Homosexuality Within Sikhism

[Ishna]

I'm not sure, I don't know much about how societies and communities change, sorry! But it sounds like you've got the right idea.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

When we try and make Gurmatt (Sikhism - Gurmatt is NOT a ISM..but who cares what Gurmatt is..the WEST attached the ISM..like in Buddhism..Hinduism. Communism....and the label sticks)....WEAR a cloth cut in the WESTERN RELIGIOUS TRADITION....how could we succeed.???? ...Gurmatt being forcibly dressed in a RELIGIOUS CONCEPT lifted RIGHT out of the RELIGIOUS BOOKS of JudaISM..Christianity/Islam...looks so RIDICULOUS as those Judges wearing those long ARTIFICIAL HAIR LOCKS which seem to signify a JUDGE !!

IS there even a SINGLE TUK in Gurbani that is in relation to this ?? SGGS is about the CREATOR and US...what the SGGS so Clearly and UNEQUIVOCALLY declares is that the ONLY MALE/MASTER is THE CREATOR..and WE all are HIS SOUL BRIDES....is this concept not 360 Degrees different form the religious books of judaism, christianity and Islam. HOMO-SEXUALITY, BESTIALITY/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY...INCEST..etc etc are discussed AD NAUSEUM in those religious Books and their "god" is very much INTERESTED and deeply entrenched in those "acts" of Humans among themselves and with their SHEEP/COWS/CAMELS etc etc...he thunders and he sends down thunderbolts floods plagues and volcanoes erupt in his fury....when his followers indulge in those so called "SINS"....
Well we are not saying those books are wrong..their god is wrong/right..whatever..BUT all this is certainly NOT GURMATT....not by a thousand MILES !!!
Why do we INSIST..that the GURMATT dastaar is not right and must be replaced by the artificial hair wig...or it doesnt "look right"...???? GURMATT is GURMATT. PERIOD.
We wear a DASTAAR..others wear wigs and hijaab and crosses and hajj caps and skull caps etc...GURMATT has to be discussed in the LIGHT of SGGS....and SGGS ONLY.

Who is to say its accepted..not accepted...IF there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever form SGGS ?? What research can be carried out on a subject thats alien to SGGS and Gurmatt. Homosexuality is a NATURAL PHENOMENON of the Human BODY..it has no religious significance whatsoever as far as the SGGS is concerned. The GURU is totally SILENT on this matter as its TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to ones SPIRITUAL HEALTH and ability to suceed as HIS BRIDE or MERGE with HIM via GURPARSAAD. We should stop dragging in ALIEN CONCEPTS and try and find them in GURMATT.

SGGS says that PROCREATION needs a FATHER and MOTHER..the meaninga nd method of ANAND KARAJ is for family building (procreation)...and therefore the ANAND KARAJ is of necessity between MAN and WOMAN. But IF tomorrow SCIENCE succeeds in finding an alternative solution to this and a Man + Man ( Female + Female) can PROCREATE and raise a Family..then that situation doesnt find SGGS at VARIANCE LUST is well covered by SGGS..and this LUST is a HINDRANCE..and LUST can take many forms...and SGGS takes "LUST" to TASK...and NOT...homosexuals..lesbians. bestials or incestous relationships because ALL of them ACCRUE from LUST and LUST can equally occur in male female relationships as well...

Our GURU is much WISER...He tackles the ROOT CAUSES..not the SYMPTOMS...while symptoms are easier to tackle than root causes.....and thats why GURMATT is the HIGHWAY to HIM....no need to get lost along the wayside tracks...

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Gyani ji,

Guru Fateh.

Well said, as usual.Guru ji talks about nature from different aspects and gives us the tools to nurture goodness within irrespective of our hue, sexual preferences, creed or faith because the former two are parts of the nature and the latter of nurture. As you aptly put it that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru, does not mention anything about homosexuality because it does not challenge the nature nor does it claim about our Gurus having super natural powers to change it as most of the isms and their deities do. This is one more reason there are no prophets in Sikhi even if some so called "educated Sikhs" claim that. I am sure you remember about the thread that we all discussed regarding prophecies and prophets- a mud wrestling between the charlatans- the snake oil salesmen- and the nature. In the end, the latter keeps on winning against all the fears spewed by the deities of the isms.

The fact which most people ignore is that "Religious Marriage" is optional. It is not a prerequisite. The only legal marriage all around the world is the court registered marriage in order to get any benefits one is allowed.

Although gay marriage has been legal for many years in the UK, the new rules give the option to the religions to adopt it which is a big step and I hope that our macho honchos will open their minds in order for Gurmat to sink in, so they can understand the true message of Gurbani.

Gyani ji, I am sure you are aware of the fact that a few years ago, the honchos of Akaal Takhat passed a Hukumnaama to forbid Sikhs in Canada to vote in favour of Gay Marriage which was approved by the majority overwhelmingly.

These uneducated choga wearing so called Sikhs who brandish their power from Akaal Takhat to SGPC like the worst of the worst dictators have no idea what Gurbani teaches. They have no inkling that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru gives us all the tools to become better human beings and embrace nature in all aspects, whether it is to save our Earth or to protect others who get succumbed under the feet of tyranny and injustice which include gays and many others.

These same money stealing charlatans would not let women do seva, be Jathedarnis of the Akaal Takhats, be Granthis of Darbar Sahib, do Keertan in the Sanctum Sanctorum but would shamelessly issue Hukumnaamas to interfere in the democratic elections in the far far lands.

The Salok that we recite many times a day- Paven Guru Pani Pita Mata dharat Mahat.......- includes ALL, no exception.

Let's remind ourselves as often as possible that Sikhi is the true 2nd Amendment of the USA constitution, which is to fight against tyranny and injustice.

Lastly,I would like to add that let's not talk about Gurbani as a third person but as a first person because Shabad Guru resides in all of us, hence it is not that Gurbani talks about EQUALITY. IT rather teaches us how we the people can fight to create the perfect environment, so everyone IS equal under any circumstances which includes LGBT.

Our Gurus demand that from us on every single page of the 1429 pages of The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Thanks for the eye-opening post.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[findingmyway]

Sunny ji,
Your comments about Grihasti jeevan have ignited some questions in my mind and I am going to start a new thread in a moment.

I think a strong part of the rejection of homosexuality is cultural and the fear of being different. I think both these reasons are crazy as our Gurus & Sikhi rose against both concepts. I personally don't feel the nature discussion is reductionist. It complements Gurbani by using science to show homosexuality is natural, part of the normal order of the world and part of hukam. Those with cultural shackles need to know it is not an aberration but normal! I also think that of the attitudes stem from an incorrect understanding of Grihast jeevan but I will talk about that more in the other thread.

 

[Ishna]

So has homosexuality always been a negative thing in Punjabi culture? I read somewhere that it's always been there (of course) and has been quietly accepted but not outwardly accepted or condemned. Is it becoming more negative nowadays? Or have I come across dodgy info?

 

[spnadmin]

Ishna ji

I don't know if your information was dodgy. I believe the differences are between the word "accept" and "condone." Unlike western cultures where homosexuality has been condemned and even persecuted (this still goes on), most eastern cultures are more likely to "accept" the inevitability of homosexuality, but don't "condone" it. Accept and condone give different outlooks on the issue. Punjab culture essentially managed homosexuality over centuries by allowing for highly restricted ways for homosexuals to have a place, but only on the margins of society. Certainly they had to be sure not to go beyond the accepted limits. They might be musicians or actors in folk theatre and likely to perform on the outskirts of villages or at fairs on important holidays. No place for them in the center stage of village life. Whispering, winking and side-ways looks that we all adopt when social norms are crossed was real. An interesting description of what I am talking about is in East of Indus: My Memories of Old Punjab by Gurnam Singh Sidhu Brard

 

[sunnygill19]

Spnadmin thank you for the interesting piece of information about homosexuality, that is something that I will definitely follow up on and thank you for the name of the book. You have stated that you believe eastern cultures are more likely to "accept" the inevitability of homosexuality - could you just clarify why you believe this to be the case?

I do feel that culture has a huge impact in some of the Sikh community not wanting to accept homosexuality or even talk about it openly. I sat down with my family not long back and asked them what their views were as part of a face to face interview and their responses were very much that homosexuality was not accepted and it is not right even though there was no teachings about it. My uncle specifically referred to Grihasti and stated that it is a Sikhs role to get married (man and woman) and to procreate naturally in order to be in line with the Divine path and that Grihasti is the 'teaching' on homosexuality because without natural procreation how can we as Sikhs progress. He likened it to the feeling of anger - he stated that when one is angry he needs to show that anger because it is a natural feeling and we wouldnt understand what anger was without its expression just like we will not understand the Divine order without man and woman marriage and natural procreation.

I have used his testimony as example here because it is not something that I agree with and wondered what everybody else thought.

 

[spnadmin]

Spnadmin thank you for the interesting piece of information about homosexuality, that is something that I will definitely follow up on and thank you for the name of the book. You have stated that you believe eastern cultures are more likely to "accept" the inevitability of homosexuality - could you just clarify why you believe this to be the case?

sunnygill19 ji You assume too much! Do I really know what "accept" means in practical terms? Let me at least try to explain. Eastern civilizations are much older than those in the west. Common sense suggests that eastern cultures have had a longer time to come to terms with the fact that the mainstream may not like behaviors... that are not going to go away. So, over time traditional societies find practical solutions. Social arrangements that promote survival.

The pragmatism of the east remains difficult for many westerners to grasp. I am not restricting my opinion here to Punjab. Let's take a look at some other ways in which homosexuality is culturally managed. For one thing, homosexual relationships among young men are no more inevitable statistically in the east versus west. The difference lies how everyone reacts. A gay man may be viewed as "going through a stage" or maybe as having an unfortunate preference. But either way he is married off and does his duty of fathering children. He might still have men on the side. The important thing is that the male not be flagrant (we call that staying in the closet), and fulfill his role as someone who begets children to further the family's survival.

Why is this arrangement practical and satisfactory? Family in traditional societies is that great embrace which makes it possible for individuals to survive, especially under economically harsh conditions. Could it be the family trumps the individual? Or that as long as the individual honors his obligations, the family is willing to allow some individual aberration in silence? I call that practical because needs all around are met and the costs of making scenes and threats of banishment are kept to a minimum. The family prevails. The individual survives.

Likewise earlier I mentioned examples of managing social roles. In traditional societies social roles sum up to individual identities. With roles come corresponding obligations, and these can be rigidly defined. An advantage is that everyone knows what he/she is supposed to do. Having a role to play is fulfilling; having no role is to be invisible. It is an efficient way of living life. The practicality here lies in the ability of local cultures to keep "anti-social" behavior within limits by creating a role for homosexuals. The need to be a "rebel" is strongly reduced if one has a role to play. Then one can find a place, even a small place, and still remain part of familiar surroundings.

None of what I am saying makes sense if one believes that any individual can be whatever he wants to be, and do whatever he wants to do, and should be supported by society in the doing. It only makes sense when the inter-dependence between individual and family, family and village, village and pind is essential for individual and cultural survival. My own cultural background overlaps a bit with the way of life in a traditional world, and helps me understand how this works. And all I am saying is that the worlds of the east have had much more experience figuring these things out. There is much less of a fuss.

When the matter of gay marriage comes to the fore, there is more of a fuss. A great big fuss! Why? Because things that have worked for centuries don't apply, and the call for new solutions threatens tried and true traditions. Traditional worlds are disappearing. Expect more fuss.

 

[sunnygill19]

spnadmin, thank you very much for your post. Very interesting ideas that you have put forward, it is greatly appreciated.


I just wanted to direct everyone's attention to this interesting article that was published not long after the ideas of legalising homosexual marriage was ripe within the media. http://www.sewauk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/sikh-view-about-homosexuality-same-sex.html - this article stresses that gay marriage is a no no withing Sikhism as "It is the religious and traditional Sikh view that only the heterosexual family-unit can provide all the basic needs of growing up children." I disagree with such a statement as I believe that any homosexual couple could also provide all the basic needs of children as they mature - family units are not defined by the word heterosexual. The article further goes on to explain that "it would be against the spirit of Sikh religion to discriminate against anyone for having homosexual bias, by barring him or her from the Gurdwara". The last statement is something that I agree with but I have found it displeasing to find, through my interviews with people, that whilst they acknowledge the equality of all human beings within Sikhism somehow that does not apply to homosexuals because it is seen as wrong.

There have been points made on this forum which have been about lust and the need to control lust and sexual desire, not only for homosexuals but also heterosexuals. However, my research has been stating that homosexuality within itself barring the sexual acts of homosexuals is intrinsically wrong (something which clearly goes against the teachings of equality which our religion promotes). I interviewed my brother a while back who stated that he had no issues with homosexuality within Sikhism but that if his son was a homosexual he would severely disappointed because he would feel as if he had done something wrong!! Are we as Sikhs only accepting of homosexuality within our religion as long as it does not affect us personally?

 

[findingmyway]

spnadmin, thank you very much for your post. Very interesting ideas that you have put forward, it is greatly appreciated.


I just wanted to direct everyone's attention to this interesting article that was published not long after the ideas of legalising homosexual marriage was ripe within the media. http://www.sewauk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/sikh-view-about-homosexuality-same-sex.html - this article stresses that gay marriage is a no no withing Sikhism as "It is the religious and traditional Sikh view that only the heterosexual family-unit can provide all the basic needs of growing up children." I disagree with such a statement as I believe that any homosexual couple could also provide all the basic needs of children as they mature - family units are not defined by the word heterosexual. The article further goes on to explain that "it would be against the spirit of Sikh religion to discriminate against anyone for having homosexual bias, by barring him or her from the Gurdwara". The last statement is something that I agree with but I have found it displeasing to find, through my interviews with people, that whilst they acknowledge the equality of all human beings within Sikhism somehow that does not apply to homosexuals because it is seen as wrong.

There have been points made on this forum which have been about lust and the need to control lust and sexual desire, not only for homosexuals but also heterosexuals. However, my research has been stating that homosexuality within itself barring the sexual acts of homosexuals is intrinsically wrong (something which clearly goes against the teachings of equality which our religion promotes). I interviewed my brother a while back who stated that he had no issues with homosexuality within Sikhism but that if his son was a homosexual he would severely disappointed because he would feel as if he had done something wrong!! Are we as Sikhs only accepting of homosexuality within our religion as long as it does not affect us personally?

Sunnygill ji, I feel like we are covering the same ground again and again! Have you read all the posts including the links posted by spnadmin ji early in the thread to help you interpret other points of view? Have you looked at the Gurbani tuks referred to yourself? The bias your brother shows seems to be cultural. It might be worth questionning him further about his reasons why. I have looked at the website you posted and my comments are below:

The primary argument used by the website is the lust argument. This has been covered in detail several times on SPN. The shabads relating to lust often use heterosexual imagery but are interpreted for all homosexuals. I feel this is double standards and has strong cultural bias. Sex outside of marital relations is forbidden. This is why gay marriage is so important.

The metaphors used in Gurbani represent a man and a woman as that is what most people can identify with. Gurbani was always written using examples that could speak to average Jo. It doesn't necessarily make this union holy. All humans are equated to the wife regardless of gender and sexual orientation.

How the website equates gay marriage to polygamy and sexual abuse I have no idea! The whole purpose of marriage is to reduce immorality so I'm confused.

I won't talk about modern day family environments but will refer to history. What would happen if the husband died or left when children were young? In that case the environment discussed above is no longer possible yet children could still be raised successfully. The woman would have 2 options-to remarry and risk the stepfather mistreating the children or form a support network with other women and raise the children without a male. Having a father figure who wasn't part of the family was not an option due to cultural taboos. The same is true of the reverse. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to raise a family without a mother of father and having people of the other gender on the fringes of family life. Therefore, this argument does not hold either and is strongly skewed by culture.

Sex outside matrimony is prohibited which is why gay marriage is so important. Sexual relations serve a bigger purpose than procreation in several species, including humans. There is a mountain of psychology research on this subject. Gurbani only talks about lust. It is upto each couple to decide what part of their marriage is lust and what is normal bonding. This applies whether heterosexual or homosexual.

With any argument presented, question how much is culture and how much of the attitude is related to Gurbani.

I think the most productive way to move forward would be to post shabads you think are related to the topic in hand and your interpretation. Asking opinions will only inform you of people's bias. To understand the Sikhi viewpoint you must refer back to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

 

[Randip Singh]

Filled this in for you. I personally have no problem with same sex relationships or same sex marriage.

In Sikhism marriage is a Union of souls. The soul has no gender.

Unfortunately .... there are backward thinking monkeys running the show.

 

[spnadmin]

Randip ji and respected forum members all ji

Call it cowardice on my part. Or call it wisdom. One small change to my great colleague's recent post just occurred. India has a "hurting religious sentiments" clause in its constitution. Almost anyone can be hauled before a court of law or have business shut down pending a long, painful process of judicial review. If a strong epithet were launched against leaders in Brussels it would be a different story. A small deletion was needed imho. Maybe on review it can be restored.

 

[Harry Haller]

Unfortunately .... there are backward thinking monkeys running the show.

As an animal lover, I would like to protest on behalf of the backward thinking monkeys association.

 

[Original]

WJKK WJKF,
"I'm really interested in seeing as to why people in our community view homosexuality as wrong".
The evidence of this Creation is that there is a divine order in place. If you observe the honeycomb, the changing of seasons, the orbits of planets and moons, the formation of crystals, the scattering of seeds, the flight of hummingbirds, the journey of salmons, the cycles of evaporation, purification and rainfall; it is all played out in awesome order.
Please consider:
Sparrows; they emerge in the spring, males find females, mate, follow an ancient, unwritten science of creating a nest. They lay eggs, incubate them, young emerge, learn to fly... and the cycle repeats.
Groundhogs; they form intricate social communities and dig elaborate underground networks. Male and female reproduce, the young are nurtured underground in nesting areas until they strike out on their own.
Tigers; they follow precise social interactions, male and female fulfill their various roles, pair off and reproduce, giving birth to tiger cubs, which, after weening, learn to hunt, and the cycle continues.
Whales, roam across the vast realm of ocean, communicate in a mysterious language they percieve even across great distances. The male whale will find a female and impregnate her with his seed and they proceed to raise and protect the young whale calf until it can manage the underwater world on its own.
You get the picture. Now please consider the homosexual. They grow up as children, eating the prescribed diet of humans, male pairs off with another male. They create a 'nest', a bed, where they engage in sex, deposit their seed in the colon. Nothing comes of it except a stinking (imagine!) mess, they then reproduce by going to adoption agencies to rear offspring.
All I'm saying, my sister, is can we agree this is an aberration, a deviance from a prescribed order? Can we acknowledge that in a world of such divine, intricate sense, this is a perversion of the Divine Way? I am not saying it's evil, that homosexuals ought to be beaten, incarcerated or pilloried. I am simply saying, in this current spirit of embracing and celebrating and parading homosexuality as 'beautiful and natural', is it wrong to view it as rather a violation of the divine way?

Onam Ji

Very well thought through and succinctly written piece of literature.

As regards subject-matter, being gay is biologically determined, rather than a lifestyle choice. However, your argument is well founded, which, if spun, has the hallmarks of redefining "homosexuality" as a biological abnormality. In which case there is a case to answer.

Much obliged !