Is It Compulsory For A Amritdhari Singh To Marry An Amritdhari Kaur?

[Mai Harinder Kaur]

The SRM says only ( CHAPTER XI, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article XVIII)[/FONT]:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]q. A baptised ought to get his wife also baptised.."

A simple statement which is very confusing to my already confused mind. It says "ought to" not "must." In English, I think there is a difference in meaning. Also, it assumes that the "baptised" is the male. Of course that is not always the case. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]IMO, the SRM needs some serious revision and clarification. At the same time, I would hate to see Sikhi become a legalistic religion.[/FONT] Of course, the rules will alweays be more strict for the Khalsa than for those who have not yet been blessed with Amrit.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
In the event that one of the pair is not Amritdhari, the Gurmat Rehat Maryada (Damdami) is explicit. They can get married, but cannot have sexual relations.
[/FONT]

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

The SRM says only ( CHAPTER XI, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article XVIII)[/FONT]:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]q. A baptised ought to get his wife also baptised.."

A simple statement which is very confusing to my already confused mind. It says "ought to" not "must." In English, I think there is a difference in meaning. Also, it assumes that the "baptised" is the male. Of course that is not always the case. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]IMO, the SRM needs some serious revision and clarification. At the same time, I would hate to see Sikhi become a legalistic religion.[/FONT] Of course, the rules will alweays be more strict for the Khalsa than for those who have not yet been blessed with Amrit.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
In the event that one of the pair is not Amritdhari, the Gurmat Rehat Maryada (Damdami) is explicit. They can get married, but cannot have sexual relations.
[/FONT]

The SRM was drafted by those whose English was obvioulsy a Second Langauge..hence these ambigious words...

1. But take it this way....the MALE is no doubt always mentioned....but the inherent meaning can always be inferred to mean BOTH SEXES. Now a days there is a wee bit too much "liberalism"...too many smarty pants types dissect and surgically operate on word by word..looking for "flaws"....so they object to the Creator-EK Oankaar beign called God..Lord..HE...etc etc. IF the drafters of the SRM were to write "Male" (female as well)...EK Oankaar (also God, He, Lord etc etc) in each instance..the Document will become seven times its size..and soem finicky person will still find fault with soemthing else...becasue its the SPIRIT and not the LETTER thta is important.

2. Secondly the SRM drafters were obvioully PUNJABI ORIGIN..so they operated in a Punjabi Enviornment..their language, their vocabulary, inferences etc are based on PUNJABIAT....and in Punjabi environment many things seem different to one from a Solid Yorkshire background..a German Background or to a RedIndian person ( sorry...Native American !!) Punjabiat is male centric..

3. Take the SGGS as an example..in this context..the ONE and ONLY "MALE" person is The Creator- EK Oankaar !! ALL others are FEMALE/wives/sisters/mothers..whatever.. and Gurbani is GENDERLESS when it delcares..TU Mera PITA (Father) TU Mera MATA (Mother) Tu mera Bharata..Tu mera Rakaah sabhni thaiin....He is Mother/father/Brother/everything in ONE....so SIKH SRM need not worry about "male" female etc vocabulary...

4. The Damdami taksaal Maryada on.."can marry..but no sex.." is akin to what we see in shops..SEE no TOUCH !!
This is a LUDICROUS proposition..whats the POINT of getting married if children are not to be produced ??? Isnt this a Blackmail way of forcing a person to chhak Pahul ??

5. The word "OUGHT" and not "MUST" in the SRM is 100% Correct. Acording to Gurmatt..a perosn cannot eb FORCED into Amrtidharee status..it has got to eb VOLUNTARY !! Thus ought is correct interpretation..of Gurmatt ideals.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]