. This is redundant language, as gay people do not refer to themselves this way, and many regard this as pejorative. Mish (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this last. It's homosexuality (the sexy part) that's at the crux of the discussion in this religion's texts, not being gay. Also, inside the LGBT community "gay" is gender-neutral. Outside it isn't. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We had extensive discussion at the LGBt project, gaining consensus for all religion articles covered by the project, and then grdually started WP:Bold moves. I started discussions on some pages (eg. Islam), but got only support, and there was no objection on any of the other articles since. A clear reason for the move was given in the edit summary (unlike the reverts). Even if i had made a note here before moving, there were more than 10 days of delay between the first move and any response, so it would hvae been moved anyway. As there is no edit warring, and moving the page back required one edit, i really don't see any way this is a problem compared to typical edits.

If consensus is to keep it at the current title, we will have to make a separate page to cover LGBT people (Bi and trans people have t be discussed somewhere). Imo, it is better to expand this page with Baha'i views on trans people and rename to LGBT topics, especially as the current article is small enough to easily be expanded (unlike Christianity for example). LGBT is the standard term encompassing lesbian, gay, bisexual, ad transgender people, and is used throughout the sources and wikipedia, so does not fall foul of Abreviation guidelines, imo.YobMod 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the sentiments. Thanks. No harm. No foul. Discussion is open.

Question, Yob: Did y'all (in the LGBT project) invite members of the various and sundry religion projects to contribute to the LGBT naming discussion? That was quite a broad discussion indeed. You might not have achieved consensus across such a broad cross-section of the community as that. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, we have de facto consensus for all the articles except this one, with not a peep of complaint from any of the other religion projects. Having a discussion about which name is best is fine, but lets not pretend this is a big controversy that required a 6 month RfC. YobMod 07:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the title, I think it should remain with "homosexuality", as the Baha'i Faith doesn't differentiate between lesbian, gay and bisexual, and transexual isn't discussed in the article. This falls more in the category of the Baha'i Faith than it does LGBT issues. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But this means also that the views of the B and T people of LGBT cannot be discussed in this article, no? All because the Baha'i faith doesn't recognise transgender or bisexual people, does not mean there is no intersection between transgender and bisexuality and Baha'i, coming from the other side (not that i've found any discussing B or T outside of LGBT overall, there is a shocking lack of sources on transgender and less widespread religions).YobMod 07:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I said it doesn't distinguish between them, meaning that any sex outside marriage is considered forbidden, regardless of genders involved. Transgenderism is not mentioned in the religion's texts as far as I know, and from personal experience it hasn't been an issue. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not as simple as that. There's a big difference between B & T. True: any sex outside marriage is discouraged; but, that's not what transgender is all about. Transgender can be very complicated, but there'd be no objection I can see to someone married to someone whose actual genders are opposite, no matter what their gender identities. I don't think, though, that this article really addresses LGBT issues as much as it does the religion's teachings. Please see the comments below. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

MARusellPESE, I think you misunderstood what I said, as did Yobmod. The article doesn't distinguish between L, G, and B... and you seem to agree. Then I said that it doesn't address T, which you also agreed with. Thus... the name change to LGBT doesn't make sense, which I'm guessing you agree with?? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. "Them" seemed to read B & T. Do concur that this article really doesn't address the larger picture of LGBT viz. Baha'i, so "LGBT and" doesn't seem to follow. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual vs Gay

I replaced references to 'homosexuals' with 'gay people', and this was reversed as gender-exclusive. I have now re-done this edit by replacing with 'gay and lesbian people'. Please do not revert this by using using 'homosexual' as a noun in the plural to refer to people, as it is considered offensive by many - it is akin to referring to black people as 'negroes', and if it gets reverted back it will lead to a tag questioning the neutrality of the article, as it uses terms considered derogatory by those who are the subject of the article. Mish (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "homosexual" is not derogatory, and I followed the conversations on the LGBT project about exactly this subject and several people agree with me. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

as an adjective, it is not, but as a noun it is. I will need to tag the article then. There are no such people as 'homosexuals'. Mish (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the article for persistent use of deprecated terminology that conflicts with WP:MOS#Identity and as explained here [1]

We've got two topics going: "gay" vs. "homosexual" and the article's title. On the first, I disagree with this parsing of "homosexual" as derogatory, and "gay" as gender-neutral in general usage. Most of this seems to stem from an extraordinarily volatile use, revision and repurposing of terminology within the LGBT community.

In my own memory "gay" has morphed from happy to homosexual man to, as now being pushed: all homosexual people.

At my alma mater, in the '80s, the student group was GALA: the Gay and Lesbian Alliance. It became BGALA, prepending bisexual, by the time I returned for grad school in the '90s. Now, it's GLUU: the Gay and Lesbian University Union, and the alumni association is NUGALA. (Cheekily, I wonder what happened to the bisexuals?)

I think this this is a recent push by the LGBT community to redefine the word to desensitize it. Since I've seen this word already revised once, please understand my resistance. (Your argument that this usage is akin to using "negroes" is off. To my eye your using "people of color" where "black people" is perfectly acceptable.) English's strength is that the language is alive, but I don't like seeing it manipulated - and that is what this feels like. (If you've never heard Carlin's euphamisms, take a couple of minutes and read it. It's a scream.)

Consider: If "gay" really means "all homosexual people", then, why is the term LGBT? GALAweb? GLAAD? GLUU? NUGALA? All of those are redundant if so.

"Homosexual" is a noun [2] [3] [4], and is the gender-neutral one.

Important: I also don't think that the article's current subject has been carefully reviewed. It's most detailed treatment is, indeed, about the sexuality as it bears on the teachings of this religion. It doesn't treat in any detail, beyond the excellent addition of YobMod's, the LGBT community within/without the Baha'i. That article would certainly be properly entitled "LGBT issues and Baha'i" per that project's discussion. Unfortunately the WP:V and WP:RS are probably very scarce. This is a relatively small community in the West. Therefore, I don't think WP:MOS#Identity really applies in this case.

Back to the terminology: The arguement that this term, homosexuality, is not [to be] used as a noun. Honestly, I don't recognize Wikimedia (Most specially uncited stuff like this word's entry in Wictionary.) as authoritative (especially when they're word-for-word identical). I would be interested in usage guide that are authoritative (And have spent the over an hour looking for some to little avail [5][6][7][8]). I don't consider Wictionary or Yahoo and their mirror sites to be. I'm also not really interested in what the journalists (AP, Chigago Tribune, etc.) are doing. They're selling papers, so of course they'll be be PC. This one leaves the subject open. This identifies them as synonyms, but doesn't state a preference. (Yes, that last is a newspaper's guide, but I can cut the London Times some slack.)

Can you point to some academic or professional style guides? (Don't worry if it's in print. I have terrific libraries here and can look them up.)

I am sorry if you take offense to the term. As a Clevelander, I despise Chief Wahoo precisely because it's a heartless, thoughtless pejorative. However, as I can remember vividly the fight gay men fought to be called gay, and alongside lesbians to use homosexual collectively, rather than any of a number of the then (and even still) current horrid terms, I'll need to be convinced that this usage is really going to get traction outside the LGBT community. I haven't pulled the tag, but I would like to see something stronger justifying it than internal reference to Wikimedia.

"Offensive" doesn't justify an NPOV tag. I doubt anybody whose cherished opinions appear in Conspiracy theories or Pseudoscience are particularly pleased. Both Chiropractic and Homeopathy are labeled pseudoscientific (which is unarguably pejorative) in their main articles without tags. The {{ActiveDiscuss}} tag is appropriate. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)#Self-identification We know that black people have been commonly referred to as 'negroes', but we refrain from doing so. Homosexual campaigns in the 1960s used to refer to themselves as homosexual (not homosexuals, however). I agree that there is some confusion about this, because texts have referred to people who are homosexual as 'homosexuals' collectively - but just because a dominant group uses a term to refer to a minority group does not mean we do that here. For example, we all know what Mormons are, but we try to use the term they prefer, Church of Latter Day Saints, rather than the more widely used term. It cannot be disputed that lesbian and gay people prefer to be referred to as lesbian and gay, or collectively with other groups as LGBT, because that is what their organisations tend to be called. This can be seen here (as one example): [9]; while 'homosexuality' is used, 'homosexual' as a noun is not used, and all groups use terms preferred by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

If Ba'hai teaching is localised and does not apply to LGBT people in the west, then you need to clarify this with reliable sources, and explain that the teaching only applies to people who engage in same-sex sexual activity in a specific region, where they identify as 'homosexuals'. Mish (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Using the Mormon example, the term used to be derogatory, but as it became widespread and more recognized, the church actually changed their policy and now openly use the term among themselves. There was an official recognition that the people saying "Mormon" were not trying to be offensive. With the term "homosexual" as a noun, I don't think it's derogatory or ever was, so can't even be compared to the examples you used. If you'd like to change you need some very good references supporting your stance. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't need good sources that explain this, all I need is to demonstrate that lesbian, gay, and LGBT groups usage - they do not refer to themselves as homosexual groups, but lesbian, gay and LGBT groups - the only groups that still use 'homosexual' in the title are those that were founded before circa-1970, after which the use of 'homosexual' became redundant. If you are going to insist on using a contested term, you need to show evidence that it is a term widely used by lesbian and gay people as a self-reference rather than some other term - you will not be able to do this using contemporary sources, other than in the breach. I don't personally find the term offensive, but I am not homosexual - I simply respect other people, and I had understood this was something important to Bah'ai, so this would be reflected in an article on the religion and homosexuality. Clearly not. That is OK, we have other groups that do this in articles, and we just have to put up with it - I have no intention of wasting more time on this arguing with somebody who is being a WP:DICK. Mish (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care which term is used, but MishMich please be civil and assume good faith, both core Wikipedia policies. That Cunado and MARussellPESE are asking for sources that the term 'homosexuals' is derogatory are completely in with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and guideline on reliable sources, and don't make them your so-called dick, which is completely out of line. Note that wikitionary as another wiki is not considered a reliable source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to use 'homosexuals' in this article, you have to provide evidence that this is an acceptable term for homosexual people - I have to do nothing. I have pointed you to an example that shows you people do not do this. Citing WP:DICK is neither uncivil nor bad faith - nobody does this intentionally, people can't help it, otherwise they wouldn't do it. I was merely pointing it out. Mish (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary:

[10]

homosexual

• adjective feeling or involving sexual attraction to people of one’s own sex.
• noun a homosexual person.
• DERIVATIVES homosexuality noun homosexually adverb.

gay

[11]

• adjective (gayer, gayest) 1 (especially of a man) homosexual. 2 relating to homosexuals. 3 dated light-hearted and carefree. 4 dated brightly coloured; showy.
• noun a homosexual person, especially a man.
• DERIVATIVES gayness noun.
• USAGE Gay is now a standard term for ‘homosexual’, and is the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. As a result, it is now very difficult to use gay in its earlier meanings ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy’ without arousing a sense of double entendre. Gay in its modern sense typically refers to men, lesbian being the standard term for homosexual women.

The dictionary has no reference to 'homosexuals', and clearly states that gay is the standard and preferred term for homosexual. Mish (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See also,

[12] [13] 'Gayle' p.4 Mish (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, citing DICK — especially after only two rounds of discussion — is incivil. 'Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move'. You might want to read the essay with respect to your own conduct here. I've been clear about where I'm coming from — even expressed some sympathy. All that's been asked of you is to produce some generally authoritative source. Nothing "abrasive" or "inconsiderate" about that.

Citing DICK is also, in my experience, the talk page equivalent of Reducto ad Hitlerim and a clear signal that no further conversation is actually intended.

To your point: please, homosexuals is the plural of homosexual. By your own citation, homosexuals is an appropriate term for "homosexual person[s]".

Further: Your assertion has been that "gay" means "all homosexual people". Your own source says it "is now a standard term …, and is the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves". [Emphasis mine]. "Gay" is not the standard term, nor preferred by lesbians, or inclusive. "Homosexual" is another standard term and is inclusive.

Also, "homosexual(s)" is used in many Wikipedia articles in exactly the same fashion as here.

• Homosexuality
• Homophobia
• Religion and homosexuality
• Christianity and homosexuality
• Homosexuality and Anglicanism
• Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
• LGBT topics and Islam
• LGBT in Japan
• Homosexuality in China

Honestly, I can't follow the parsing that has "homosexual" an inoffesive adjective, but an offensive noun. A "homosexual" has "homosexual" attractions. How can those words be at once offensive and inoffensive in the same sentence? Would "Abo" be any less offensive as an adjective? Are "American Indian", "Aborigine", or "Canadian" offensive in either usage? I'd be interested to see if there are any other offensive nouns that are derivatives of inoffensive adjectives.

There may be some instances where "gay and lesbian" may replace "homosexual" without loss, and to enhance readability. The above articles are hardly uniform one way or the other. Will look at the article and consider. Wholesale replacement isn't justified. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mish, after reading the Oxford reference, I think it's your misunderstanding of the grammar that is fouling you up. Just as MARussellPESE clarified, the reference says that "homosexual" is the singular noun that includes both genders. "Homosexuals" is the plural noun. That means the way it's used in the article is actually much preferable over the term "gay". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand that this is not a point about grammar - but using terms that refer to people. The dictionary and all the sources are quite clear, people do not like being referred to as 'homosexuals', and as the OED states, 'homosexual' as a noun is no longer used - 'homosexuals' is the plural form of that noun that is no longer used - if it refers to gay and lesbian people is irrelevant, it is no longer used. The correct terms is gay and lesbian people. I am sure that it is used in many articles, but that doesn't make it correct - however, providing links to articles with homosexuality in the title is not evidence that they use the term 'homosexuals'. Mish (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight, your reference to the OED doesn't suggest that the term "homosexual" is offensive in any way, or that people do not like to be referred to as "homosexuals". It just says that the terms "gay" and "lesbian" are gender specific, and that homosexual is gender neutral. Gay is "the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves". Why didn't you just reference the American Heritage dictionary [14]

"Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use."

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but the other references I gave do show this, while the OED explains that as a noun it is archaic.

• http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/lesbian?view=uk
• lesbian
• noun - a homosexual woman.
• adjective - referring to lesbians or lesbianism.

I don't cite American dictionaries because I am not American, and where they give American-English spellings, the OED gives English spelling. In England, the OED is the best dictionary for English, because it is compiled by Oxford University, which is one of the best Universities in the world, so I tend use it, and have done for almost fifty years. I have used the Merriam-Webster if looking for a US-related source - I don't think I even have access to the American Heritage, apart from when it is included in Dictionary.com. Anyay, your source seems to convey the usage perfectly well. So, would you kindly remove the references to 'homosexuals' as indicated in the source you provided? Mish (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT, bi and trans issues

I'll start putting info on LGBT / bi / trans issues here until it is decided if they should go on this page or a parent page:

The Baha'I faith has been described as a religion "ambiguous or contested on the issue of LGBT inclusion". Baha'i beliefs in a universal God for all people encourages efforts to social equality for all people, including homerotically inclined and gender variant people. However, the religion also has a strong emphasis on traditional values found in Abrahamic religions, and this includes a preference for opposite-sex marriages and sex for procreation, which "leave[s] little room for tolerance of same-sex eroticism". The Baha'i movement makes few declarations of disaproval on sexual topics, are usually not vocally against LGBT people. The dichotomy between the socially accepting faith and heteronormative tradition pressures LGBT adherents into either leaving the faith, or attempting to change or conceal their orientation or gender dysphoria.

Really, really good, YobMod. Pretty succinct. Will find a place right up front for it. Can you please copy edit to make sure I've got the right sourcing? MARussellPESE (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I've got some other sources to check first (although there realy isn't much in LGBT encylopedias about the Baha'i faith at all, so don't know how much i'll find). Sourcing so far is right, and i tried to stick as close to the orignials as possile, so tweaking the prose should not be a problem as long as the meaning is kept.YobMod 07:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the edit history?

Two days ago this article revision statistics showed over 1000 edits. Now there's less than 200 and the last version available (here) is obviously not the first revision. Can somebody please tell me what is going on? - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No clue - I've never checked the edit history that far back. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this should go to ANI. It's obvious to me that it has been tampered with. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all. Do you have any proof? None of the editors who you seem to believe have conflicts of interest are admins or have any such powers. It's time that you start to assume good faith. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the article with 1000 edits is another article, and your memory has faltered. The link that you say is "obviously not the first revision", is actually the first revision. I'm the one who made it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From a review of the browsing history on my laptop I found that I also had opened Edit count of Bahá'í_Faith which is closer in appearance to my memory of the page in question. It would seem that in the sleep-deprived state that I wrote that message, I had confused the information on the two pages and came to the wrong conclusion. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused, however I felt that if there were a chance the revision history had been altered then it needed to be looked into. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

I think this article misrepresents the true Bahai teachings on homosexuality. I can find many journal articles where Bahai ministers perpetrate homophobia ; [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

Lets take a look at some Bahai writings; Bahá'u'lláh has spoken very strongly against this shameful sexual aberration, as He has against adultery and immoral conduct in general. We must try and help the soul to overcome them.

Shoghi Effendi, 25 October 1949

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

Shoghi Effendi, 26 March 1950

There is a wide range of sexual abnormalities. Some people nowadays maintain that homosexuality is not an abnormality and that homosexuals should be encouraged to establish sexual relations with one or more partners of the same sex [sic]. The Faith, on the contrary, makes it abundantly clear that homosexuality is an abnormality, is a great problem for the individual so afflicted, and that he or she should strive to overcome it. The social implications of such an attitude are very important. The primary purpose of sexual relations is, clearly, to perpetuate the species...

The Universal House of Justice, 16 March 1992

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 that it is a permissible way of life; which, also, is all too often the accepted attitude nowadays.

Shoghi Effendi, 21 May 1954

I think the tone of this article should reflect the true stance of Baha'is. The article currently makes it seem as if Baha'i Faith welcomes homosexuality which is clearly ignorance. Someone65 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article already uses every single one of those quotes you used. They are part of the Baha'i view on homosexuality and they're not missing or misrepresented in the article. You're missing a whole series of quotes that show an accepting side.

"This may require a hard struggle, but so also can be the struggle of a heterosexual person to control his or her desires."

"They (homosexuals) should be treated just like any other people seeking admittance to the Faith, and be accepted on the same basis. Our teachings, as outlined in “The Advent of Divine Justice” on the subject of living a chaste life, should be emphasized to them just as to every other applicant, but certainly no ruling whatsoever should be laid down in this matter. The Bahá'ís have certainly not yet reached that stage of moral perfection where they are in a position to too harshly scrutinize the private lives of other souls, and each individual should be accepted on the basis of his faith, and sincere willingness to try to live up to the Divine standards"

"When an individual becomes a Bahá'í, he or she accepts the claim of Bahá'u'lláh to be the Manifestation of God bringing a divinely-inspired message from God for the benefit of mankind. Implicit in the acceptance of this claim is the commitment of the believer to embark on the lifelong process of endeavouring to implement the teachings on personal conduct. Through sincere and sustained effort, energized by faith in the validity of the Divine Message, and combined with patience with oneself and the loving support of the Bahá'í community, individuals are able to effect a change in their behaviour; as a consequence of this effort they partake of spiritual benefits which liberate them and which bestow a true happiness beyond description. As you know, Bahá'u'lláh has clearly forbidden the expression of sexual love between individuals of the same sex. However, the doors are open for all of humanity to enter the Cause of God, irrespective of their present circumstance; this invitation applies to homosexuals as well as to any others who are engaged in practices contrary to the Bahá'í teachings. Associated with this invitation is the expectation that all believers will make a sincere and persistent effort to eradicate those aspects of their conduct which are not in conformity with Divine Law."

It's abundantly clear in the article that Baha'is don't view homosexuality as an acceptable way of life, but it should also be abundantly clear that Baha'is don't promote the kind of social intolerance that people like you assume they promote, as if it's a binary equation. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of misrepresentation, Baha'is don't have ministers, and two of the articles you linked to don't mention the Baha'i Faith, and the others are all about the case of Uganda, where they mentioned Baha'is along with Christians and Muslims as supporting the measure to ban homosexuality. There is no indication there that any Baha'i institution supported the measure, and there are no articles by Baha'is saying anything about the issue. Get your facts straight. What actual institutions say about it is, "This law is no reason for Bahá’ís to consider homosexuals as outcasts. If they are not Bahá’ís there is also no reason to expect them to obey the Bahá'í law in this respect any more than we would expect a non-Bahá’í to abstain from drinking alcohol." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename to "Sexuality and the Bahá'í Faith"

The bahá'í faith only allow sex between a married heterosexual couple. All other types of sex is discouraged, whether it be with animals, plants, children , a person of the same sex or anything and anyone else. Homosexuality should not be the topic of this article, there is nothing specifically more wrong with being gay.

This is at least what I have learnt so feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, especially if you know a quote saying so.--Tallungs (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a larger issue than teachings about sexual conduct. It is an article about what Bahá'í teachings say about homosexuality in general and how this is reflected in advocacy for or against civil rights issues, the faith's stance in opposition to marriage equality, etc. That is, it is an article that covers the position of the Bahá'í faith on not merely behavior but on homosexuality as a social issue.74.83.14.59 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

While I am in agreement with 74 here, I would not be against the consolidation of most "religion-and-(insert sexual orientation/paraphilia/custom) here" into their "religion and sexuality" articles with subpages. However, I think that in many cases (including this one) that the subject matter of the religion and homosexuality specifically merits its own article. Peter Deer (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

All the articles are seperate for example:

Religion and sexuality Religion and homosexuality Religion and sexual orientation Religion and transgenderism Religion and transexuality Religion and LGBT topics Religious views on masturbation Religious views on pornography Religious views on prostitution

Buddhism and sexuality Buddhism and sexual orientation Buddhism and homosexuality

Christianity and sexuality Christianity and sexual orientation Christianity and homosexuality Christianity and transgenderism Christianity and transexuality

Too long to list each and every religion and its articles. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Spelling corrected! 50.178.142.148 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

More spell checks! 50.178.142.148 (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone hinders inclusion of information on "Gay and Lesbian Bahai Project"

Dear all,

I've tried several times to include information about a story project online which seems to have been set up by homosexual Baha'is. They tell stories about experiences they have had in Baha'i communities.

I've attempted several times to enter these information but someone simply has constantly deleted them.

I think in an article about homosexuality in the Baha'i Faith on Wikipedia it is important to provide the reader with information on the matter. It should be done from a neutral point of view. Therefore, several information should be included here.

Thank you for your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.210.32 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason given for reverting the pages is that the sources are self-published, which may be true. However, Wiki appears to allow self-published and questionable sources to be used as sources of information about themselves WP:ABOUTSELF 203.173.133.52 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The allowing of self-published sources would be acceptable if this article was about gaybahai.net, but it isn't. The website is not notable in any sense to be singled out as the voice of homosexual Baha'is, so it is indeed self-published and not connected to the primary subject of the article. With your argument, anyone who creates any website about gay Baha'is would be able to include their views and existence on Wikipedia, and that clearly is not acceptable by Wikipedia policies, and is why the self-published policy exists, and that fully applies to gaybahai.net. That of course, would not be true if there were some reliable econdary sources noting the importance of this particular website as the voice of Gays Bahais. However, as an external link, the website does pass policy and should remain. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source Jeff3000. [20] Gaybahai.net is evidence of the existence of Lesbian and Gay Bahais because it collects stories. There are 68 articles written by individuals there. So the argument that it is not connected to the primary subject of the article doesn't make sense to me. In my view the connection to the subject is obvious. That is, reference to a collation of articles by Bahais on the topic of the experiences of gays and lesbians in the Bahai community in a wikipedia article about Homosexuality and the Bahai Faith. About self-publishing this was already covered earlier here - "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources." WP:ABOUTSELF My apologies for posting the text but it seems to me that gaybahai.net fulfills all these requirements. So I don't understand why this is used as an argument to censor mention of this as part of the article. It seems that adding mention of gaybahai.net is not in violation of any wikipedia rule. Another argument for including mention of gaybahai.net in the article is that this section lacks any voice from the perspective of those which this section is about. Surely that would be like having a section on African American Bahais and then only allowing references to any information where they voice themselves to a footnote. Here's what I put in at the end of the section 3 feb 2014: In 2009 a Bahai set up the Gay and Lesbian Baha'i story project in which Lesbian and Gay Baha'is and others may share experiences they have had within the Baha'i community. As of February 2014 there are 68 stories there. The purpose of this website is "To tell, listen to, and reflect upon stories of Gay/Lesbian Baha'is and their supportive friends/family." Sonjamcg (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A simmilar website to mention is [Just A Bahai Blog] which focuses on these issue and is a good source of quotes. [Forum for Bahai Investigations] and [Alternative Perspectives] are also good sources as well. 2601:D:3582:2C0:D9F6:A202:90A8:4E23 (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Treatment of homosexuals

I'm reposting this comment from Mavaddat left on my talk page, Cuñado ☼ - Talk

I restored the section subheading ("Non-Bahá'í homosexuals") on "Homosexuality and Bahá'í Faith." The reason I restored it is that, first, it is not clear from the paragraph that it is talking only about the Bahá'ís' treatment of non-Bahá'í homosexuals. And second, even if it was clear, it is (at least) no less clear than that the next paragraph is talking about Bahá'í homosexuals (even without its) subheading. So would you suggest removing the subheading for that section too? I mean, what is wrong with extra clarity? Surely, there is no benefit to an ambiguity as to who the first paragraph is about, am I right? Mavaddat (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it looked really weird having the section heading and two sub-sections. I would support removing both sub-section headings. The content is clear enough I guess. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Having two sub-headings is common enough, and it makes logical sense. The first part, contrary to Jeff3000's suggestion, does not apply to all homosexuals. It is misleading to suggest that homosexual Bahá'ís are treated the same as non-Bahá'í homosexuals. That is why I think we should keep the double sub-heading, with the first one reading "Non-Bahá'í Homosexuals". Mavaddat (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of everything in the section applies to all homosexuals including:

"Bahá'ís are taught not to treat homosexuals as condemned outcasts"

"The Bahá'í writings teach people to treat everyone with respect and dignity. An attitude of discrimination and social intolerance toward homosexuals is not supported by the Bahá'í teachings."

The remaining subphrase, and the issue of same-sex marriage works well under a global heading of treat of homosexuals with a subsection on specific gay Baha'i issues. I will be removing the section heading again. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It just seemed to me that there should be some specification that non-Bahá'í homosexuals are treated differently than Bahá'í homosexuals. I think we all agree on that, but the page headers do not reflect that reality. Sure, the substance in the text makes it obvious enough, but why not have some kind of heading that makes it even clearer? I submit this for your consideration, but I'm not going to revert the changes (back to the original format) made by Jeff3000. Regards, Mavaddat (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In most cases non-Bahá'í homosexuals and Bahá'í homosexuals are not treated differently; the same guidance applies to both. The difference is that for the very small minority of cases the homosexual Baha'is may lose their administrative rights, and the process and explanation of that is explained in detail in the subsection. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, Jeff. We both know that's not true. Or do you truly not know? If not, please allow me to inform you: Non-Bahá'í homosexuals are not treated with the level of suspicion and uneasiness with which Bahá'í homosexuals are treated. In large Bahá'í communities, Bahá'í homosexuals are constantly rumoured and talked about in LSA meetings and amongst the members of the community. After all, the community must be on guard lest the homosexual's behaviour "border on insanity". So yes, they are treated differently. Bahá'í homosexuals pose a threat to the "image" of the religion that does not apply to non-Bahá'í homosexuals. Does that make sense? Regards, Mavaddat (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be your own experience and view, but in my experience that's not how it is, and all the guidance from the House of Justice says what is currently in the article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not just my own experience, but it is also the mandate of Bahá'ís as ordered by the Universal House of Justice. Sure, the article states that Bahá'í homosexuals are scrutinized and treated with suspicion, but it's not clear that non-Bahá'í homosexuals are not subject to this same scrutiny. I'm not how that clarification could be achieved to your satisfaction though. Regards, Mavaddat (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mavaddat, I see you edit Wikipedia too.

I would like to point out that your statement regarding the treatment of homosexuals is a broad and inaccurate statement which is entirely prejudicial towards Baha'is. As Wikipedia operates from a neutral point of view your personal perceptions of how you feel Baha'is think and feel are not relevant to the article. The things you can include, on the other hand, are notable scholarly commentaries and criticisms in this regard (as this is by-in-large an apologetics and criticism article) you can include primary sources such as scripture and official rulings by the House and Shoghi Effendi, and you can include reported incidences of mistreatment that have been supported by the Baha'i administration. However, please bear in mind the neutrality, verifiability, notability and no original research guidelines. Peter Deer (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Gay Baha'is are not "treated with suspicion" and the article does not so state. Peter's notation of V, NPOV and OR are all appropriate. However, even in their absence, Mavaddat, there are no formal, or even informal, guidelines along the lines you assert. While I've met some Baha'i busybodies (What community doesn't have them?) LSAs and ABMs are not the Gestapo. They really have better things to do with their time than get into community members' business, unless they make it an issue. Having served in both capacities, and read the guidance on the subject, I can speak with some authority on the subject. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

“IMMORALITY of every sort is really forbidden by Baha’u’llah, and homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, besides being AGAINST NATURE…through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this HANDICAP.” (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, 26 March 1950; Letter from the Universal House of Justice to National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, published in American Bahá’í, 152, 23 Nov 1995 on Bahai-Library; Lights of Guidance, p. 366, #1223)

‘Baha’u’llah makes provision for the Universal House of Justice to determine, according to the degree of offence, penalties for adultery and sodomy.” (The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Notes Section, p. 223, authored by the U.H.J, 1992)

“Sex relationships, of any form, outside marriage are not permissible … whoso violates this rule will not only be responsible to God, but will INCUR THE NECESSARY PUNISHMENT FROM SOCIETY.” (Letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, 5 September 1938; Cited in a Letter from the U.H.J. All National Spiritual Assemblies 6 February 1973, on Bahai-Library; Lights of Guidance, p. 346, #1157 – Here a date for this letter is not given)

“Baha’u’llah has spoken very strongly against this SHAMEFUL SEXUAL ABERRATION, as He has against adultery and immoral conduct in general.” (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, 25 October 1949. Cited in a 1993 compilation on homosexuality by Research Department of the Universal House of Justice.)

“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 Baha’u’llah and that ONE SO AFFLICTED SHOULD STRUGGLE AND STRUGGLE AGAIN TO OVERCOME IT.” (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, 26 March 1950. Cited in a 1993 compilation on homosexuality by Research Department of the Universal House of Justice.)

“The person should have it brought to his attention that such acts are CONDEMNED BY BAHA’U’LLAH, and that he must mend his ways, if necessary CONSULT DOCTORS, and make every effort to OVERCOME THIS AFFLICTION, which is CORRUPTIVE FOR HIM AND BAD FOR THE CAUSE. If after a period of probation you do not see an improvement, he should have his VOTING RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY. The Guardian does not think, however, that a Baha’i body should take it upon itself to denounce him to the Authorities unless his conduct borders on INSANITY.” (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 20 June 1953 to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada, published in “Messages to Canada” p. 39; cited in a compilation on homosexuality by Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, 1993, p. 4., on Bahai-Library.)

“Homosexuality … IS SPIRITUALLY CONDEMNED … we do not believe that it is a permissible way of life.” (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, 21 May 1954; Lights of Guidance, p. 365, #1221)

“We must struggle against the EVILS IN SOCIETY by spiritual means, and medical and social ones as well.” (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, 21 May 1954; Lights of Guidance, p. 365, #1221)

“The thing people need to meet THIS TYPE OF TROUBLE, as well as every other type, is greater spiritual understanding and stability.” (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, 21 May 1954; Lights of Guidance, p. 365, #1221)

…any friends who are FLAGRANTLY IMMORAL should be assisted, and, if possible, restrained. If their activities overstep all bounds and become a matter of PUBLIC SCANDAL, then the Assembly can consider depriving them of their voting rights. (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to a National Spiritual Assembly, 20 August 1955; Lights of Guidance, p. 369, #1230)

“Homosexuality is HIGHLY CONDEMNED…Any individual SO AFFLICTED must, through prayer, and any other means, seek to overcome this HANDICAP.” (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to a National Spiritual Assembly, 6 October 1956)

“…no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons.” (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi no date nor further information – cited in Lights of Guidance, pp. 364, #1220)

“…homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be reconciled, but is a DISTORTION OF HIS OR HER NATURE WHICH SHOULD BE CONTROLLED OR OVERCOME.” (From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, January 12, 1973: cited in Messages from The Universal House of Justice, 1968-1973, p. 110-111; Lights of Guidance, p. 366, #1222)

“If an individual violates the spiritual laws for his own development HE WILL CAUSE INJURY NOT ONLY TO HIMSELF BUT TO THE SOCIETY IN WHICH HE LIVES.” (From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer; excerpts to all National Spiritual Assemblies, February 6, 1973: Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1968-1973, pp. 105-106. Lights of Guidance, p. 343-344 #1146)

“…Baha’i law restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” (From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual, 14 March 1973; Lights of Guidance, pp. 365, #1225

“Thus, it should not be so much a matter of whether a practicing homosexual can be a Bahá’í as whether, having become a Baha’i, the homosexual can OVERCOME HIS PROBLEM.” (From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual, 14 March 1973; Lights of Guidance, pp. 365, #1225

“While recognizing the divine origin and force of the sex impulse in man…it must be controlled, and Baha’u’llah’s law confines its expression to the marriage relationship. … You can be confident that with the help of doctors, by prayer and meditation, by self-abnegation and by giving as much time as possible to serving the Cause in your community you can eventually succeed in OVERCOMING YOUR PROBLEM.” (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, January 9, 1977; Lights of Guidance, pp. 368, #1227)

“If you are sincerely intent on OVERCOMING YOUR PROBLEM…The more we occupy ourselves with teaching the Cause and serving our fellow-man in this way, the stronger we become in resisting THAT WHICH IS ABHORRENT TO OUR SPIRITUAL SELVES.” (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, July 16, 1980; Lights of Guidance, pp. 368, #1228)

“Both you and your Baha’i friend must first recognize that a homosexual relationship SUBVERTS THE PURPOSE OF HUMAN LIFE and that determined effort to overcome the wayward tendencies which promote this practice which, like other sexual vices, IS SO ABHORRENT TO THE CREATOR OF ALL MANKIND…” (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, August 23, 1982; Lights of Guidance, pp. 368, #1229)

“…the Faith does not recognize homosexuality as a “natural” or permanent phenomenon. Rather, it sees this as

AN ABERRATION SUBJECT TO TREATMENT…To the question of ALTERATION OF HOMOSEXUAL BENTS, much study must be given, and doubtless IN THE FUTURE CLEAR PRINCIPLES OF PREVENTION AND TREATMENT WILL EMERGE. As for those now afflicted, a homosexual does not decide to be a PROBLEM HUMAN, but he does…have decision in choosing his way of life.” (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, 22 March 1987. Cited in a compilation on homosexuality by Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, 1993, p. 7., on Bahai-Library.

“You mention recent research which indicates that there may be a genetic basis for homosexuality; you accept the Baha’i view of this matter, but you question the use of such terms as “ABNORMALITY, HANDICAP, AFFLICTION, PROBLEM, ETC.” since they can create misunderstandings. ON THE CONTRARY, THE HOUSE OF JUSTICE FEELS THAT JUST SUCH WORDS CAN BE A GREAT HELP TO THE INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED.” Cited in a compilation on homosexuality by Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, 1993, p. 11., Letter from the Universal House of Justice to an individual dated, 16 March 1992. on Bahai-Library.

“Some people nowadays maintain that homosexuality is not an abnormality…The Faith, on the contrary, makes it abundantly clear that HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABNORMALITY, is a GREAT PROBLEM for the individual SO AFFLICTED, and that he or she SHOULD STRIVE TO OVERCOME IT. The social implications of such an attitude are very important.” Cited in a compilation on homosexuality by Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, 1993, p. 11., Letter from the Universal House of Justice to an individual dated, 16 March 1992. on Bahai-Library.

“One could have concluded that HOMOSEXUALS COULD WELL ESTABLISH STABLE RELATIONSHIPS WITH ONE ANOTHER FOR MUTUAL SUPPORT, similar to the marital relationship of a heterosexual couple who cannot have children. This, indeed, is the conclusion that some churches and governments have come to. BUT BAHA’U’LLAH…SHOWS THAT SUCH A RELATIONSHIP IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE OR BENEFICIAL SOLUTION TO A HOMOSEXUAL’S CONDITION.” (Cited in a compilation on homosexuality by Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, 1993, p. 12., Letter from the Universal House of Justice to an individual dated, 16 March 1992. on Bahai-Library.

“Human beings need not only assistance in defining acceptable behavior of one person towards another, but also guidance which will help them to refrain from doing that which is SPIRITUALLY DAMAGING TO THEMSELVES.” (Letter from the Universal House of Justice to National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, published in American Bahá’í, 152, 23 Nov 1995 on Bahai-Library)

“Whether DEFICIENCIES are inborn or acquired, our purpose in this life is to overcome them…” (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual, 17 September 1993. This letter is cited in full by Bill Collins on on the e-list soc.religion.bahai, 31 Aug 1994)

“You state that “homosexuals cannot be altered into heterosexuality, all such trials have failed and homosexuals remain so until the day they die.” THIS IS A STATEMENT WHICH IS STILL OPEN TO DISPUTE, AND WHICH BAHA’IS SHOULD QUESTION.” (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual, 17 September 1993. ibid)

“Baha’i Assemblies can testify to the number of Baha’is who, although having had homosexual orientations, have been able to lead normally happy married lives and raise families.” (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual, 17 September 1993. ibid)

“The condition of being sexually attracted to some object other than to a mature member of the opposite sex, A CONDITION OF WHICH HOMOSEXUALITY IS BUT ONE MANIFESTATION, is regarded by the Faith as a DISTORTION OF TRUE HUMAN NATURE, as a PROBLEM TO BE OVERCOME, no matter what specific physical or psychological condition may be the immediate cause. Any Baha’i who suffers from

such a DISABILITY…should be helped to control and overcome it.” (Letter from the Universal House of Justice to National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, published in American Bahá’í, 152, 23 Nov 1995 on Bahai-Library.

“…homosexual intercourse by a Baha’i is AN OFFENCE AGAINST THE LAW OF GOD and is STRONGLY CONDEMNED. Strict laws of sexual behaviour are important, we believe, not merely for the individual, but also for society in general…we certainly do not fully understand their long-term implication; THESE WILL BECOME APPARENT AS SOCIETY EVOLVES. Baha’is believe that the LOVE OF GOD IS EVIDENT IN ALL HIS LAWS, NO MATTER HOW SEVERE SOME OF THEM MAY APPEAR TO BE.” (U.H.J., 17 September 1993. This letter is cited in full by Bill Collins on the e-list soc.religion.bahai, 31 Aug 1994)

“…while science may find that a predisposition to homosexuality is caused by genetic aberration, and in that sense may be considered “natural”, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT IS “NATURAL” FOR SOME PEOPLE TO BE HOMOSEXUAL …The statistics which indicate that homosexuality is incurable are undoubtedly distorted by the fact that many of those who overcome the problem never speak about it in public, and others solve their problems without even consulting professional counselors. Furthermore, contrary evidence may will exist but may be overlooked by scientific reporting that is, for one reason or another, biased.” (Letter from the U.H.J. to the N.S.A. of the U.S., published in American Bahá’í, 152, 23 Nov 1993, On Bahai-Library)

“…the Baha’i Faith STRONGLY CONDEMNS all blatant acts of immorality, and it includes among them the expression of sexual love between individuals of the same sex.” (U.H.J., Letter to an individual, 11 September 1995. The letter is cited in full on 6 Feb 1996 on the Talisman e-list)

“The view that homosexuality is a condition that is not amenable to change is to be questioned by Baha’is.” (U.H.J., 11 September 1995. ibid)

“…the standard which they are called upon to uphold is the Baha’i standard. A flagrant violation of this standard DISGRACES THE BAHA’I COMMUNITY IN ITS OWN EYES even if the surrounding society finds the transgression tolerable.” (U.H.J., 11 September 1995. ibid)

…if persons involved in homosexual relationships express an interest in the Faith, they should not be instructed by Bahá’í institutions to separate so that they may enrol in the Bahá’í community, for this action by any institution may conflict with civil law. The Bahá’í position should be patiently explained to such persons, who should also be given to understand that although in their hearts they may accept Bahá’u’lláh, THEY CANNOT JOIN THE BAHA’I COMMUNITY in the current condition of their relationship. They will then be free to draw their own conclusions and act accordingly. Within this context, the question you pose about the possibility of the removal of administrative rights should, therefore, not arise.” From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual 5 March 1999

The above quotes differ. They say society should give the required punishment. 2601:D:3582:2C0:D9F6:A202:90A8:4E23 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)