Lost Identities, LGBTQI People and the Baha'i Religion
Michael McCarron
The Past is a foreign country: they do things differently there
-L. P. Hartley
The Baha'i religion is a New Religious Movement (NRM) that developed out of Shi'a Islam, it began in the latter part of the 19th Century, when a man named Mirza Husayn-`Ali, Baha'u'llah, declared that he was the promised one of God, a world redeemer, that would usher in a era of peace and harmony. The Baha'is view Baha'u'llah as the messianic fulfillment not just of Islam but also of Judaism and Christianity, as well as other religious traditions such as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism. Some of the basic principles of the Baha'is is that of the removal of all prejudice, the view that science and religion must be harmonized or religion is superstition, independent investigation of truth, equality among genders. With these principles one would anticipate that the Baha'i religion would be welcoming to LGBTQI people, however, this is not true. Openly LGBTQI people are either forced into a closet or have their administrative rights removed with some reporting outright excommunication. In the following I examine the LGBTQI issues in the Baha'i religion and why it is viewed so negatively. To understand a position we need to understand the society, culture and time-placeness of an particular cultural issue. The development of these beliefs is tied to the cultural heritage of the Middle East looking at Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam and finally in the modern Baha'i belief system we can gain appreciation for the time-placeness of specific viewpoints on LGBTQI people. Intrinsically aligned with the issue of sexuality is that of gender. The modern western view of binary gender identification is not a cultural universal, there are many genders in many different cultures, there is no one universal gender social construct. Even in Judeo-Christian-Islamicate culture there have been historically 3 gender identities, rather then the contemporary 2 gender identities.
The condemnation of same-sex romantic attraction is derived out of a purported belief of one of the leaders of the Baha'i religion, Shoghi Effendi, who in 1950 reportedly counseled the following about a homosexual committed relationship, these are not his words but are a communication via a secretary that purport to relate accurately Shoghi Effendi's beliefs on the issue:
"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 Baha'u'llah, 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 doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap." [emphasis added] (UHJ, 1995)
Clearly there is an identification of same-sex attraction with disease and affliction, the pathological model of homosexuality, this issue will be addressed later. To see how the Baha'i leaders got to this point we have to take a walk through a cultural legacy that reaches back 5000 years in regards to the different ways different religious communities at different places and times have addressed the issue of same-sex attraction and gender ambiguity.
The ancient Egyptians did not have two genders based on biological sex, rather they had three genders with a middle gender; tai, sekhet and hemet (Sethe, 1926). The recognition of eunuch as a third gender is also found in ancient Judaism, however in a very negative connotation originally, no Eunuch was permitted to be a part of the congregation of Israel, as this was viewed as a disease. The hebrew term for Eunuch is “saris”. Saris is found throughout the Old Testament and is identified by many commentators with such prophets as Nehemiah and Daniel. There is a latter messianic context to Saris which reverses the ban on Eunuch's along with Gentiles from joining the congregation of Israel as long as they are obedient to the Covenant (Isa 56:4). Conservative commentators argue that Eunuch (saris) is not a reference to LGBTQI identified people, they argue that it was simply men who could not reproduce or were castrated, this position does not seem to be supported by the historical record which clearly shows the identification of Eunuchs with same-sex sexual acts, usually as members of a slave class. Eunuch had a multi-variant indication for multiple types of people inclusive of same-sex attraction, those that had no interest in the opposite sex, this is seen in contemporary culture with the Hijra of India most of whom are Eunuchs but not all engage in same-sex relationships in terms of their born biological sex.
In Christianity Eunuch is found in the sayings of Jesus as recorded in Matt 19:12, which correlates with the acceptance of Eunuchs in Isaiah, Jesus as the Messiah includes Eunuchs in the congregation, addressing who does not need to get married:
"For there are eunuchs who were born (saris hamma) that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men (saris adam); and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (New American Standard Bible)
According to the biblical scholar Retief this 'saris hamma' probably included homosexuals (Retief et al, 2006).
Eunuchism continued after the Roman and Byzantine empires were later succeeded by the Ottoman Empire, Ottoman Eunuchs were supplied by Coptic Christians since Muslims could not be turned into Eunuchs by castration. (Spooner, 1919). It is also related that Eunuchs were made Eunuchs as punishment for homosexuality, a receptive partner with a phallus had their phallus removed. One linguistic scholar, Faris Malik, argues that the definition of eunuch changed from an inclusive multi-variant meaning to a singular meaning of one that is castrated after the Christian conflict between the trinitarian Niceans and those attached to non-trinitarian early Christian Arians that were attached to Arius, whose many supporters included the eunuch Eusebius, who was later executed by Julian after the Nicean creed became the normative theology. Malik argues that Eunuchs supported Arius and that led to a homophobic reaction amongst the Niceans (Malik, 2003). It is ironic that Baha'i theology would be considered a Arian doctrine in terms of the Christian trinity.
In Islam the third gender is encountered in the effeminate “Mukhannath” who are said to have no interest in women, and were recorded to act as servants in women's quarters in Arabic culture, some Muslim scholars also associate Mukhannath with the receptive role (ubna) in biological male same-sex acts. Although, there was Mukhannath that were known to have had families, including children, so it seems that some Mukhannath were same-sex attracted but not all Mukhannath were such or did not act on it, it may be viewed as a social gender identity rather then a sexual orientation, one must be effeminate to be a Mukhannath but not necessarily be same-sex attracted (Rowson, 1991). Although in modern days the Mukhannath of Oman is associated with male homosexual prostitution (Murray, Roscoe, 1997, pg. 245). The Islamic cultural viewpoint on homosexuality is one of complete rejection of this practice in terms of the legalistic religious rulings but this does not mean that there are not same-sex sexual activities engaged by Muslims. We should note that what is discussed as homosexuality in the contemporary era is a confusing word cross-culturally, the contemporary notion of mutually attracted and willful relationships is not the homosexuality of the Islamicate world. The homosexuality of the Islamicate world is one based on a adult Male penetrating a youth (ghulam) through sodomy (anal intercourse), which is known in arabic as Liwat. This is explicitly condemned by Baha'u'llah and by Muhammad before him. Baha'u'llah in his book of religious law (shari'a) the Kitab-i Aqdas Paragraph 107 (Baha'u'llah, 1873) forbids the utilization of boys, usually slaves, as objects of sexual gratification. Elsewhere Baha'u'llah forbids liwat [sodomy] (Schaefer, 2007, pg. 208)
It has become common place for translators to take the term 'liwat' and translate it as 'homosexuality' cross culturally, this is a false understanding of the term because liwat is practiced by males, in penetrating not just biological male children but also females and third gendered peoples. (Schmitt, 2002) It is also important to note that males are penetrators and others are penetratable (women, boys, slaves, eunuchs), for a biological male to become penetrated would put one in the mukhannath categorization. This connection of liwat with sodomy is seen clearly by Zanghellini:
"Indeed, even some contemporary legal scholars, although speaking of the crime of "homosexuality," actually use it as a synonym for anal intercourse between men rather than in its broader usual sense, testifying that this has been the traditional position within Islam. Yahaya Yunusa Babale's book on Islamic crimes, for example, explains 'homosexuality is a greater sin in Islam and… arises in a situation when a man engages another man through the anus to satisfy his sexual urge.' If this weren't enough to clarify how focused on the specific act of anal intercourse Islamic jurisprudence on same-sex sexuality has traditionally been, Babale, in a taxonomical move that could not fail to leave Western readers bewildered, goes on to include within the sin of "homosexuality" anal sex between a man and a woman and clarifies that 'homosexuality with one's wife is reagarded as minor sodomy.'" (Zanghellini, 2010, pg. 275)
To be penetrated is to be subordinated (Zanghellini, 2010, pg.283), in this classification of same-sex sexual activities the underlying motif is not love but rather dominance. Even in Greek pederasty it was not the custom for older males to engage in sodomy but rather other sex acts as the younger male was to take his place as a full man in Greek society it would be demeaning to the pais (boy lover) to be sodomized. These status differentiated homosexual sex acts became enacted through the act of boy love in Islamic culture although never sanctioned by the religious authorities, stratification leads to exploitation, this practice of boy love has even come back in modern days in Afghanistan with the practice of Bacha Bazi. Yet, even the Islamic prohibition against sodomy (liwat) gave rise to a new class of slaves, biological females dressed up as young boys (ghulumiyat) but who with sex is permissible for they are slave women even though they are in this case cross dressed in a masculine mode, assuming they are not engaging in sodomy.
In Qajar Iran, the social and cultural origins of Baha'u'llah, the maintenance of sexual roles in a hierarchy of male penetrators and everyone else is maintained up to the 20th century when certain changes started to take place. In 19th century Iran, where boy love was practiced by the elites, we see not a distinction of hetero vs. homo but rather we see that males (penetrators) are sexually inclined to women and amrads (boy lovers) (Najmabadi, 2010, pg. 276). According to a Qajar account of sexual gratification amrads were related as most pleasurable , at the lowest rung was sexual intercourse with a women's vagina. This relates to a social relationships, an amrad has higher status then a woman in a homosocialized and partiarchical society such as that in Qajar Iran (Najmabadi, 2010, pg. 278-280). Again status differentiated homosexuality is seen in homosocial societies and relates to status or prestige rather then mutual love or sexual orientation.
In Qajar Iran there is a shift in meaning, the category of amrad disappears in the late 19th century, although the practice of keeping a younger companion (amradbazi) does not completely disappear it goes into social approbation as modernity takes root in Iran. Najmabadi relates the process of modernization in relation to changing sexual mores to a “fear of backwardness” in comparison to European society (Najmabadi, 2010, pg. 284). In fact, Baha'u'llah was a modernist reformer perhaps we can see his legislation against amradbazi in a modernizing light. There was a fear of the homosocial and status differentiated homosexual acts as being perceived as pejorative in European eyes, a self-consciousness of inferiority takes hold. Iranian society went from homosocialization to heterosocialization with increased access to women homosexual practices were to disappear, but they did not. During this heterosocialization process the terms of same-sex attraction went from it being an issue of fitrat (innateness) where there is no fault, to one of an illness.
“In Iran, the modernist project of compulsory heterosocialization was premised on the expectation that once women became “available” to men, homosexual practices would disappear. The success of this project could have produced a tendency to 'type' men (and women) who “still” engaged in same-sex practices as anormal, if not abnormal, and stricken with some sort of 'illness'.” (Najmabadi, 2010, pg. 287)
So we see the development of modern homophobia is related to being perceived as inferior in direct opposition to European society, which until 1973 classified same-sex attraction as an illness. Najmabadi also notes that western medicine during the modernizing period influenced Iranian medical textbooks. Hence we arrive back at the pathological model employed by Shoghi Effendi.
The disease model or pathological model of same-sex attraction has argued that such attractions are actually diseases was a popular explanation of queerness for many years. It lasted in the west and specifically in the United States until the early 1970s. Much like the shift in many areas, the granting of civil rights, the gay liberation movement also influenced medicine and the removal of blatant idealogical biases in diagnosis. The Baha'i principle of rectifying science and religion has led to some interesting juxtapositions in regards to rationalizing a obligatory heterosexual culture for Baha'is. Many Baha'i psychotherapists have become involved in conversion or reorientation therapies, which the American Psychological Association condemns:
APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians. [http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx, accessed 12/1/2011]
Oliver Than finds that this pathological model is primarily driven by internalized homophobia (Than, 2010). Yet a statement from the Universal House of Justice relates that there is a reorientation therapy for sexual orientation since it is simply a disease:
"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.“ [emphasis added] (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, 22 March 1987) (http://www.gaybahai.net/discussion/post/1218227 accessed 12/1/2011)
Several members of Baha'i affiliated organizations have become members of National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the leading reorientation therapy group in the USA. Many Gay Baha'is ask the question how can one rectify the Baha'i position on science and religion when the scientific community considers it bad science to take such positions. The question really has more to do with authority as viewed by Baha'is then anything else. Shoghi Effendi was the Guardian of the Faith, the infallible guide (wali), of the religious community, after whose death the Baha'is did not recognize a successor, this office was intended to go on collateral with the Universal House of Justice (UHJ), the current leadership of the Baha'i Faith sect. It is important to remember that the UHJ does not see itself having the requisite authority to ever question Shoghi Effendi's beliefs on homosexuality and the cultural matrix that those beliefs took germination in.
“It is evident, therefore, that the prohibition against Baha'is engaging in homosexual behavior is an explicit teaching of the Cause. The Universal House of Justice is authorized to change or repeal its own legislation as conditions change, thus providing Baha'i law with an essential element of flexibility, but it cannot abrogate or change any of the laws which are explicitly laid down in the sacred Texts. It follows, then that the House of Justice has no authority to change this clear teaching on homosexual practice.” (UHJ, 1995)
On the one hand you have the mana or awe for the office of Guardianship and the inability to embrace contemporary science which also shows that there are physiological differences between heterosexuals and LGBTQI identified people, as the world has moved on from the 1950s because the dominant Baha'i Faith never recognized a successor to Shoghi Effendi they remain locked into a social and scientific world that no longer exists. Gay Baha'is point out that the Guardianship, a patrilineal office of primogeniture, was to rule and interpret on matters of the day, contemporary matters, but to the UHJ any updated science is null and void if Shoghi Effendi stated an opinion on the subject. They also point out that the letter that is the purported teachings of Shoghi Effendi has no legal status according to Shoghi Effendi's explicit words on such letters, letters written on his behalf have no legal standing according to Shoghi Effendi. They also point out that Shoghi Effendi himself noted that he was not an authority on scientific matters, thereby suggesting that this ruling could be changed. The UHJ, an all heterosexual male institution, does not see it this way, and remain attached to the ideal that their hands are tied and whatever Shoghi Effendi wrote is the guidance for the day until a new Manifestation, a Baha'i prophet with the power of essential infallibility, appears. It should be pointed out that not all Baha'is hold this viewpoint, there is a small NRM that developed out of the Baha'i Faith, the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant that fully accepts LGBTQI people into their congregations, but they have a continuing line of guides in the office of a continuing Guardianship and High Priest(ess).
The human interactions with the issue of same-sex attraction is very emotional for those affected by the issue of exclusion of Baha'is that identify openly as a LGBTQI person. The stories from Baha'i cultural informants that are LGBTQI reveals similar reactions as one would find in a fundamentalist Christian community. In the course of doing research on this topic I interviewed ten Gay Baha'is, none of whom is still active in the Baha'i community, all were former members of the Baha'i Faith, the dominant sect among the Baha'is.
Clearly an inner turmoil develops for LGBTQI Baha'is when they must choose what they view as something innate to them in much the same way as skin or eye color or deny that part of them to remain a member of the Baha'i Community:
“I am generations Persian Bahai. It has been a long road to accept myself. In a way, I'm glad I did as an adult and not when younger. If I had tried to come out when younger, I don't think I would have had the strength to deal with the pressures. I was extremely suicidal in my thoughts when active in the Bahai community and closeted. As soon as I left the community and accepted myself those thoughts went away. It literally was like night and day.” (“Pey”, 2011, Personal Survey Form)
The penalty for being out and trying to remain a Baha'i, although all reported eventually just leaving the community, is to have your voting rights restricted, others have reported shunning and outright ex-communication. The must severe penalty in the Baha'i Faith sect is that of being branded a “Covenant Breaker” which means no one is allowed to talk with you and your views are considered officially heretical. Of the ten, six reported having their administrative rights restricted (no voting), 4 reported simply just walking away, while still officially members they no longer have any involvement with the faith, 1 reported being listed as a “Covenant Breaker”. Clearly there is little room for discussion on this issue in the faith group, as “Andrew” recounts:
“I maintain my Administrative Rights, and served openly gay on two LSAs, but due to my being forthright on Gay Rights in the Baha'i Faith I have been interrogated for two hours by my Auxiliary Board Member for Protection [an ecclesiastical member that guards against dissent and attacks on the faith group]. During my interrogation my Parents, Sister, and I were asked to sign our names saying we are "challenged by the law regarding homosexuality, and do not believe in this law of Baha'u'llah" (which we did not do), we were blamed for the lack of growth in our two "Clusters"[the Baha'i Faith sect organizes it's members into regional clusters for consolidation and proselytization] which were then a "C status" (the next year both Clusters magically became "A status"), and asked to consider to leave the Baha'i Faith” (“Andrew”, 2011, Personal Survey Form) [comments between brackets are editorial comments added for clarification]
The role of the "protector" was re-affirmed in a Lesbian's account of how she was treated by the Baha'i Community:
yes..I have lost my voting rights ..I am unable to attend the feast and not able to serve on the assembly. I received a letter telling me that now I was no longer under the protection of the faith and I could expect so great catastrophy to occur to me. It was almost a hex in its stance. Also when in the presence of a Bahai group there is a greater sense of homophobia.. and i find that to be the cause of such discomfort ..my mere presence is causing a sense of disunity and discomfort for other Bahai ..The chap for protection tended to avoid me in a group and send out vibes of his confusion and discomfort and general sense of my uncleaness thus a sense of not being welcome or included in the group.”
(“Browser”, 2011, Personal Survey Form)
On the survey question of whether they believed one could be a LGBTQI Baha'i, 9 said yes while 1 said no (based on the grounds that the Baha'i Faith sect would always be homophobic). “Malchiel” presents a clear logic of his beliefs regarding the possibility of being LGBTQI and Baha'i:
“Yes I do. God's creation is perfect, and I do believe that I was born gay, therefore if, as most monotheistic religions teach, that God's creation is perfect then I cannot believe that my sexuality is 'sinful' or 'evil' since God created it, furthermore I believe that scripture is an attempt by humanity to chronicle our spiritual journey, and by extension, our concepts of the divine, therefore I do not necessarily believe anymore that scripture is infallible, but rather right for the time and place that it was revealed/written in, but something that has to be reinterpreted in light of modern findings. Lastly, the Baha'i faith in particular preaches agreement between science and religion, in my view, science may not have (yet) proven that sexuality is innate, however it has proven, as far as I understand, that sexuality in general cannot be changed, therefore, in line with the faith's aforementioned teaching, there should be no differentiation between heterosexuality and homosexuality, etc since it's something that cannot be changed, therefore it is not the individuals 'fault' which sexuality they identify with and one should not be penalised for that. The faith does differentiate between one's sexuality and the sexual act, which is in line with traditional religious thought, however, the faith has a habit of 'preaching' that one can change one's sexuality through therapy, prayer, etc, and this is NOT in line with modern scientific psychological findings, therefore the faith is discriminating on these grounds in my opinion.” (Malchiel, 2011, Personal Survey Form)
The participants in the survey identified with gender: 6 Male, 2 Female, 2 Third Gender (“genderqueer”). In terms of their religion of origin 3 were Baha'i, 5 Protestant, 1 Catholic, and 2 with no religion of origin. Current religious affiliation were 3 Inactive Baha'i, 1 Buddhist, 1 Jewish, 3 None. All reported being out as a Baha'i which eventually led to either their leaving the faith or being pushed out.
With institutional discrimination as it exists against LGBTQI people in the Baha'i community one would think there are deep seated resentments, yet some express a optimism that things will change in the Baha'i community for LGBTQI people:
“I know in my heart that Baha'u'llah's message is one of inclusion without exception. I am a believer, and it hurts to be considered unacceptable by the other members of my community unless I wear a mask and try to pretend to be something other than what I am at heart. I have found a spiritual connection with people who are following a spiritual path not affiliated with any religion whatsoever. I am confident that in time the Faith will become a more welcoming place for LGBTQI people. It is the spiritual thing to do, and the thing that is in accord with all the spiritual teachings. (“Dan”, 2011, Personal Survey Form).
Concluding Discussion:
As has been seen to be LGBTQI and to be Baha'i is a point of cleavage in the social fabric of those that adhere to the Baha'i revelation as a source of authority in their lives, and a source of identity conflict for those that are LGBTQI and Baha'i. As we study in the sociology of religions all religions change over time and place. In the future perhaps a new UHJ for the Baha'i Faith sect may decide that it's ruling that the source of religious law on this subject is not solid enough or that after decades of research for the “pathological cause” of same-sex attraction, that pathology has no scientific evidence, while observing other scientific principles such as the obviousness that same-sex attraction has always been around although those with the power to form ethical beliefs have denigrated it, as it has been defined by powerful males. Even status differentiated homosexuality has far less to do with sexual attraction then the need to form communitas in patrilocal kinship groups formed to create a fighting force in war like conditions (Kottak, 2010, pg. 177). With new civil and human rights those that are LGBTQI have the ability for the first time, perhaps ever, to define themselves and speak for themselves without fear of retribution. The Baha'i religion is patrilineal and patrilocal, yet it is also this kinship structure which has limited the Faith from changing since it no longer has a single moral guide with the same form of authority to make changes to holders of the previous office, the Baha'is on this issue become trapped in a catch 22, where scientific evidence posits that same-sex attraction is not a moral choice but seems to be innate in the same way that a heterosexual love is. Yet, there is no way to undo this ruling with no more Guardians according to the parameters defined by the UHJ. Perhaps understanding how LGBTQI people have been viewed as a different “gender” in history can help us to recast this not as a sexual disease but rather an issue of gender equality.
Works Cited:
– Baha'u'llah, (1873) al-Kitab al-Aqdas, http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/areprint/vol1/aqdas/aqd.htm accessed 12/1/2011
– Malik, F. (2003), “The Historic Origins of Church Condemnation of Homosexuality”, http://www.well.com/~aquarius/rome.htm (accessed 12/1/2001)
– Murray, S., Roscoe, W. , (1997) Islamic homosexualities: culture, history, and literature NYU Press http://books.google.com/books?id=hQuHFPKp8L0C&lpg=PA246&dq=khanith%20of%20oman&pg=PA246#v=onepage&q=khanith%20of%20oman&f=false accessed 12/1/2011
– Najmabadi, A., Babayan, K. (2008), “Types, Acts, or What? Regulation of Sexuality in Nineteenth-Century Iran” in “Islamicate Sexualities: Translations across Temporal Geographies of Desire” Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
– Kottak, C., (2010), Mirror for Humanity: A Concise Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, McGraw-Hill New York
– Retief, F., Cilliers, J. Riekert S. “Eunuchs in the Bible” in Acta Theologica Vol 26, No 2. http://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/view/52578 accessed 12/1/2011
– Rowson, E (1991), “The Effeminates of Early Medina” in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 111, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1991), pp. 671-693.
– Scheafer, U. (2007) Bahá'í Ethics in Light of Scripture: Volume 2 http://books.google.com/books?id=06iVrKqgLWYC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=baha'u'llah+sodomy&source=bl&ots=T_X7o2tVqb&sig=fc4WTR2CMl6sKQsuMFBD3jeIE1E&hl=en&ei=W7_STur6AcfciQLVj5W6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=baha'u'llah%20sodomy&f=false
– Schmitt, A. (2002) Liwat im Fiqh: Männliche Homosexualität in Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies pp. 49-110. http://www.uib.no/jais/v004/schmitt1.pdf accessed 12/1/2011
– Sethe, Kurt, (1926) "Die Aechtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefäßscherben des mittleren Reiches," in: Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 1926, p. 61. (quoted at http://www.well.com/~aquarius/egypt.htm)
– Spooner, H. (1919). The American journal of urology and sexology, Volume 15. The Grafton Press. p. 522. http://books.google.com/books?id=mz1YAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA522&dq=coptic+castrate+abyssinian&hl=en#v=onepage&q=coptic%20castrate%20abyssinian&f=false accessed 12/1/2011
--Than, O., (2010), Homosexuality and Pathology in the US: Origins of the Disease Model in Psychotherapy and Religion and Critical Evaluation of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts. Druck und Bindung, Norderstedt Germany http://books.google.com/books?id=wr1FDFQb3kwC&lpg=PP1&dq=homosexual%20pathology&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=homosexual%20pathology&f=false accessed 12/1/2011
– Universal House of Justice (1995) “The Baha'i Teachings on Homosexuality” http://bahai-library.com/uhj/homosexuality.uhj.html accessed 12/1/2011
– Zanghellini, A. (2010) "Neither Homophobic nor (Hetero) Sexually Pure: Contextualizing Islam's Objections to Same-Sex Sexuality, in Islam and Homosexuality, Vol. 2, Prager Santa Barbara, CA