Talk:Homosexuality and Bahá'í Faith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Tone change

I've not been editting this page at all so thought I'd use the talk page first. I just get the feeling that the "pro or anti?" title is a little vague. It implies room for discussion about the religion's opinion on the matter. As the titles are always very obvious I think they should provide a rough summary of the article, which at present it does not.

I understand what is meant - it can be seen (and regularly is) as not-as-anti as other religions, but I still think you'll get gay right's activists marching against it. -- Tomhab 00:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think relgioustolerance.org is an excellent website, and I have no problems with people linking to it, or using it as a source of information. I read through some of the comments linked above, and the main impression that I got is that jguk himself has some kind of beef with them. PaulHammond 01:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the site lacks the kind of strong editorial control as would be desired for wikipedia. I've found some mis-steps there. And, if memory serves, it's principally the work of an individual. I have noted an editorial bias that the site isn't always up-front about. However, there are far worse sources being used on the 'pedia with biases that have the deafaning sound of grinding axes. Here, the content seems to be generally good-faith. MARussellPESE 15:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bahá'í and transgender

Just curious here - do the Bahá'í have a specific stance on transgender, and if so, what is it? -- AlexR 10:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Specific guidance has not been given on trangender behaviour, and the Universal House of Justice, who has the power to enact laws and guidelines that are not in the holy Baha'i books, has not said anything as of yet (I think). But there are certain overlying Baha'i principles which I think may apply loosely, in regards to chastity and moderation in all things. A quote by Shoghi Effendi that may apply is:
"Such a chaste and holy life, with its implications of modesty, purity, temperance, decency, and clean-mindedness, involves no less than the exercise of moderation in all that pertains to dress, language, amusements, and all artistic and literary avocations. It demands daily vigilance in the control of one’s carnal desires and corrupt inclinations. It calls for the abandonment of a frivolous conduct, with its excessive attachment to trivial and often misdirected pleasures. It requires total abstinence from all alcoholic drinks, from opium, and from similar habit-forming drugs. It condemns the prostitution of art and of literature, the practices of nudism and of companionate marriage, infidelity in marital relationships, and all manner of promiscuity, of easy familiarity, and of sexual vices. It can tolerate no compromise with the theories, the standards, the habits, and the excesses of a decadent age. Nay rather it seeks to demonstrate, through the dynamic force of its example, the pernicious character of such theories, the falsity of such standards, the hollowness of such claims, the perversity of such habits, and the sacrilegious character of such excesses." [1]
Now the interpretation of this is up to each one, and until the Universal House of Justice writes about it, there is nothing specific. -- Jeff3000 16:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of other specifics on transgender behavior either.
The above passage deserves to be juxtaposed with the concept that outside of sexual expression, the various virtuous qualities of human beings, termed the "names and attributes of God" are not gender-specific. Much of the idea of "maleness" viz. "femaleness" are as much social constructs and don't reflect the fact that all people have the capacity to reflect these qualities irrespective of gender.
"Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist. How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him.
(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 177, emphasis added) [2]
The attitude towards sexual expression is couched as one of chastity, as discussed, and therefore applicable to everyone. It also, like much of religious attitude, requires a sense of self-control.
"O SON OF MAN! If thou lovest Me, turn away from thyself; and if thou seekest My pleasure, regard not thine own; that thou mayest die in Me and I may eternally live in thee."
(Bahá'u'lláh, The Hidden Words of Bahá'u'lláh, #7 from the Arabic) [3]
For the religious, the idea of God having expectations for our conduct is not unreasonable. What is out of line is for anybody, believer or skeptic, to expect others to live, love, or believe the way that they think you ought to; or ridicule their choices.
"The Almighty beareth Me witness: To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man. Those virtues that befit his dignity are forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-kindness towards all the peoples and kindreds of the earth."
(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 215) [4]
Ciao, and thanks for asking. MARussellPESE 17:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Please, if I have overlooked something, point me to it -- but where in the above are any references to transgender? Transgender is a question of gender identity, but all you seem to be talking about is sexual acts, or maybe preferences, which are something utterly different. Transgender is a question of who you are, not one of whom you have sexual relationships with (or not). This, and what they do when they have them, is as different among trans-people as it is among cis-people; although it seems there is a larger number of asexual (hence chaste) people among transpeople. Oh, and I don't think there is any specific "transgender behaviour", either. -- AlexR 19:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering what 'transgender behavior' referred to... -Smahoney 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We might be mixing-up jargon. Isn't cross-dressing a transgender behavior, where one identifies oneself sexually and socially as one gender but prefers the other's clothes?

Uhm, not quite, no. Cross-dressing for gender-identity related reasons is one of many behaviours transgender people might show. (Unless you count changing gender roles as persistant cross-dressing.) Cross-dressing for sexual reasons is called transvestic fetishism and is usually not counted as transgender. And transgender is not about identifying sexually, either, compare sexual identity. Anyway, I don't expect much of a need of a stance for cross-dressing itself, but I do wonder about the stance of those changing their gender role completely.

Forgive me for not getting at your question, but the transgender article spends a fair amount of space on behaviors.

Well, if you see it that way - the whole point of transgender is a gender identity that does not agree with the assigned sex/gender, everything else follows from there. And what does follow from there is very diverse. Of course that includes behavour, but there is no "transgender behaviour" as such.

It appears that the whole subject is in its own state of flux with respect to concepts and jargon. As there are a fair number "trangender behaviors" identified, it seemed useful to distinguish among those behaviors the Baha'i writings address; and sex is about it I think.

In many details it is in flux, but the basic concept of gender identity is not. Also, I was not asking about a line on any specific behaviours (which are diverse) but on the general question of how the Bahá'í deals with people whose gender identity does not match their assigned sex. Which has nothing to do whatever, at that point, with sex (the action).

Personally, the bottom line is that my principle identity is human; specifically a human soul. My primary experience, in this world and the next, is intended to be a spiritual one. My physical form, and its considerations, including gender identity, is a distant second concern. Life here is a transitory existence. I see myself as a fundamentally spiritual being who happens to be using a physical body for a very short time. This is what the other passages were intended to clarify. I find I was wide of the mark. Sorry.

I think the idea of gender-specific behavior and roles is a social construct, based on a materialistic ideas and concerns, and, more often than not, interferes with the spiritual experiences this world can and should provide.

Is that of more use? MARussellPESE 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That is of more use, but still does not quite answer the question. After all, people living in this world at least have to deal with their gender identity, and while it may not me much of a matter for most, it is a matter of transgender people. And while specific gender-specific behaviour and roles might be a social construct, I have yet to encounter a society where there is no difference at all between genders. And as long as there is a difference, there will be trans-people.
Actually, I was asking, since Bahá'í has a stance on homosexuality (which is not related to transgender, but often confused with it), where one might just as well say that it is just a transitory experience etc, well, I thought Bahá'í may have one on transgender people as well. -- AlexR 06:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Cross-dressing can be a transgender behavior, but my understanding is that generally being trans is a matter of identifying (or not identifying), which is hard to pin down as a behavior per se. But you're right, of course, insofar as a religious text is likely to take a stand on behaviors and not identifications (although, then again, fundamentalist Christians definitely tend to have a stand on certain identifications). I guess my beef, as I believe AlexR was also expressing above, was with the identification of trans and sexual acts, which seems to miss the point entirely. Maybe a clearer question would be: How does Bahá'í view gender? Is the gender that you're born with externally the gender you have your entire life (even if, say, you go through surgical reassignment)? Is there any allowance for gender being an internal thing (ie, for someone's gender identification to be at odds with the gender of their bodies)? I think the references to sex acts, in the context of trans people, can only be pertinent after those questions are answered (since, for example, a trans woman's relationship with a man could be considered either homosexual or heterosexual depending on a group's views on the above gender questions). -Smahoney 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly; there is, after all, no reason to assume that transpeople cannot, for example, be just as chaste as cisgender people are. (And in my experience, they are more often than cisgender people, at least the "classical" ones. With "genderqueer" and related all bets are off ;-) But, as you already said, the sex (the action) part can only be reasonable addressed if the gender (identity) question is answered, which so far it is not. -- AlexR 06:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An issue with the text

I copied this section here, for reasons given below:

Bahá'ís believe that homosexuals must endeavor to use prayer, medical treatment, counselling and personal effort to overcome their condition. Anyone who is not able to have a heterosexual marriage must remain celibate, just like any person who does not marry.

It concerns me that the attribute "their condition" is being applied to homosexuality as almost a statement of fact. I'd prefer to see this first sentence appear in the form of an attributed quoted, something like:

Homosexuals must endeavor to use prayer... (Author, Book, Date)

or

So-and-so has interpreted such-and-such as saying that homosexuals must endeavor to use prayer... (So-and-so, Publication, Date)

or some other construction that would refer explicitely to a published work, article of faith, or quotation, in such a way as to specifically attribute the belief that homosexuality is a condition to that work, article of faith, or speaker. I, unfortunately, do not have any Bahá'í texts to examine, nor the time in which to do it, but if someone more knowledgable has text from a reference that can replace that sentence, I would much appreciate it. -Smahoney 20:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. That's probably a bad paraphrase and deserves much better citation. Thank you. MARussellPESE 20:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I wrote most of this page. The text is in most cases taken from various books and sources, which are informally compiled together. In the absence of a single source, I posted the quotes on this page at the bottom for references. If the issue is using the phrase "condition", then it is referred to in several places as that word in Baha'i sources. I can understand your concern with insinuating that being homosexual is a condition, which carries negative connotations with it. But the article should reflect the Baha'i position on the subject, which says "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." and in another place... "If a homosexual cannot so overcome his or her condition to the extent of being able to have a heterosexual marriage, he or she must remain single, and abstain from sexual relations." I don't have a solution to offer, because I think any reader will already have a stance one way or another, and is looking for the Baha'i perspective on it. I would, however, object to the same language being used on a page about Homosexuality. If you want to add a reference in the form you mentioned above, use this: (Letters of The Universal House of Justice, 5 June 1993, Homosexuality, p. 11) Cuñado - Talk 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. I agree that the article should address and be from the perspective of the Bahá'í position(s), but I think the best way to do that is to use direct quotes wherever possible, in order to make it clear that it is the Bahá'í position being addressed, and not some cultural assumption. -Smahoney 22:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
These sentences have been slightly rephrased (I think it was me that rephrased them about a week ago). The text no longer says just that homosexuals "must remain celibate", but rather that they are "told that they must remain celibate". I also changed "Bahá'ís believe that" to "Bahá'ís are taught that", to make a small distinction between what is taught by the leadership of the Bahá'í faith and the diversity of thought (or lack thereof) that may exist among the huge number of individuals who consider themselves Bahá'ís. I also made a number of other minor similar NPOV adjustments in the article. However, I do agree that a referenced quote would probably be better. —Wookipedian 06:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
To echo Wookipedian here, I also just made some very small NPOV changes, for the same reason, and think the NPOV situation could still improve. While the article should explain and describe the Baha'i views of homosexuality, it should not preach Baha'i views. Singlewordedpoem 20:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
More specifically, I feel this paragraph:
The Universal House of Justice responds to those who claim that homosexuality is not treatable by noting that this consensus ignores people who do think they have been cured at some point but do not go public. Bahá'ís believe this consensus has been formed by people who either did not seriously pursue overcoming homosexuality, people who are already convinced that homosexuality is acceptable or positive, or people who have simply not been exposed to the view that homosexual inclinations are either curable or treatable.
...should be followed by some rebuttal from the scientific or gay-rights community on the validity of these assertions. I'm also curious: are there any specific counseling services or "camps" in the Baha'i community claiming to "cure" homosexuality, like there are in the American fundamentalist Christian community? If so, have there been any controversy surrounding them? All of that information should be in that part of the article.Singlewordedpoem 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
More than that, the assertions in the paragraph should be cited (Wikipedia:Cite your sources). -Smahoney 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right that it should be cited, but as mentioned before, this article is about the stance of the Baha'i Faith on homosexuality. Baha'is, to my knowledge are not writing these statements on homosexuality or demanding rebuttals when statements are made on such pages that are in disagreement with statements made on this page. This is not a forum, it's an article about the stance of the Baha'i Faith on homosexuality, and that statement seems quite representative of it. It isn't preaching but simply giving information about Baha'i belief. Without that statement the reader would be left to assume that the Baha'is are ignoring scientific developments. They aren't, they just disagree, and this paragraph tells us this and explains the nature of their disagreement. But it should be cited.
And no, having been a Baha'i in the U.S. for several years, I have never heard nor could even imagine hearing about any Baha'i counseling services or other controversial practices regarding the Bahai's and homosexuals. The Baha'is have a much more holistic view of the individual than you're giving them credit for. There have been a couple of Bahai's I've known who have identified themselves as homosexuals. The only reason I know this is that I've known them for a really long time. I didn't hear other Bahai's referring to them in any way that would imply sexual orientation or discuss such matters because they generally recognize such matters as being not their business and unimportant to the formulation of their opinion of the individual. Furthermore, talking about such matters is, or is dangerously close to being, gossip or backbiting -practices that the majority of Bahai's refrain from. -LambaJan 02:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There are absolutely no such camps in the Baha'i community. I'll add a citation, and a minor rewording. I don't like saying "Baha'is believe..." but I'd rather put "The Universal House of Justice explains...." or something. I wouldn't say that 'all' Baha'is are so familiar with the subject to even have formed an opinion on the situation. Cuñado - Talk 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading something from the House of Justice about the issue of scientific consensus on homosexuality. I read it while I wrote the paragraph being discussed, but now I can't find it. I have a good memory, and I'm sure it went something like this... "Rather, such a consensus was formed by those who were never cured, and continue to suffer from the condition."
It doesn't surprise me that it's not in Ocean, and it's difficult to search online for these kinds of phrases. If anyone can find it, we could use it as a reference. Cuñado - Talk 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the following sentence:

The Universal House of Justice responds to those who claim that homosexuality is not treatable by noting that this consensus ignores people who do think they have been cured at some point but do not go public.

to

The Universal House of Justice responds to those who claim that homosexuality is not "treatable" by asserting the existence of some number of people who have been "cured" but have not gone public about it, and saying that these people have been ignored in the current scientific consensus.

The prior phrasing side-steps the fundamental question, which is that there is nothing to "note" about people who fit into a particular category being "ignored" if there is no one in the category. It seems that whether or not there is anyone (or any significant number of people) in the category is the actual question being discussed, so to note that people in this category have not been counted is to form a tautologous assumption. Wookipedian 06:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the idea of "treatability". Whether something is "treatable" or not is a separate question from whether it is considered bad. If something is changeable but is not considered bad, then it need not be changed. If something is bad but is not considered treatable, that does not need to affect the notion that it is bad. For example, people can apply chemical treatments to curl their hair, but straight hair is not usually considered a problem, so there is no compulsion to get such treatments. As another example, there are people who are considered by many to be incurably bad in some way, but the fact that they are judged incurable does not necessarily affect the judgment that they are bad. These are separate questions. The article does not seem to recognize the distinction. Note that we may someday learn that heterosexuality is somewhat "treatable" and can perhaps even be "cured". Wookipedian 06:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The change looks fine, although I am going to remove the quotation marks. I really hate those. They imply a conclusion that whatever is being quoted is false or pretentious.
About treatable vs bad, I think the article skips around the question of "is it bad?" because I don't think wikipedia is a place to address that. The article just states facts and has quotes from authoritative people in the religion. I helped write a lot of this article, and I tried really hard not to get caught up in the argument that is going on right now in society, which wants to lump any movement or person into either anti-gay or pro-gay (gay-hating or gay-promoting). The ideals of the Baha'i Faith put it way above such an argument, and makes it an issue of chastity. The Baha'i teachings do not allow for any healthy sexual relationship outside of marriage, the same standards taught in every religion. So clearly you can conclude that sex outside of marriage is bad, and since marriage is between one man and one woman, then homosexual relationships are in that category. All that observant psychiatrists have documented is that someone cannot be forced into being straight. But that's not even the issue. If an individual is defined by who they have sex with, then you are arguing about one sinful lifestyle vs another. In other words, there is a third category: gay, straight, and chaste. Baha'is would not encourage a homosexual to engage in sex with the opposite gender, they would encourage them to control their carnal desires. Cuñado - Talk 07:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks like you did a lot more than remove quotation marks, but I don't see any big problem with your changes. There are a number of points raised by your above comments that I might have some interest in discussing, but our work here is to produce an article rather than to hold a discussion. I still have a problem with the word "treatable", as the encyclopedia should use neutral language in its presentation of facts, and that is not a neutral term. My first attempt was to put the word into quotes to point out that it is a judgmental term. Perhaps using a more neutral synonym would be better. Also, I don't really understand what the word "natural" means. I'll try what I think is a small adjustment and see how it sits. Wookipedian 05:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think, in this context, that this language is neutral and has been so from the very beginning. This article is about what Baha'i Faith says about homosexuality, not about how this is similar or different from how other groups think about the subject, or how some people feel about these similarities or differences. -LambaJan 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pederasty

The following:

"The practice of homosexuality in the time of Bahá'u'lláh was in the form of Pederasty, or erotic relations between adult males and adolescent boys.

Was changed to this:

"The practice expressly discussed in this passage by Bahá'u'lláh seems to have been Pederasty rather than acts of consentual adult homosexuality.

I strongly disagree with the change. In fact the relationships between older men with younger boys were common. Any form of homosexuality usually took the form of one man being dominant and another being the "wife", so to speak. No doubt there were exceptions, but the re-wording is implying that Baha'u'llah purposefully did not mention the modern Western societal practice of homosexuality, when the reality is that such relationships did not exist, even in the Western world, let alone the Islamic world. He commented on the only form of homosexuality that was prevalent in his time. I wish I had a solid reference, but it's a non-issue, meaning that it's hard to prove the non-existence of those kinds of relationships. On the other hand, there is an extensive article and countless examples of Pederasty in the Islamic world. This is something I'm well versed in, so unless you can provide some convincing evidence I'll change it back. Cuñado - Talk 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that changed it, and thus I feel obliged to respond. The prior phrasing of the sentence said, essentially, that pederasty was the only form of homosexual practice that existed in the society at the time. This is a rather obviously questionable view of the world, given what we know today - perhaps adult consensual homosexuality was not commonly practiced openly, but to pretend that it did not exist is highly questionable. It is further highly questionable to not make much of a distinction between these two very different proclivities. There is a big difference between consensual acts among adults and the molestation of children. —Wookipedian 05:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Actually pederasty is not molestation. The boys were usually teenagers and paid by the older men. I'll try to fix the hyperbolic statement to make it less absolute. Cuñado - Talk 06:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
There have been a couple of changes to the sentence in question, and I thank you for being open to discussion and to considering rephrasing on this topic. However, I think the new text still needs some work and I would also like to comment on the above remark. Perhaps I should have avoided the rather loaded term "child molestation" in my own remarks, but I wonder a bit about the above remark of Cuñado indicating that pederasty is not molestation since the boys were usually paid teenagers. I think it is rather difficult to assert that teenagers cannot be molested or that paying them for the service makes the activities not be considered molestation or that teenagers are not children. Often a teenager (particularly at young end of the teen spectrum) is still considered a child, and often children are not considered really capable of mature consent in such situations (when dealing with a persuasive adult). But anyhow, my main purpose here is to question the lack of a distinction between pederasty and consensual sex between adults. What a couple of 35-year-old lesbians do with each other is not pederasty (and I suspect that there were at least a few lesbians in 19th-century Iran, and I suspect there were some men having sex with other men too). I'm not talking about "social movements" at all, and I'm not talking about "controversy" (quoting strings that now appear in the modified text). I think it ought to be rather obvious that 35-year-old lesbians are not "boys", and neither are 40-year-old men. The modified text is now talking about some vague concepts of social movements and controversy, but not about whether sex between consenting adults fits within the scope of a quote about boys. If you want to say that this quote has been interpreted by Baha'i leaders as also applying to sex between consenting adults, then that is fine. Just say that if that is the case. But the distinction exists, and sex between adults also exists (and surely existed then too). —Wookipedian 18:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No doubt you could say that anyplace, anytime, there was sex between adult men. The point is a little different. The modern idea of a homosexual lifestyle is what I was trying to refer to by 'homosexual social movements'. You just can't use terminology today and try to apply it to even 100 years ago. Reading over some of the Gay/Lesbian articles I saw that as gay men began to come out, they didn't even know what to call themselves. The word "homosexual" wasn't even in use in the 19th century. My point is, people (I have heard them personally) have proposed that the modern homosexual lifestyle, or potentially two adult, monogamous individuals of the same sex, engaged in an intimate relationship is OK because Baha'u'llah never said it wasn't OK. I'm trying to make it clear that that issue was not even alive, and there was no social awareness to homosexuality until after `Abdu'l-Baha died (1921). I avoided making any conclusions, I just made those facts clear in the article.
If you have any ideas on how to make it better, just go ahead and edit it. That's what I've been doing. Cuñado - Talk 02:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the section as it stands:

The practice of pederasty, or erotic relations between adult males and adolescent boys, was not uncommon during the time of Bahá'u'lláh in the Islamic world, and in some cases was socially acceptable. Although Homosexual social movements first began in late 19th century Germany, it was not until after World War II that they gained widespread publicity and social acceptability. The absence of comments on such movements by the religion's founders has been the source of some controversy among those wishing to support homosexual lifestyles.

It seems to me, Cunado, that there is some circumlocution here. It appears that you are covertly trying to make a point — that homosexuality is OK in Bahá'í because the specific nature of the modern homosexual lifestyle did not exist in the time and place of Baha'u'llah. You need to find someone who says that in a published source and quote them. As it reads now, the sentence is above is alluding to an actual controversy among some (unnamed) people who "wish to support homosexual lifestyles" about whether or not Bahá'u'lláh commented on homosexual social movements of the 19th century. How about:

The practice of pederasty, or erotic relations between adult males and adolescent boys, was not uncommon during the time of Bahá'u'lláh in the Islamic world, and in some cases was socially acceptable. Baha'u'llah condemned such relations, and Shoghi Effendi, the authorized interpreter of the Bahá'í writings, interpreted this as a prohibition against all homosexual relationships. However, some have argued that modern forms of homosexual identity and loving relationships between adults were not mentioned specifically by Baha'u'llah, and therefore should not be considered immoral. (SOURCE FOR THIS CLAIM)

ntennis 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cunado is not trying to make the point that homosexuality is acceptable in the Baha'i Faith. What he is trying to state that regardless of if Baha'u'llah mentioned it directly or not, he was referring to the practice. The reason why he is bringing it up, is because there has been some discussion in some electronic Baha'i communities that bring about that specific statement. I doubt a reference could be found, as it was mostly all in electronic forms. -- Jeff3000 03:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I just rephrased following ntennis's suggested wording and just dropping the last sentence. Take a look. I rather doubt Cuñado is trying to do anything subversive. —Wookipedian 03:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. For the record, I didn't mean to imply any sinister intentions on Cuñado's part! Just that the sentence was trying to imply something without coming out and saying it. The new wording makes more sense to me. ntennis 03:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Right I think it's fine now. Jeff is right, there is a controversy, but it is not documented in a verifiable way so we'll just have to leave it out. There are proponents (and I'm not one of them, I was actually trying to show the opposite point) that argue that a monogomous homosexual relationship is OK in the Baha'i Faith, and part of the argument is that Baha'u'llah never forbade it. My counter to that was providing a historical reasoning for why he never mentioned it (because it didn't exist then). The only references, poor as they are, would be these: [5] [6]. I think the current wording is fine. Cuñado - Talk 04:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd to see the assertion repeated above by Cuñado that the phenomenon of "a monogomous homosexual relationship"... "didn't exist then". I suspect that it did (albeit perhaps mostly behind closed doors). I also don't see how the notion of monogamy crept in here. The discussion was about adult consensual homosexual sex acts versus pederasty, not about monogamy or a lack of it. I think it's pretty clear that consensual sex acts between adults of the same sex did sometimes exist at the time. Anyhow, this is now a discussion about the discussion, not a discussion about the article. The article seems better now. The article should not be about "arguing" or "countering" or "points" (terms used above) -- it should have a neutral point of view. It's better now, and I'm glad we could get to that state. —Wookipedian 06:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Jumping in late, any "controversy" over whether or not Baha'u'llah forbade adult homosexual relationships is non-sequitur to a discussion of homosexuality in the Baha'i Faith, as he's not the only source for doctrinal positions in the religion. Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice are on-record firmly forbiding these practices. The article seems pretty clear here, and introducing the "Baha'u'llah didn't address adult relationships" topic misses the point rather badly and confusing. Jeff3000 is right, there are Baha'is who believe otherwise, but this is not a formal "controversy" such as the Anglicans and Episcopalians are going through now. The current format looks good to me too. MARussellPESE 15:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] referencing

I want to migrate the long list of quotes to the ref tag formatting and attach them to the text. Is it a problem if I leave the entire quote in the ref tag? See this edit if you don't know what I'm talking about. Cuñado - Talk 08:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. -LambaJan 01:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Curing"

Regarding the scientific community's thinking on the matter, this is not an open and shut case. This article provides some interesting background on the DSM's evolving approach to the subject, and notes the not inconsiderable pressure put on the editors by the Gay community. The DSM itself is the subject of some criticism of it's scientific validity.

This article should not debate whether or not the science of this as "disease" or not, nor so-called "curing". The merits of the DSM don't belong there. But I'm putting this here to inform the larger discussion. MARussellPESE 15:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the article you're citing is making the claims you think it is. You're right, though, in that it is off topic to debate positions on homosexuality, other than to note the mainstream Baha'i position and contrast it with mainstream scientific (which are, to some degree, culturally mainstream) positions. Its not our job to argue for which is right. -Smahoney 16:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I intend no offense. Many approach the question of homosexuality as "disease" or "perfectly normal" from shrill, Balkanized positions — even Bahá'ís. (And I'm not suggesting that you do, Seth.) Each side will cherry-pick whatever supports their position — the scientific position(s) as well.
True, the current view of the mental health professions is that it's not a disease, in and of itself; but this position has evolved over time (Within my own lifetime.), and did not do so in a vacuum. The article seems to illustrate that evolutionary process reflected in the DSM and at least some of its social context.
The point presenting this is to suggest that the question is far more nuanced than many would like it to be — again: even Bahá'ís. Personally, I think that the Bahá'í teachings on the subject, taken in their totality, are also more nuanced than almost anybody gives them credit for — yet again: even Bahá'ís.
Seth, I'm glad you're paying attention to this article. It's a tricky subject and needs a variety of perspectives to keep it neutral and effective. MARussellPESE 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with everything you've said here, and would like to add that the evolution of persepctives on homosexuality is way beyond the scope of this article. It should cover Baha'i position(s), any contrast with mainstream position(s), and nothing else. -Smahoney 05:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reference

I was thinking of something more like this as a reference to the position of mainstream psychology. Mentioning the DSM does not really address the issue, it only states that it was removed from the list of mental disorders. The linked article mentions in the first line that they oppose "any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation"

Likewise the link to the WP page was not too specific. And yes, in general if you are providing a reference to something, wikipedia is not a good source. We all know how much garbage gets on wikipedia. Cuñado - Talk 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance tag

The article seems to be almost totally based on Baha'i publications. I am sure this is an issue within the Baha'i community. However, there is no evidence that anyone else considers "Homosexuality and the Baha'i Faith" to be a notable topic. It probably shouldn't be a WP article. Steve Dufour 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve, what different religions teach their adherents about homosexuality affects how they treat GLBT people, how GLBT people within those faiths see each themselves, and, potentially, how the larger community deals with GLBT issues (as members of the religions express their views within the world. Please consider this response as also a reply to your request on the Talk:Homosexuality and Scientology page. I am removing the tags from both articles. Aleta 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that this has happened? If so please add it to the article and then there would be no notability problem. Thanks. Steve Dufour 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I think there is some validity to steve's troubles-- everything on this article appears to have been synthesized from information provided by a website, which was then synthesized apparently from only two books. Surely there must be other references: books and articles in journals or newspapers.Lotusduck 05:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)