Talk:Baháʼí views on homosexuality

etiquette for undoing items?
Jeff3000, 2 May, you commented (rvt, well cited, checked again) to my edits which were:

deleted ref: Smith, Peter, A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith, pages 184–185 because there is no mention of marriage.

deleted - "in the religion's texts as exclusively" and replaced this with "in Bahai law as being" because the UHJ creates Bahai law or policy. If there is a religious text stating such, then it needs to found or shown.

but it appears that you have reverted the text back to removing my comments. If this was intentional please explain why. If it was a mistake, please undo this. thanks. If by well cited you mean that the Peter Smith is correct, then show me as I opened the book to check. There is a page titled homosexuality but no mention of marriage. So this doesn't support the sentence: "The Bahá'í Faith teaches that the only acceptable form of sexual expression is within marriage, and Bahá'í marriage is defined in the religion's texts as exclusively between one man and one woman." I will elaborate on the second edit if my reason above is not clear. I am new to wikipedia editing but I understood that any editing required a reason and you gave none in undoing my edits. Is this usual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huianui (talk • contribs) 13:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple extra references that back up the statement. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

sorry, not sure how to contribute here, if i'm doing this wrong. Jeff3000 before you undo my edit a third time, please consider the inaccuracy of attributing "religious texts" when the only relevant reference you have provided so far is the policy as expressed by the UHJ letter which I have not deleted. For Bahais the UHJ makes law or policy it does not write religious text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huianui (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Huianui (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you don't understand Wikipedia policies. Primary sources, actually are not supposed to be used extensively, but secondary sources are the ones that need to be used.  If a secondary source states something, it can be used to cite the text in Wikipedia.  And the citation I used does use religious texts, so it can be used.  Primary sources are not used extensively because they can be interpreted one way or another, and that's why you need secondary sources.  The UN book is publised by Wilfred Laurier Press, which is an academic publisher, which is considered one of the most reliable sources.  Please read the necessary Wikipedia policies, like verifiability, original research and reliable sources.  Messages from the House are considered primary sources, and can only be used in limited cases.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, and again, sorry, i am not using the 'talk' correctly, but my critique, Jeff3000 of your use of secondary sources is to do with accuracy. The sentence we are discussing is this: "The Bahá'í Faith teaches that the only acceptable form of sexual expression is within marriage, and Bahá'í marriage is defined in the religion's texts as exclusively between one man and one woman."

And I had replaced, 'defined in the religion's texts' with the words "in Bahai law as being" because the UHJ creates Bahai law or policy. If there is a religious text stating such, then it needs to found or shown. You reverted the text back without any explanation except a thanks for spotting that the other reference was a wrong attribution.

Later you wrote to me privately: "I guess you didn't read my response, did you. Secondary sources are key, and you removing well-cited sentences. I'm going to get other people to chime in, and if you continue to abuse Wikipedia policy you may get blocked. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)"

And I was thinking the same, not to necessarily get other people to chime in because I consider that bullying, but to report your behaviour as it didn't seem right to me that someone was free to repeatedly undo an edit without explanation and to feel free to add inaccurate references. Your only explanation was with the second of the three undos you made of my edit and this was "here's another two references"

re the first reference: Coward, Harold (1996-11-12). Religious Dimensions of Child and Family Life: Reflections on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. p. 147. ISBN 155058104X.

p. 147 does not have the text 'religious texts' instead the book says "Bahai law designates marriage as a monogamous ... etc." It does not refer to Bahai religious texts anywhere on the page. The wikipedia article that refers to p 147 as a source, must say "Bahai law" not "Bahai texts." If the wikipedia article is to say something different, then a source that backs that claim must be found. http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Dimensions-Child-Family-Life/dp/155058 104X#reader_155058104X

re: Lepard, Brian D. (2008-10-1). In the Glory of the Father: The Bahai Faith and Christianity. Bahai Publishing; New edition. p. 100. ISBN 1931847347. I cannot look inside the second book online but as I have been a Bahai a long time, if there was a Bahai religious text stating that marriage was 'exclusively between one man and one woman' I would have seen it by now. So I am wondering why it is ok to continually add references that either are wrong or that no one can check without special access - surely wikipedia is there for ordinary people to be able to make articles as accurately as possible.

The second reference might or might not be relevent since the topic is on the Bahai Faith, but it is not a support for the phrase 'defined in the religion's texts' Information on wikipedia should be verifiable.

I would think that if someone adds material then the onus is on them to provide the evidence for putting that material there. I don't think wikipedia should be used so someone with time and the right skills can put anything onto a wikipedia article and call it a secondary source.

When I first made the edit, I gave a reason stating that I inserted the phrase "in Bahai law as being" because the UHJ creates Bahai law or policy. If there is a religious text stating such, then it needs to found or shown I also started the talk page so we could discuss this. If you disagreed then you could explain why I am wrong here. Instead you repeatedly undid my edits. I am new at wikipedia but you have been on wikipedia a long time and so I guess your behaviour was intentional. My apologies if I have messed something up as I am new here. I will now consult a friend who is not a Bahai and who is whizz on wikipedia about what has happened here to see how I can do things better. Huianui (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

now "smkollins" added the following comment before reverting it all back to "Jeff3000"s version. "(The whole point if the talk page is to settle questions without an edit war. The points have been substantiated, and should be gone over carefully.)"

I am not going to ask my friends to join in as appears to have happened here. Jeff3000 you can correct me if you didn't ask "smkollins" to step in. So it seems wikipedia is run like party politics, the one who wins is the one with the most 'votes' so to speak. I will leave this for a day because I think that is wise since perhaps there might be Bahais involved here who are interested in accuracy. Then seek advice from a wikipedia moderator. Jeff3000, you may indeed win, but who wins in the end I ask? This shouldn't be about a competition but about aiming for accuracy. Huianui (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I said what I said and did what I did based on my own understanding of the appropriate choices user:Huianui. "There might be Bahais involved here who are interested in accuracy." That and a few other bits suggest personal attacks. You question other people's motives than your own? I think we all very much care for accuracy. Rather than consult on the truth of the matter (reliable sources, etc) you act, one might hazard, hastily. And rather than take the discussion at face value you wonder if you need to consult with others not here? Again is this about agendas? Not trusting that people are acting in good faith? --Smkolins (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

FRom the combination I find "religious texts" to be a fair summary. It is consistent with all three. --Smkolins (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * does, as you say, say ""established on spiritual principles…. For example, Baha'i law desgnates marriage…" - /you/ state that "Baha'i law" derives from the House vs religious texts.
 * says ""Bible and the Baha'i writings" - that is closer to an explicit "religious texts" statement, no?
 * "Bahá'í teachings …. Thus Bahá'í law …" So Baha'i law rests on Baha'i teachings….
 * as far as Smith's Encyclopedia, on the question of "religious texts" vs "Baha'i law" it is manifest that the books says "In the Kitab-i-Aqdas Baha'u'llah forbade pederasty. Shoghi Effendi interpreted this to imply a general prohibition on all forms of homosexual activity…." Thus the accepted interpretation of the Aqdas statement on pederasty /is/ about homosexual activity in general. This is not another rule or law - this is the binding /interpritation/ of the "religious text" and can stand as a source. Footnoting each point tightly in the sentence is unworkable but the sentence is a fair summary of all the points made in each case. If you wanted to knit all the Smith references together to make all the points of the sentence you'd have to refer to homosexuality, marriage, sex, and polygamy. But it still results to the same points made in the sentence and stands as an encyclopedic summary of the position as I understand it. --Smkolins (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is indeed about accuracy, and the Baha'i texts/writings is what defines Baha'i law. The requirement that marriage is between man and woman, regardless of if that is politically correct now or not, is based on the baha'i writings, and not based on a house of justice decision, and the secondary sources back that up.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What I propose is a minimal formulation, that Bahá'í marriage is defined in Baha'i law as being between one man and one woman. There are plenty of sources to support this. You want to go beyond that, and say that it is in the religion's texts, that is, you want to specify the source, implying it is scriptural. However: 1) this is selective use of sources. Your procedure is to select a secondary source that backs your own point of view. Ironically one of your two sources uses the phrase 'Bahai law' which is in support of the more neutral term. 2) this is tendentious. You are trying to work your own disputable view (Jeff3000 noted above, that religious texts can usually be interpreted in various ways) into the wikipedia article.

3) the wikipedia article already contains a more extensive and nuanced discussion of the "Basis from texts," which shows the long (and I think very stretched) chain of interpretation that leads from "the subject of boys" to "Bahá'í marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman." What you are trying to do is impede readers from, forming a nuanced view, by prepping them with your "right answer" in the introductory paragraph.

I think this is an abuse of wikipedia to promote a factional viewpoint, and an abuse of wikipedia's methods: by reverting every change I make and calling on your friend to help when you have run out of reverts. I am not interested in playing that game by calling on my friends to do the same.

I have also decided not to make a formal complaint either, because what would happen in the end is that some overworked wikipedia administrator has to look at Bahais arguing over three words. Even if he or she did rule in my favour, in another month one of you would change it back again anyway. So in the end it boils down to the text on this page being dominated, not by logic or accuracy as much as possible, but by what one or two Bahais think is correct, irrespective of the facts. Jeff3000 you repeatedly added references that had no mention of marriage and I read this as showing you didn't care, and you repeatedly removed my edits without discussion. These two actions indicate to me that you are used to dominating here so that a new person is given no credence, let a lone an explanation. The fact is that it is a Bahai law. The fact it is ambiguous what readers could understand by “religion's texts” so it is best to avoid that term. Usually Bahais refer to Bahai Scripture when they mean 'religious text' and I assume the term is not used here because there's no Bahai Scripture to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Using the term 'Bahai law' is not derogatory and in fact two of the references you supplied use the same words [ ] [ ]. I note also another error: lower on the page there is a reference to Shoghi Effendi when the text this is about concerns Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. If you are interested in accuracy you will correct this error.

So show me why the following is not accurate and neutral:

The Bahá'í Faith teaches that the only acceptable form of sexual expression is within marriage, and Bahá'í marriage is defined in Bahai law as being between one man and one woman.[ ] [ ].

And I suggest that the next time you revert an edit that you give a reason and use the 'talk' part of wikipedia to ask that person for their reasoning if the reasoning is not clear. Huianui (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You speak of it as a "minimum formulation" which implies a range of which your view is not the middle ground. You proposal is less firmly stated than the citations use. Is it true - yes it is even more true to speak where such law comes from. You speak of the "baha'i law" point but forget the antecedents used:""established on spiritual principles…. For example, Baha'i law designates marriage…" Which is to say the Baha'i law is derived from something, Baha'i law being one example of spiritual principles. A similar construction occurs in the other - "Bahá'í teachings …. Thus Bahá'í law …" So Baha'i law rests on Baha'i teachings…." Again "Baha'i law" comes /from/ something. This is clear and manifest. Now what is a coherent way of saying "spiritual principles" or "Baha'i teachings" but the third quotes presentation - ""Bible and the Baha'i writings". I think "religious texts" is more neutral and general.
 * You remark about every change you make being reverted. I hazard that if we thought your changes were indeed constructive and improving the article we would not revert. I *expect* someone to revert me if I go off on some tangent or ill conceived contribution. Indeed it has happened to me and I took the time to learn why. I highly suggest you do not take such things personally. Learn from them. The rest of your point seems like more paranoia - why not just face that your position is the outlier and needs revision, that if you made a case about it neutral parties might actually find your pov not improving the article, not based on the sources and based in your own pov more than the sources?
 * Everyone can and should contribute constructively. You don't need to point out mistakes someone else needs to fix. If they are truly mistakes then you have demonstrated you can make additions - by all means make good additions! --Smkolins (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Religious Tolerance articles
[Bahai Faith and Homosexuality] [Introduction] [1973 UHJ statement] [1982 UHJ letter and 1993 LGBT group meeting] [Various letters and statements] [2002 physician letter and current status] [Internet agitation] [A personal essay]

Can any of the above info be worked in any way, shape, or form into the article or the discussion here? 2601:D:3582:2C0:D9F6:A202:90A8:4E23 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Broken link fixed earlier. 2601:D:3582:2C0:D9F6:A202:90A8:4E23 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Corrected date error. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

1996 UK NSA
1996 Statement by the National Spiritual Assembly of the UK:

The NSA distributed a statement prepared for a London UK education group about the teaching about homosexuality within the school system. The Assembly stated that :...the statement does not claim to be exhaustive, but it can be used with wisdom as part of a response to questions." Some excerpts from their statement are:


 * "...the sexual impulse is a God-given one... The appropriate circumstance for this is within [opposite-sex] marriage, the legally, socially, and spiritually sanctioned union of two adults of the opposite sex. Other expressions are neither valid nor to be encouraged."
 * "[This is] taught by the world's great religions, and is part of the basis of a stable and civilized society."
 * "The moral and sexual education of children cannot be taken separately, and must be based upon heterosexuality, fidelity, and the family unit."
 * "...the sexual practice of homosexuality is no more an acceptable activity than is heterosexual activity outside marriage."
 * "We also abhor the introduction of loaded words such as 'homophobia' and 'heterosexism' to try to convey the idea that rejection of homosexuality is as prejudiced and discriminatory as racism, sexism, and other biases and intolerances..."

Their statement that the world's great religions teach that sexual activity must be confined to a man and a woman married to each other is not accurate:


 * Islam's Sharia Law permits one man to be married to up to four women.

Since there are three sexual orientation among adults, and since a significant minority of school students will become lesbian, gay or bisexual in adulthood, many human sexuality educators recommend that sex-ed classes include information on all sexual orientations.
 * Some Mormon denominations actively promote polygyny -- the marriage of one man to multiple women.
 * The Old Testament describes eight marriage/family styles involving men with female wives, concubines, prisoners of war, and slaves.
 * In addition, liberal wings of many religions promote or condone other sexual practices. Some accept pre-marital sex between loving committed couples. Some promote or condone masturbation for health reasons among males, and to help youths understand their sexual functioning.

As to whether the oppression of, discrimination against, and rejection of gays, lesbians and bisexuals will be treated in the future as evils on a par with racism, sexism, xenophobia, and religism (discrimination based on religion), only time will tell.

Also, specifically on the backwards projection of all the above point in the letter describing the Baha'i positions on marriage and sexuality on to all the world's great religions that it recognizes before itself. Anybody familiar with Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Zorooastrianism, etc would say that such an obvious porjection of the Baha'i view onto their religion is inaccurate as given the example disproofs above. Also, homophobia and heterosexism are real thing, and not just political terms with nor real meaning that are Trojan horses to destroy traditional values. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Autocorrect error removed due to Apple doing that! 50.178.142.148 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The statement by the National Spiritual Assembly of the UK is available at: http://bahai-library.org/ "Statement on Homosexuality by National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom," 1996-OCT, at: http://bahai-library.org/ Roger Reini, "Draft FAQ: The Bha'i Faith and homosexuality, A Compilation of Selections from the Baha'i Writings," 1996-JAN-13, at: http://bahai-library.org/

Added sources! 50.178.142.148 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

LGBT Affimring Proposals Unanswered and Ingnored
1993 gay-positive meeting:

On 1993-SEP-3 to 5, at the request of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States, a group of gays, lesbians and supporters gathered in Reno, NV to discuss the beliefs and practices of the Baha'i Faith with regard to homosexuality. The meeting was organized by the Local Spiritual Assembly of Reno and members of the Gay Baha'i Fellowship. On a letter to the Assembly dated 1993-SEP-20, they raised a number of points:

In an apparent reference to the high suicide rate among gays and lesbians, they said:

They cite a conflict between:
 * "Many of us have been in hiding from our Baha'i communities, we have all been made to feel unwelcome in our own religion. For a few of us, it seems that alienation, confusion, and despair has been too heavy a burden to bear."
 * "Many of us believe that this issue revolves around the Baha'i principle of the reconciliation of science and religion."
 * "None of us has found in all our efforts any evidence whatsoever that a homosexual can be changed into a heterosexual by medicine or psychological treatments. Our personal experience supports the accepted view of science."
 * "...recent data strongly suggests that sexual orientation is not only non-pathogenic, but prenatal, in fact in part genetically determined."


 * "On the one side, a person's unchangeable sexual and emotional needs, supported wholeheartedly by medicine and psychology and further strengthened by a global movement in Gay and Lesbian rights. On the other side, the morality and censure of their chosen Faith. This is no small dilemma."

The group produced a series of recommendations to the Assembly:


 * "...greater compassion and forbearance in regarding homosexual Baha'is." They suggested that administrative action be taken against gay or lesbian Baha'is only in cases of "genuine public scandal."
 * An end to "backbiting, intolerance, and unkindness" directed at gays' and lesbians' private behavior. They called for an end to a double standard; they felt that homosexuals and heterosexuals were treated differently for the same behaviors. The asked for a review of all cases where voting and other rights were removed from gays or lesbians.
 * Creation of a learned committee "to develop a plan to enlighten and educate the American Baha'i community concerning homosexuality..."
 * Creation of a group: Baha'i Parents and Friends of Gays and Lesbians (BPFLAG), modeled after the existing, secular PFLAG.
 * The Gay Baha'i Fellowship provide a speakers bureau as a resource to the Baha'i community.
 * The Assembly should make a "clear statement about whether gays and lesbians are welcome in the Baha'i Faith." They expressed concern about the negative effect that lack of acceptance of homosexuality by the Baha'i Faith is having upon individuals in the scientific, civil rights, and progressive religious communities.
 * That Auxiliary Board Members and their assistants be provided "with up to date materials, resources, and background on this subject." They expressed concern that "the focus to date has been one of "changing' sexual orientation which is not a reachable goal, in light of current scientific findings."
 * The Assembly should instruct Local Spiritual Assemblies to stop encouraging marriage as a cure for homosexuality in view of the disastrous consequences that generally result. They recommended that lists of AIDS resources and support organizations be made available all Baha'i institutions and individuals.
 * The group offered to consult with the National Spiritual Assembly about these recommendations.

They received no response from the Assembly at the time. However, the latter have since gone on record as welcoming gays and lesbians as members, as long as they make a "sincere and persistent effort to eradicate those aspects of their conduct." Presumably this means that they try to change their sexual orientation and/or remain celibate. More details below.

"The Bahai's and the homosexuals," at: www.studiedocumenten.googlepages.com/ This is a PDF file. Letter containing recommendations to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States from a gay-positive group is at: http://bahai-library.org/

There was no explicit answer, but the next general letter after it on the subject chose to completely ignore all the proposals and dig into the entrenched position it held earlier.

Current status of homosexuality in the Baha'i Faith:

Persons with homosexual, bisexual or transsexual orientation are all welcomed as members of the Baha'i Faith. As stated by a draft FAQ approved for distribution by the US National Spiritual Assembly:

"To regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against the spirit of Baha'i Teachings. The doors are open for all of humanity to enter the Cause of God, irrespective of their present circumstances; this invitation applies to homosexuals as well as to any others who are engaged in practices contrary to the Baha'i 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."

Any Baha'i member in good standing can be elected to any office within the Faith, regardless of their sexual orientation. However, gays and lesbians might be declared to be not in good standing if they flagrantly display their homosexuality. They are expected to make "sincere and persistent effort" to remain celibate.

A fundamental belief of the Baha'i Faith is that true science and religion cannot be in conflict. Sexual orientation continues to be studied by human sexuality researchers. In the West, a social and scientific consensus is being developed that


 * homosexuality is a natural, normal, unchosen, and acceptable variation of human sexuality for a minority of adults, and
 * an adult's sexual orientation is unchangeable or can only rarely be changed.

We expect that the Baha'i Faith will experience increasing conflicts over homosexuality and bisexuality in the West. Some will be escalating internal dissension, driven by Baha'i gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. They generally believe that their sexual orientation is natural and God-given; they want their religious group to recognize this.

There will also be external pressure from those in North America who accept recent scientific findings. Potential converts will be less likely to join a religion that treats minority sexual orientations as disorders. On the other hand, discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals may well increase the growth of the Faith elsewhere in the world in those countries that oppress homosexuals and bisexuals.

Wilma Ellis, "Bahá’ís and homophobia," 2004-MAR-15, at: http://www.studiedocumenten.googlepages.com/ This is a PDF file. A "Draft FAQ: The Baha'i Faith and Homosexuality" prepared by Roger Reini on 1996-JAN-13 is available at: http://bahai-library.org/compilations/homosexuality.comp.html

I haven't seen any more proposals like it, but will keep looking for it. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Spelling Corrected! 50.178.142.148 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Shoghi Effendi's contribution
This is a minor point but I'd like to think about the clause that reads, "The Bahá'í position towards homosexuality was refined with the writings of Shoghi Effendi". The relevant definition (from Google) of "refine" is to "improve (something) by making small changes, in particular make (an idea, theory or method) more subtle and accurate". My opinion is that whether this accurately describes Shoghi Effendi's contribution is debatable. For example, I could imagine the following debates:
 * Since Shoghi Effendi made it clear that homosexual behavior is not permissible between Baha'is, calling this an "improvement" could be interpreted as prejudiced against the LGBT community. (To me "refine" also comes with the connotation of making something more sophisticated or cultured)
 * Some could argue that Shoghi Effendi "changed" existing teachings of the Faith, while others may argue that he didn't "change" anything, but rather "explained" what already existed.

In regard to the above two points, I think it's ultimately best to remain as neutral as possible. That is, we should be able to come up with a verb that captures the contribution Shoghi Effendi made without trying to label that contribution as "good" or "bad", and without trying to label that contribution as "making a change" or "not making a change". I'm open to suggestions. One approach might be to say that he "disambiguated" the matter, or solidified it in some way. I think it's accurate to say that before Shoghi Effendi wrote on the topic, an outsider would have had difficulty understanding the implications of the writings of Baha'u'llah on the subject, and afterward the situation was much clearer. I would be also interested in secondary sources and the language they use -- although I imagine that finding a neutral source will be difficult. Rm9820 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As the author of the offending verb, I suggest you be bold and refine it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  06:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

religious truth-statement
The opening line "The Bahá'í Faith takes no position on the sexual practices of those who are not adherents." is apologetic nonsense that should be removed. Like all religions, the Baha'i Faith espouses objective truths about right and wrong based on the belief that they represent the Will of God and that their universal adoption will rebound to the improvement of society. Baha'i statements on homosexuality represent truth-statements which are never stratified by adherent status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:A88:300:F11E:9A02:D782:408F (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Done. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  04:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * But the statement was just moved to later in the paragraph and qualified with "Baha'i institutions." The source is a primary source that has a clear incentive to make itself look more tolerant than it really is. Baha'i institutions take no position on the sexual activities of non-Baha'is, but they do take the position that non-Baha'is should all become Baha'is, which basically negates the point. The article is replete with thinly veiled POV content. Adding another template at the top. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: I appreciate the addition of more sources describing criticism, so I am okay with the neutrality template having been removed. However, the article still relies very heavily on primary non-independent sources so I am restoring the other template. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I was intending to finish revising the article but got distracted by other pages. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What a god (from a religion X) believes is what this god from religion X believe, not what his followers believe he believe (unless he some strange god that believe at doing and believing at what people think he believe at). So there is no reason to call the believes of god X homophobes, racists and etc.... for saying god (of religion X) believe at Y, thats because the one who believe at that is god not themselves and even if they believe at that themselves it comes from a premise where god is omniscient and benevolent and if he says believing at Y must be done, then it must be done.179.162.70.82 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

On conversion therapy
The sentence that reads "The reference to overcoming or reversing a sexual orientation has garnered considerable criticism from those who regard it as innate and unchangeable. Conversion therapy has been largely condemned by many medical organizations, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom, who see it as unethical to view a heterosexual orientation as preferable to a homosexual orientation." needs revision in my opinion. First the statement about "considerable" criticism is not cited. There is a citation for the issue causing controversy in this article, so perhaps that wording should be used instead? This sentence also implies the Baha'i Faith practices conversion therapy when it doesn't. Perhaps it's included because other religions have tried to use conversion therapy and assume the Baha'i Faith would too? Also, the Baha'i Faith teaches reliance on trustworthy doctors so if medical organizations were condemning something Baha'is would not do it. T0lk (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Be bold! Cuñado ☼ - Talk  20:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)