Same Sex Marriage Ceremonies In Gurdwara

[Randip Singh]

Ishna ji I believe spnadmin ji took some liberties about gays in Pinds (villages) being happy as a pig in muck. Almost all gays have been focus of jokes and ridicule but not much violence. Villagers perhaps appreciated gays as there would be less danger for their girls, a concern of family respect and dignity in traditional villages. Furthermore gays were always and almost 100% from non dominant families and lower classes (I know it is against Sikhi but I don't know how to classify it otherwise to describe the situation). Gays were also forced to or choose to act docile in local environments and hence less visibility. The gay characters in Indian cinema were butt of jokes or funnies and filler segments.

Intersex people were quite common in villages as street performers. They will come to a house which had an auspicious occasion (birth of a child, wedding, etc.) and sing/dance provocatively. They will threaten to expose their privates if the home owners wouldn't amply reward them. This was just an empty threat just to get the kids excited and I never saw it materialize even once .

Hope it clarifies.

Sat Sri Akal.

Interestingly we treat Sikandar or Alexander the Great as a God in Punjab and yet he was Gay?

I think your perspective is based on the last 100 years. If you go to pre-British era's homosexuality was not an issue. If it was an issue the Guru's would have condemned it openly.

 

[Harry Haller]

I think the reason homosexuality is not an issue, is the western misconception relating to promiscuity, which possibly is not shared in the east,

 

[kds1980]

Interestingly we treat Sikandar or Alexander the Great as a God in Punjab and yet he was Gay?

I think your perspective is based on the last 100 years. If you go to pre-British era's homosexuality was not an issue. If it was an issue the Guru's would have condemned it openly.

Did Guru's condemn beastality ? so does it mean that it is acceptable in Sikhism?

 

[Harry Haller]

kdsji,

Firstly, I owe you an apology, in a previous post, I may have intimated that you were quite orthodox, I have since realised I actually confused you with someone else, so sorry.

I would like to say how much I enjoy your postings, you always seem to find the chink in the armour that everyone else has missed, and speaking for myself, it always gets me thinking, so dear brother, thank you!

My thoughts would be that the Guru's did not condemn it, as it possibly was not as prevalent as it is now, although even now,I know very few people that indulge in it, actually I know of no one, whereas homosexuality has been around and practiced from day 1.

 

[kds1980]

kdsji,

Firstly, I owe you an apology, in a previous post, I may have intimated that you were quite orthodox, I have since realised I actually confused you with someone else, so sorry.

Harry ji

I am not a liberal and I don't have much Liberal thinking

I would like to say how much I enjoy your postings, you always seem to find the chink in the armour that everyone else has missed, and speaking for myself, it always gets me thinking, so dear brother, thank you!

My thoughts would be that the Guru's did not condemn it, as it possibly was not as prevalent as it is now, although even now,I know very few people that indulge in it, actually I know of no one, whereas homosexuality has been around and practiced from day 1.

Homosexuality to me is still a topic on which I don't want to toe the line of what west says.What surprises me the most is that how these days some western Sikhs are coming in full support of homosexuality ,I want to know the reason why? Were sikhs supporting homosexuality 20-30 years back or is it just an another attempt from our side to copy west so we can show them How liberal and modern we are?

 

[Ambarsaria]

Interestingly we treat Sikandar or Alexander the Great as a God in Punjab and yet he was Gay?

I think your perspective is based on the last 100 years. If you go to pre-British era's homosexuality was not an issue. If it was an issue the Guru's would have condemned it openly.

Randip Singh ji my statements and posts are based on my personal experiences and information received from my parents so 100 year comment is valid.

Can you name a village where Sikandar the Great is treated as God? I know he wasn't in my village or villages I traveled to. That is if common folks even knew who he was! I believe Maharaja Ranjit Singh and other Rajahs were supplied arms by French and Germans and there are blue and green eyed people in Punjab whether from the British or from the French cross pollination.

I have no issue people being gay or lesbian or bisexual or transsexual. That is part of creation trying out things for size. If it is a trait required for long term survival of humans it will survive and grow. Otherwise it won't. Timelines are generations, hundreds of years, etc.

I am with KDS1980 ji in terms of to ridiculous comments like if it is wrong it would have been condemned in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. This is a wiser forum to be using such an argument which I find little flippant. I shouldn't address but I will in case yours is coming from a serious thought process. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and our Gurus tackle issued with the leaders, the practices that such followed as a way to understand and claimed ways to reach God (Hindus and Muslims generally), to the people misguiding people and fleecing them (Brahmins predominantly), finally any strong third tier items. Guru ji did not focus on people's bedroom rituals. What would they have said if asked, I don't know! Perhaps the issue would have been cut to measure like a very smart previous Prime Minister of Canada. Pierre Elliot Trudeau stated , "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". I am of the like opinion.

On Anand Karaj I believe you are taking a very restrictive view "as the joining of souls". It is a spiritual and a social/communal ceremony. It announces that let no one be in doubt that union of marriage has taken place from hereon these two people are husband and wife. Their children from the union of a man and a woman are not illegitimate as viewed by society, their house where the cohabit is not a house of ill repute, let no one see the man or woman with lust, etc.

So if Sikh Society does not view the union of lesbians and gays the same way I am not complaining. If in the future they view differently I won't complain either. I don't have a huge lot of personal interest in this.

In terms of Akal Takhat Sahib, it makes religious and Panthic (Sikh community well being) decisions. If they have so guided right now that it makes no sense to bless gay/lesbian relationships/unions as Anand Karaj, I am OK with that too. If there is a need to revisit this, the community support and other means can be employed to reason for it.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Ishna]

It seems in the first instance the West is condemned for having condemned homosexuality in India during the British Raj and now they're we're being condemned for encouraging such behaviour? You might want to try looking at the situation in more dimensions than just blaming the West and taking no responsibility.

Says the blue-eyed blonde 100% Western Ishna who tries to respect other cultures and gets a little protective when her's is blamed as the one who rains on other culture's parades. I'm not saying the West is perfect but neither are other cultures, and the blame game is getting old.

 

[Harry Haller]

Everything is cyclical ,from the orgies of rome, to the kama sutra, the victorian british, prohibition, the west is not the ultimate source of all these things, the east had its time too, it has had its decadence, thoughts flow, attitudes change, as people we grow, the good see the good elsewhere, and imitate it, pleasure seekers do the same,

Let us not tar whole communities with the same brush, this is not about liberal thinking, this is about sikh thinking,. as a sikh, I respect any human being attempting to find the creator and living by the way of the panth, regardless of choice of partner.

As Sikhs we should have the same view of a person in a same sex relationship that attempts to find Gurmukh. The issue is love, respect and to be faithful. If those criteria are met than a homosexual sikh is no different to a hetrosexual sikh,

I know of many homosexual couples who do not even have sex, it is about love for some, devoid of lust, just love. I know some heterosexuals who could learn a lot from such people..

 

[Harry Haller]

KDSji

In a post a while back you were quite vocal about the exodus of sikhs to other religions, especially in India.

When I close my eyes and think back to sikhism 20 years ago, my vision of sikhi was a large number of people that had been dragged to Gurdwara, I never recall seeing anyone pleased to be there, never saw anyone smile, I can still remember the congregation singing shabads in a bored monotone, and the relief as everyone went out to langar, it was only in the langar people started to smile, and talk, and the atmosphere became a bit lighter, only they were not talking about god, they were talking about life.

If you want sikhism to grow, you have to accept that as well as blue eyed blondes, there will be many many types of people that will want to share the bliss of waheguru, maybe , as born sikhs, we are scared of these people, because they will understand sikhi better than we will, because some of them will show us up, in 20 years time, I hope our Gurdwaras are filled with people of all sizes, colours, sexual orientations and ages, the only real qualification to enter is a desire to find the creator, and to live by the Panth, everything else is moot.

 

[kds1980]

KDSji

In a post a while back you were quite vocal about the exodus of sikhs to other religions, especially in India.

Harry ji

I think you misinterpretted my post I am not saying that Sikhs are converting,but they are slowly assimilating in hinduism ,there is difference between conversion and assimilation.Large number of Sikhs inter marrying with Hindu's ,Sikh women keeping karva chauth even for their Sikh husbands,Going to Pandits and over all bollywood and Tv serials who regularly show Sikhs as Hindu's

When I close my eyes and think back to sikhism 20 years ago, my vision of sikhi was a large number of people that had been dragged to Gurdwara, I never recall seeing anyone pleased to be there, never saw anyone smile, I can still remember the congregation singing shabads in a bored monotone, and the relief as everyone went out to langar, it was only in the langar people started to smile, and talk, and the atmosphere became a bit lighter, only they were not talking about god, they were talking about life.

You are wrong my friend ,20 years ago India was socialist country where even having Color TV was Luxury.People used to lead simple religious family based lifestyle,Sikhs use to love kirtan ,katha gurbani .Don't use word like that Sikhs were dragged or something

 

[Ambarsaria]

kds1980 ji I believe you need to give it to Harry Haller ji in terms of somber mood in Congregation Hall versus Langar Hall or area.
​

The preachers, ragis and katha vachiks have a vested interest in keeping you somber so that you empty out your pockets easily.

Otherwise thanks for your post and keep the gusto going.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[kds1980]

It seems in the first instance the West is condemned for having condemned homosexuality in India during the British Raj and now they're we're being condemned for encouraging such behaviour? You might want to try looking at the situation in more dimensions than just blaming the West and taking no responsibility.

Says the blue-eyed blonde 100% Western Ishna who tries to respect other cultures and gets a little protective when her's is blamed as the one who rains on other culture's parades. I'm not saying the West is perfect but neither are other cultures, and the blame game is getting old.

The view that Britishers were condemned for condemning homosexuality is very much in Tiny minority in India.Also we have to accept that the culture of Britishers of That time was very different from western liberal materialistic Culture which emerged mostly in 50s or 60s.This culture promote among men and women do whatever you want don't care about society parents relatives etc,obviously India which was/is family oriented society cannot accept this culture.The youngsters get attracted to this culture very much but when things don't go their way they still go back to their parents,families

 

[spnadmin]

kds1980 ji

Please rethink this comment

Also we have to accept that the culture of Britishers of That time was very different from western liberal materialistic Culture which emerged mostly in 50s or 60s.

Colonization has only one motive: to enrich oneself at the expense of another. European culture at the time of the raj, including British culture, was about materialism. What were the British doing in India anyway? Raping India of her wealth and resources. They were not there to transfer India's wealth to the poor of Africa...they were raping Africa too.

 

[Ambarsaria]

kds1980 ji

Please rethink this comment

Colonization has only one motive: to enrich oneself at the expense of another. European culture at the time of the raj, including British culture, was about materialism. What were the British doing in India anyway? Raping India of her wealth and resources. They were not there to transfer India's wealth to the poor of Africa...they were raping Africa too.

spnadmin ji (our source of all things important winkingmunda) isn't it true that the British only started to come to land of the Sikhs in Punjab after Maharaja Ranjit Singh's death in 1839?

We used to watch the Goris (white females) driving/driven on GT Road in Amritsar in the afternoons. No one hated them as a matter of fact people had fascination and goodwill. I think they were then owners of OCM (Oriental Carper Mills), makers of beautiful carpets.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[kds1980]

kds1980 ji

Please rethink this comment

Colonization has only one motive: to enrich oneself at the expense of another. European culture at the time of the raj, including British culture, was about materialism. What were the British doing in India anyway? Raping India of her wealth and resources. They were not there to transfer India's wealth to the poor of Africa...they were raping Africa too.

India was raped from 1000 years .From Ghaznavi to Abdali what were they doing here ? Taking India's wealth and women.But they were following Islamic culture so materiaistic occupations were always their in history.

What I mean with materialistic culture is when people start dreaming of having luxury goods at any cost,some start taking bribes ,other convert themselves into note printing machines in private companies and forgetting their responsibilities toward parents,family society etc

 

[spnadmin]

India was raped from 1000 years .From Ghaznavi to Abdali what were they doing here ? Taking India's wealth and women.But they were following Islamic culture so materiaistic occupations were always their in history.

What I mean with materialistic culture is when people start dreaming of having luxury goods at any cost,some start taking bribes ,other convert themselves into note printing machines in private companies and forgetting their responsibilities toward parents,family society etc

That's a good point. It does not negate what I said. The British raj was founded on materialism. It was only about materialism. You have clarified your definition of materialism, and thank you. But know, it is your personal definition and not the one that is normally used.

materialism |məˈti(ə)rēəˌlizəm|
noun
1 a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
2 Philosophy the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
• the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency. See also dialectical materialism .

 

[spnadmin]

spnadmin ji (our source of all things important winkingmunda) lol isn't it true that the British only started to come to land of the Sikhs in Punjab after Maharaja Ranjit Singh's death in 1839?


Sat Sri Akal.

The British East India Company was active in India from the early 1700's to my knowledge. During that period the British and Portuguese were in competition for economic advantages around Agra and further into the south. The British played a politica/diplomaticl game vis a vis the Persian court in the north because trade routes through the North were important. They thought it better to support what appeared to be a tough and stable Persian governance. Once the Persian/Moghul political structure began to crumble, then the British eyed Punjab with more active interest. Until then they were content to remain in the background. And yes, Punjab seemed invincible, not that they did not try to gain a foot hold, until the collapse of the rule of Ranjit Singh.

I have to add to this but right now can't. Don't have time. Moderating.

 

[kds1980]

SPNadmin ji

Let me give you a practical example here.These days in cities like Delhi you can easily see Guards,nurses etc which are bare earning 5000-10000 per month having mobile handsets worth Rupees 10-15 thousands .Now an average life of mobile handset is 1-2 years as mostly people end losing or breaking their phones .Most of the feature in phones are not even usable for them ,they can get cheap handsets ranging from 1500 to 3000 rupees .The money they could save for future or families is being spent on useless mobiles ,what will you call it?

 

[Ambarsaria]

spnadmin ji seems busy.

In reference to misuse of money on Phones and your question, "what will you call it?"

I will call it going along with the times.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[kds1980]

spnadmin ji seems busy.

In reference to misuse of money on Phones and your question, "what will you call it?"

I will call it going along with the times.

Sat Sri Akal.

And what about need of money in 100 of other places of life ?At that time you start crying we are poor we don't have money