CaramelChocolate
SPNer
I haven't delved too much in principles applicable here, but would like to ask you if you're pursuing a career in Religious studies or Philosophy? If you do, I wish you luck in addition to your profound powers of reasoning and general knowledge. I hope to be alive long enough to see where you end up!CaramelChocolate said:What is natural is NOT the same as what is moral.
IF homosexuality is UNNATURAL then it does not make it immoral and vice versa.
Sikhs DO NOT believe in St Thomas Aquinas' natural law and should not bow down to CATHOLIC influences.
LUST is natural. That is what makes going against any vice so hard. We must GO AGAINST our instincts in order to be moral.
Not necessarily. I have been attached, often and sometimes rather intensely, to a number of girls/women. So far, I haven't had any similar feelings towards any male. You could say that I'm attached to my heterosexuality. But I accept that there are people enjoying other flavours of life, and don't by definition (or by definition don't) rule out that I might change my mind to be more all-inclusive.As far as I am concerned it is attachment to one's own heterosexuality that creates hatred for homosexuals and heterosexist 'ideals'.
Singh Balbir said:No action which is against the nature is acceptable. Why one should marry? If the answer is just to satisfy the lust or have a companian then same sex marriage may be justied by the people who think so. But if the answer is to live a meaningful life as per law of nature then same sex marriage has no place in the civilised society. Further, there was no need to give a statement on the issue by Vandenty Ji. What to say of sikhism no religion justify same sex marrige.
BhagatSingh said:i think that
same sex marriages should be avoided in sikhism but should be accepted if one wishes to do so.
which animals are homosexual .. i am sorry i do not know of a single one.
i had an argument on this aspect but i forgot it lol
Ishna said:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL
For your perusal on the topic of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom.
Personally I am divided on the issue. I think it's difficult for people who are not gay to rule on what gay people can and cannot do. It's like a man or a woman trying to tell the opposite gender how they should feel and how to behave.
I tend to agree with BhagatSingh, discouraged but accepted.
And on the "natural" debate, marriage itself is not natural, it is a human-created institution. Should we not get married?
Randip Singh: sort of a derailment of topic, but isn't the soul considered "female" and God considered "male"? I can understand it if the terms "yin" and "yang" are used, or "positive" and "negative"... is that what is being referred to in Gurbani and the genders are a metaphor?
Thanks.
What is natural is NOT the same as what is moral.
IF homosexuality is UNNATURAL then it does not make it immoral and vice versa.
Sikhs DO NOT believe in St Thomas Aquinas' natural law and should not bow down to CATHOLIC influences.
LUST is natural. That is what makes going against any vice so hard. We must GO AGAINST our instincts in order to be moral.
As far as I am concerned it is attachment to one's own heterosexuality that creates hatred for homosexuals and heterosexist 'ideals'.
It works in the following way
A. I have a desire
B. I do not have a desire for what others could possibly desire
C. Everybody should have my desire since I have no desire for what others may possibly desire, hence their desire is immoral and wrong as it provokes no desire within me
D. My individuated morality should become individuated to everyone
This type of logic does not work, we are all in different positions. This is similar to a White British living in the UK expecting all Sikhs to have short hair, bleach their skin and go to the pub every Saturday night.