Sikhism And Homosexuality

[Archived_member15]

Just to note that Catholicism is not against civil partnerships, and in England the Catholic Church presides over gay masses in Soho.

Arcbishop Vincent Nicholas of England said in an interview:


"...We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision… The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give..."

- Archbishop Vincent Nichols


We also appreciate that Gays can have commited relationships, and admire monogamist homosexuals. Questioned on the Church’s attitude to homosexuals, Cardinal Schonborn said in 2010:



“...People should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships. A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous. The primary thing to consider should not be sin, but people’s striving to live according to the commandments. Instead of a morality based on duty, we should work towards a morality based on happiness..."

- Cardinal Schonborn

 

[Luckysingh]

I can't really comment too much here. In general I always don't say anything too positive or negative, in terms of sikhism, I don't think it really matters at all.
A gay is no less a sikh than me or any other. I don't become a better sikh just because I'm not gay.
This issue is not needed to define sikhism to any degree. I'm not sure if there has ever been a demand to accept gay sikh marriages or similar. But if two gays are going to dedicate their lives and stay with each other, then I don't think there is anything wrong with marriage!!
I make it sound pretty easy, but of course it's much more complex. All issues that involve gays are always considered obstacles.
Truth is at the end of the day if my son grows up and tells me he is gay, then I'm naturally not going to be too pleased because the issue will come across as an obstacle and I would have to rethink many ideas. Well I'm not going to be congratulating him and be overjoyed at the news, am I ?? I would have to make some changes and convince my self to accept, it would still be an obstacle and something that I can't just say ' OK then, your gay, never mind'
In all honesty, I wouldn't be too happy at all.
But, I can never say that he is unnaceptable as a sikh or no good. It would be a personal matter to deal with and nothing to do with sikhi unless he wants anand karaj with another gay!!

The sad thing of today is that many things I enjoyed as a kid seem to be classed as gay nowadays. I mean any new famous male on the scene and straight away the gay questions come up.
As a kid I grew up with Starsky & Hutch, Dukes of hazzard, Batman & Robin, CHips and many more that people question and label as gay nowadays. I mean, even the classic 'sholay' could be labelled as a gay story today. This I find sad.

 

[Harry Haller]

hey, you mean sholay was not a gay story



Luckyji,

a question, what would concern you more, your son becoming gay, or becoming an atheist?

I have to say, for myself, although I have no kids, if I ever did, I really could not care less about their sexual orientation as long as they were happy.

 

[Luckysingh]

Well the point is that we make plans for the future, have images and ideas of what your kids will be or can be. But, no one imagines their kids to turn out gay, I don't think.
This is what I mean by it being an obstacle. You have to deal with it at the time, as it's not something you plan for.

Many people say that they couldn't care less, but my point is that I know deep down I would care and wouldn't be delighted with joy so to say. It's not something that you look forward to.
Most of us don't like to associate with these issues and would rather avoid trying to understand.

In terms of your question about being gay or atheist.
Well, my answer would be that they BOTH would concern me to the same degree.
I would have to deal with them both in different but similar manners.

 

[Harry Haller]

Luckyji

Waheguru clearly could not care less about being gay, why should we?

However I respect your honesty, and having no kids myself, accept that my thoughts are ideological, whereas yours are realistic.

 

[Luckysingh]

I used to find it quite amusing when I worked in UK, I used to meet huge numbers of ordinary people.
Whenever the topic about gays surfaced, most would comment that it makes no difference to them if someone is gay or it doesn't bother them etc...
Then, I would always question ' what if your kid grows up and tells you the news??? '
Immediately, most people would back off and comment ' well, that's different.'..etc.etc..

In reality no one planned and always thought that the 'gay' is always someone else or some one elses family problem. But they never liked to think of it as occuring in their own immediate family.

The truth is that most parents would react like me. They don't ever think or wish that there own child would turn out gay.

My opinion is actually what goes with the majority in my experience.

 

[Harry Haller]

I beg to differ, my wife does have a child, my stepson, and she really could not care less, she is more concerned that he is happy, healthy and productive.

I do think, however, that being gay does not really express very well homosexuality.

The other day, I was reading this thread with another shopkeeper, who happens to be gay. A customer walked in, I stated that we were reading an Islamic piece on homosexuality, he replied, that 'all those gays and their mincing, how funny', now my friend is built like a marine, and extremely 'manly'. I happen to like redheads, he happens to like hairy backs, other than that , we are both men, he made his excuses and left, and the customer looked at me and said, 'he was gay wasn't he', and I replied 'yup' and grinned. Not all gay people act like gay people, it is a sexual preference, nothing more, I do not expect to get pilloried because of my sexual fetishes, but if they were known, maybe I would be subject to similar. In a world where so much bad can happen, it seems unfair to lump the sexuality of a child as a tragedy waiting to happen, real tragedies are hard to deal with, the sexuality of a person, in my mind, is irrelevant.

However, and this I believe is the crux of the problem, I find anyone, of any sexuality, who flaunts it, and bases their entire personality on it, allows it to define themselves, wrong, whether gay or straight.

The problem as always is the fear of other peoples attitudes in the Indian community

Goodness Gracious Me Gay Son Season 1 | by AnimeSaw - YouTube

 

[simranbir]

everything that is on this earth, god created. if homosexuality is wrong, why did god make it?

god created to check our control as he created maya to divert path towaards him. i think so

but this is to stop. shouldn't be practiced

 

[Archived_member15]

However, and this I believe is the crux of the problem, I find anyone, of any sexuality, who flaunts it, and bases their entire personality on it, allows it to define themselves, wrong, whether gay or straight.

:sippingcoffeemunda:

My dear brother Harry Haller ji peacesign

Yes that is what my Church teaches also, I agree:


"...From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously. The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation...Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life..."

- - CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH;
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE
OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, 1986

 

[Randip Singh]

HOMOPHOBES are the ones who need help, not Homosexuals!!!:sippingcoffee:

 

[Satyaban]

God did not created homosexuality. God created woman to be helpmate of Man.. God did not created another man to be with man. Homosexuality is a SIN and leads to God Judgement. Can be thrown in the lake of fire which is Hell

Considering that God created and is the essence of all you are saying that The Creator made a mistake. I should remind you that all is God's creation and thus divine, all is as it must be perfect in its state.

Your last sentence sounds like it came from Christian, Zoroastrian, or Islamic scripture. I believe there is much truth in each scripture but not that.

Peace

 

[esieffe]

Sat-sri-akal!

We see much more of this in America than in most places I am sure, so I have had the opportunity to know a few gay people, as they are known here in the states. There is one couple in my neighborhood who has been together for 15 years. I am told they do not have sex outside of their relationship [though I never asked the question!]

My feelings about this issue is that it may be a karmic condition. We go through life after life going through different experiences to become well rounded and pure as soul. It is not up to me to judge if this is "offensive" to God or not. I will say that anyone who hops from bed to bed is equal in the trap or obsession of lust regardless of who they are jumping in with!

A gay man once told me that no sane person would choose to be gay. Who would choose to expose themselves to such danger and hostility? In Iran, homosexuals are hung from the nearest tree.

I think a Sikh is a Sikh. I don't see a person's sexual orientation even entering the equation. I follow Sikhism because we protect the defenseless, feed the hungry! We are the heros of this Earth not the haters or executioners. I feel no hostility for them nor do I feel it for those who dislike them. It is just another attachment trap, a political or social issue to muddy the waters in the river to God.

I must admit, I did get the chills when I saw two people holding hands together once in a big city, but at the same time, after a second look, they did seem devoted to each other. I do wish people would get over this issue, so much talk of it in America. But I suppose this is society's way of working things out.:animatedkhanda1:

 

[AngloSikhPeace]

BasicsOfSikhi had a video about this controversial topic. In it, they said that homosexuals are born that way, and should not be discriminated against because of how their minds were made. They said that it is perfectly okay for a homosexual to also be a Sikh and try to unite with Guruji. However, they also said that the Sikh Rehat only allows marriage between a man and a woman, and therefore homosexual Sikhs should remain celibate.


I agree with them, but have some questions.

1. Why should homosexual Sikhs remain celibate? Homosexuals can still feel love for a woman even if they don't feel kaam for them, and it is well-known that at least some homosexual men can have relationships with and please the opposite sex. Majority of so-called homosexuals are likely bisexual, especially if you include the homosexual women in that.
There are also people with very little or even no sexual energy, or people born with no sexual orientation. Should they not get married either, even if they want to feel the piyare which come from Guruji?

2. Despite these teachings homosexuals are still discriminated against, even by Sikhs. It would be a very difficult task to get rid of this prejudice, especially in the minds of people who view gays as an abomination. Who would stand up for them?

3. Why has this become such a big debate? There have always been people who were attracted to the same gender, but Gurbani doesn't mention it. The notion of a specific 'homosexual' identity is a new one, in the past many people who were married to women would have affairs with other men. Just look up Roman and Greek history and you will see how common it was. There's new research to suggest that even in 19th century England there was no particular 'homosexual' category, but acts we would think of today as 'gay' were common.
It seems to me that Sikhs (and humans generally) have always tolerated people with homosexual urges, but that the acts associated with them were viewed as sinful and adulterous. But then came the 'race sciences' and eugenic systems of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which categorised people with homosexual feelings into a different, subhuman group. And then in the 20th century the family layouts changed in favour of the nuclear family, making homosexual behaviour even more taboo than ordinary adultery. Nowadays the sexual revolution has blown the 1950s family apart, but the old medicalised categorisation of people has stayed, creating the idea that some people are identified solely by homosexual feelings.

 

[gurtej khubbar]

Homosexuality is not wrong, lust is. It's scientifically proven for god sake, we should not even ask if it's wrong.
People need to get their head out of the sand. It even prevails in other mammals and species.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

I am very surprised by some of the comments in this thread, especially the one where the basicsofsikhi guy said homosexuals should remain celebate for their entire lives. I thought he was an Oxford graduate, very disappointing to hear something like that come out of his mouth, especially considering the vast number of people who are influenced by his videos.

The fact that we have gotten to 53 pages talking about whether homosexuality is acceptable in Sikhi is bittersweet. On the one hand, it is great to see religious people being able to talk about such a controversial topic in such a respectful and civil manner. You may not all agree with each other, but at least you value the other person's opinion and do not try to shut them down or resort to name-calling and throwing accusations. Other religions could learn from your example.

On the other hand, at least in my opinion, this discussion should have ended on the first page. It is difficult for me to get my head around why any Sikh would have any interest in the sexual orientation of someone else. If it was such a horrible thing, you'd think it would be mentioned at least once in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, but it isn't even alluded to. It can only mean that the Gurus did not care whether someone was homosexual or heterosexual, I'm sure they believed that it is your actions, not your orientation, that defines you as a person. The 5 thieves are mentioned over and over again because they are the main obstacles in a human's path to living a truthful life. Homosexuality was not mentioned for the same reason the Gurus did not include which color t-shirt was the "best" or most "righteous" to wear- the color of your shirt, or the object of your attraction (be it male or female), has no bearing on your value as a human being.

Then there are some people who agree that homosexuals do not deserve hate, but there should be different rules for them, they shouldn't be afforded the same rights (ex: marriage) as heterosexual Sikhs. This reminds me of one of the first stories I heard pertaining to Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The Khalsa army was in battle with the Moghuals, and Bhai Kanhaiya Ji was tasked with providing water for the injured Sikh soldiers. When he got on the battlefield, his co-religionists saw him giving water to the Muslim soldiers as well, and reported their findings to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, who summoned Bhai Khanaiya. Bhai Khanaiyas reply to Guru Gobind Singh Ji was that on the battlefield, he did not see Sikhs and Muslims, he did not see Khalsa or Mughal, he only saw human beings, each of which had that same light of Waheguru inside of them. It did not matter what side they were on or what their religious beliefs were, everyone got water because every life is precious and on the inside, we are all the same. And of course you know what happens next, Guru Gobind Singh Ji hugged Bhai Khanaiya and told the Khalsa that this is what a true Sikh looks and sounds like.

What would Guru Gobind Singh Ji say to the Sikhs today? His entire family was murdered by Muslims, yet he sought no revenge and did not hurt a single innocent person, no matter what their religion was. His army was in battle, and he approved the serving of water to the enemy soldiers. On Vaisakhi 1699, he took Amrit from the hands of the "lower caste" (who at the time were in roughly the same position as homosexuals are today).

Do you think this same Guru Gobind Singh Ji would be proud that his Sikhs are refusing Anand Karaj for 2 individuals who accept Guru Granth Sahib as their eternal Guru and wish to live a Gurmat lifestyle, just because of the way they were born? Would he say "well, at least they're getting treated better than they do in other religion", or would he be disgusted that Sikhs, who are supposed to be the "dust of the feet of all", not distinguish between friend or enemy, see that same light of Waheguru in all, are today trying to impose their own beliefs onto a group of people who cannot change who they are?

I am a lurker on a few other Sikh forums and just today saw a thread on one of them about whether it was permissible for an Amritdhari to share food with someone who has not taken Amrit. Even after Guru Nanak Dev Ji preferred to share food with the poor and weak than the rich and strong. It hurts me, even as an outsider, to have to read stuff like this, because I feel like the Gurus would be rolling over in their graves if they knew.

Sorry if I offended anyone, and I know not all Sikhs share the same views, this is just my opinion.

 

[harmanpreet singh]

Sorry if I offended anyone, and I know not all Sikhs share the same views, this is just my opinion.

i feel majority Sikhs share your views , so no offense caused .