On Gay Marriage

Here's an email I wrote to a non-Baha'i man wanting to marry another. He said he didn't see what the whole "permission" thing was about and wanted to know the score because his Baha'i partner wanted a wedding.


You won't get Baha'is to marry you. The closest you'll get is to throw in the only Baha'i vow in at whatever ceremony you have: "We all, verily, will abide by the will of God."

Re: permission -- Baha'is are about unity and getting permission from our parents to marry promotes family unity. I did so once (didn't get married after all) via a letter to my estranged mom we started talking again. Another reason could be that if your parents say no, maybe they're right --  don't forget that 50 percent of marriages fail in this nation. Or, maybe you need to talk to parents about their concerns more. Sometimes parents can be cruel and say "no" to hurt you and in that case you can appeal to the LSA, NSA, and so on, I believe.

Heterosexuality is ideal to mankind both in terms of adding diversity to the common gene pool, and not just accepting but promoting homosexuality runs the risk that bisexuals see the normalization and stop struggling, live gay lives, and narrow mankind's diversity of gene pool. You can actually see this happening in the "gay movement" -- it's now "LGBTQ" so they can fit "questioners" in there -- I won't say they're recruiting but I don't know that all of them aren't, either. Eventually, "LGBTQ" will be changed to "HUMANITY," hopefully, in deference to sexual diversity being a thing. Sexuality can be fluid, it can change over time, priorities can shift and preference can become less important ("it was just a phase," "that was in college," etc.). It seems to me that labels are dangerous and need to be dropped. "I like men more than women" is more workable to me than "I'm gay."

My view of the Baha'i take on homosexuality is that it is a likely genetic diversion from heterosexuality, which is the default sexuality for mankind (or we wouldn't be here) and thus a good thing to promote. There are many such diversions -- I worked at Coalinga State Hospital near Fresno and learned that attraction to children is accepted scientifically now as a distinct sexual preference. Obviously, we won't let that preference fly legally like we did homosexuality, that was always a stupid argument because society wouldn't legalize it (nor marriage to sheep, etc.). Where homosexuality differs from those is that homosexuals are adults and may choose to do what they want with one another sexually. Thus has been the crux of the problem between "religious folks" and gays, turning gays into an "other."

Marriage was made to simplify inheritance, I've read. This is also why adultery is a bad thing, it complicates the hell out of inheritance. A gay couple, without help from the opposite sex to have kids of some kind, don't have the same need for inheritance in regards to keeping distinct out who fathered whom, and therefore don't have a need for marriage, either. That's my personal view on it, aside from the fact I'm glad that the law changed so that people can get protection for mixed families, bedside privileges for dying loved ones, and all of that. Not everyone is Baha'i, I respect that, and everyone should be able to legally do what they want to and have the family they desire. 

Baha'is must follow the law of our nations by Baha'i law, but the Faith, which began in 1844, never married homosexuals before, and to advocate that a Faith that existed before the recent legislation legalizing marriage should go throw out what it has said on the matter for ~175 years because the U.S. -- 5 percent of the world's population (but it doesn't matter how many countries do, honestly) -- has a new law isn't going to happen, and to be honest I wouldn't belong to a faith that turned on a dime every time 1/20 of the world's population change a law. God's law supersedes man's law.

There are TONS of "sins" worse than having sex with another man: adultery is a total betrayal, sex outside of marriage can result in unwanted children, sex with children is illegal (like homosexual sex used to be, and it shouldn't have been just based on a "judge not" basis), deliberately hurting someone's feelings is possibly worse in Baha'u'llah's view. Everyone transgresses, if you choose how to transgress, okay, you'll face the tests that come along with breaking that law. If you run out in the street you might get hit. If you go for a gay lifestyle you'll complicate having any babies significantly and deprive some woman somewhere of a man (men are less prevalent in the population as you know). Facts.

I'm a Baha'i anyway. I'm on Adam4Adam and Bears411.com right now, so I am obviously failing, but I choose to trod on knowing that a huge part of my makeup has been molded and frankly broken by a society that has put so much hatred on this one sin that homosexuals have been treated horribly. Made part of the other. And now gay Baha'is want "other" status within the Faith, bizarrely, and the Universal House of Justice has essentially said "No, you're not separate people, the Faith is about one race, one people." And they're right, we don't get it yet, clearly, but sexuality is as diverse as any other human trait; a bizarre spectrum that can go all sorts of wacky just like any aspect of human nature and you and I got what makes straight people look at each other like we're crazy. Men being attracted to the bottom of a woman's shoe, pain fetishes, you name it. Being gay is a natural, biological state of being, I think, and a seriously unfortunate one, given the challenges and constant temptation.

The Guardian said "Struggle and struggle again" against our urges. Yes, I could live with a woman and do my husbandly duty. And probably be happy never having sex with another man again. It might not be "ideal" but that's the way life is. It used to be more the norm that men should try and find a woman and have a family. I think that was okay, but what wasn't is the hatred towards those who didn't -- me, you, etc. Society has warped us and God knows that, and "God judges each soul on its own merits" according to the Guardian. But he also called this a "low water mark in spiritual history" and that was before his death in 1957 -- the mark is lower now than it was even then, I feel.

The legal change in U.S. law is great in that it codifies in a way an end to hatred in the law -- if you read the opinion, Roberts did it largely because mixed families were being brutalized legally, not because of any belief in particular of whether it was "right," because morality is not the issue at hand with the court, per se, but justice is, and what was happening to those people was unjust, cruel, and representative of treatment of gays everywhere. So it's a great thing for Americans, and thus for Baha'is. But can Baha'is get married in an official Baha'i ceremony because the law changes? No.

Late and tired or I'd edit above more; hope I made some sense and no offense. Thoughts or questions? Let me know.



Popular posts from this blog

Gayness: A Gentlemans' Agreement Broken...?

Been Awhile! Hi!