• Bhangra discussion is still going strong. Join us in our Facebook group!

    New user registration has been closed (as it was entirely spam). We encourage you to post in our Facebook group, even if it's a followup to an existing thread. BTF will continue to be archived and hosted here - Saleem

Proposition 8 (in california)

Meistro

Asi Shounk Nu Karaiyaan Muschaan Kundiyaan...
Messages
2,065
Soon, californians will be voting yes or no on proposition 8. Its a measure thats going to be on the general election ballot which will take away the rights to same-sex marriages. Now my question is, and its been something that I've thought about for a really long time: how do our religions (Im putting emphasis on Sikhi because it stresses equality) view homosexuality and same sex marriages? If sikhism teaches equality, and the elimination of the caste system (among other things), then does it accept this preference in sexual orientation? I know our community will never accept something like that and my question is not pertaining to that aspect. Im talking about if there is a man or a woman who is a firm believer in sikhism, are they accepted (under the teachings of sikhi) by God of they are gay? Im really curious to know your answers. Especially Summy's. In no way am I being disrespectful or joking. Totally a serious question.
 

Vick

Member
Messages
990
I'm cool with people being gay... just as long as they arent flaming or flamboyant in their expressions... being gay isnt exactly accepted in this society, I dont know why people continue to show off their gayness with pride, it's only going to bring bad stuff upon them... as far as all that religion stuff, i have no idea.. haha..

Moderator Note: Please be respectful of people's lifestyle choices. It is not within any of our jurisdictions to pass judgments or demand other people to abide by our perceived notion of a certain lifestyle. This is a sensitive topic, so please try to avoid making comments that can be perceived as offensive.
-Sulman
 

abhigames

Member
Messages
709
One of my roommates is gay....it happens at NYU. joking - he's cool. learned a lot from him about gay community from him. we argue a lot though too...mostly about dishes.
 

HarmanSingh

New Member
Messages
531
Vick, to say you are ?cool with people being gay? then immediately clarify that by essentially saying you are cool as long as you don?t know about it, you are basically saying you AREN?T cool with homosexuality. That is like when people say, ?I have no problem with blacks?as long as they aren?t around me.? Either you accept homosexuals as human beings and choose to look at them as PEOPLE first, and realize that being gay is only a part of who they are, or you do not accept homosexuals and choose to minimize them to their sexuality. I mean, are you JUST a heterosexual? Just JUST Indian? No..your a human being, with a wide range of things which make you, you. And as far as why they would ?choose? to show of their gayness, I ask you if I should stop wearing a pugh and try and blend in with society, because that too brings plenty of bad to me from ignorant folks out there. Just like straight ?show off? their gayness with wedding rings and with talking about their wives and girlfriends everywhere, they people have just as much of a right to do the same.

Regarding your question Meistro, as I am sure you know, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib makes no explicit mention of homosexuality. So what we have to go on is the overall essence of Sikhi and the way in which a Gursikh behaves and responds to the world. While Vedanti condemned homosexuality, and it surely is not accepted by our communities (Indian, Pakistani, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh), it is important to note that particularly for Sikhi, Punjabi culture often takes precedence over Sikhi. For this reason, people may say it ?against? our culture, but what culture exactly? Sikhi promotes respecting everyone and loving everyone for who they are. So as a Sikh, I would never say a homosexual is subhuman or evil as some Christians or Muslims may argue. So, Sikhs should support civil unions for homosexuals, as they deserve every right a heterosexual person has, being they are just as human and just as valuable as any human.

The real question for Sikhs is, is homosexuality an acceptable way of life for a Gursikh. I am one to say it should not matter. Many argue it is lustful, but I ask you why that is? Just because a person is gay does not mean they are out there thinking about gay butt sex all day. They, like most heterosexuals, view a relationship as more than sex, but a mental and emotional connection. Sex is just a component of their relationship, as is with all relationships. In regards to raising a family, the way our community is so far in the hole with domestic abuse and female infanticide, lets not recycle neo-con talking points and say homosexuality erodes the family?straight people are doing that plenty good on their own. The soul has no gender. So when two people marry, their souls merge and become one?if it is 2 women, so be it.

Let gays marry, adopt and live their lives. There are millions of orphaned kids out there who could use a family to love for and care for them. If it is made up of 2 men or 2 women, so be it. The family dynamic may be different, but surely a child is better off with 2 dads then with no dads. And it seems to me people hung up on homosexuality act as if gay guys are going to somehow convince them to be gay. Personally, I am plenty attracted to women and am not worried a bunch of gay guys will somehow tempt me into being gay. Let people live their lives. The world needs more love.
 

Arjun Barua

Member
Messages
650
Amen, Harman bro.

On a lighter note, watch my buddies Jerry, George, and Kramer acting gay...

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GMZjkNW5b8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsvvriKI3qE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OjjlelN4hg
 

Summy

New Member
Messages
11
Message to the moderators: You guys really need to stop adding your two cents in when you moderate. First it was Nikhil who said I was trying to force my opinions on to others. Now, Sulman is saying that Vick demanded other people abide by his percieved notion of a lifestyle. I found no such thing. Sure Vick's comments may have been out of line, but why dont you tell people why it was not acceptable and then move on. If your moderating, be moderate and dont add your opinion to your moderation. If you want to, then post under your account name. Its not fair that people must read your comments and your opinion on peoples thoughts when we read what they have to say.


Harman and Mesitro,

Personally, Homosexuality is something that is natural and happens in life. The basic foundation in sikhi is not to judge other people's rightness and wrongness. If we sit there and entertain this conversation of whether homosexuality is acceptable in sikhi or not, the basic conversation is something that goes against the basic tenents. In sikhi, the reason why we dont force our view on people, why we dont convert, is because we believe judgment of other peoples lifestyle's is inherently wrong. Whether it be religion, sexual preference etc...

But we can talk about sikhi and gay marriage, the orginal topic. Sikhi's marriage rituals is something that is not very suitable to same sex marriages. If two men or two women wanted to get married, there are some things that they will have to change under sikhi practices, that would bring into question the religious validity of the marriage. The passing of the kirpan and paisa, milni, barat etc... these are all practices that need a distinct female and male role, so there is that question that needs to be answered.


Harman I dont know where you stand on the meat eating issue (I forgot) but I find it remarkable that people dont use your approach when it comes to meat eating. You said there is no explicit mention of gay marriage or homosexual relations in Shri guru Granth sahib ji, which is true, but again people use that as an excuse of why to eat meat. Because even though the shabads, lifestyles of the guru's and other non guru granth sahib ji literature from the guru's promote a vegetarian lifestyle, people think just because it is not explicitly said in guru ji that meat eating is bad, people do it. I think you are right, we must look at the essence of sikhi to see whether it is acceptable or not.

The guru granth sahib ji is not an instruction booklet, this is the main thing that people must realize. It is not something that says DO this, and DONT DO THIS. If your looking for that, hit up the 10 commandments, sikhi is not for you. Sikhi is a lifestyle... Now can homosexuality be part of this lifestyle?

There was an interesting article that I read A LONG TIME ago and sexuality and religion. It was written by an indian who claimed that all religions of india had the surroundings of sexuality, but it is remarkable how none of the religions (except for hinduism and the sutra which taken out of context a lot) go into sexuality a lot. So many sikh "leaders" have come out against homosexuality and the acceptablity of it in Sikhi. That may influence people, it doesnt with me though...

I think Meistro when you say that sikhi looks down upon the caste system, so should this be transferrable towards sexual orientation, you may bring up a good point. There is no right and wrong with this answer, just because if the Guru's are supposed to be our guides in life, what happens when there is no guidence on this issue? If you look at the essence of sikhi, it promotes equality of all types, but the practices of sikhi may not practice equality. Some would argue that if Guru ji's were for the marriage of same sexes, why would there be distinctly separate practices in marriage for men and women? Although sikhi marriage was fully enstilled by guru gobind singh ji, there is evidence that it happen well before then...

Furthermore if you look at the practices of a "marriage" in some sikhi lit, you might come to the conclusions that again, same sex marriage was not thought of. The practices of a man and woman in everyday life in accordance to each other. The bottom line is that, if we were to assume that our guru's has some level of tolerance towards same sex marriages, why wouldnt they take this into account when coming up with marriage for example.


I am all for same sex relations, and I am not going to go into it for the sake of time. There is nothing wrong with it, breaking the stigma is a challenge that the world will face for a long time. When talking about religion specfically sikhi, we must think about the lifestyle that is sikhi. The lifestyle enacted by our gurus and some of rituals would show proof that same sex relations were never taken into account. Does that make it inherently right or wrong? Thats the question.
 

Vick

Member
Messages
990
I dont see how my comments are out of line... Iv met two kinds of gay people, those are who are gay and act like normal human beings... By normal I mean, they talk normal, they dont have that wack ass accent, etc etc... Hell one of my buddies was gay, and I didnt have the slightest clue... It's not like I stopped being friends with him or something, like someone said earlier, I actually learned a lot about the gay life style... But those flaming gays, f that, that should not be allowed in public... Society cant accept women breast feeding in public(which is NATURAL), why should we accept two guys making out? I think some gay people have inferiority complexes or some shit and they some how mask them with their flamboyant lifestyles... Theres is nothing worse than watching two guys make out, may god punish me for saying that, and I know every single one of you agree with it, but dont have the balls to speak up(pretty much 99% of members on BTF)... Instead you'll still there and nit pick my arguement to death to show how your taking the high road and your all intellectual and shit... save it... Being gay is cool with me, the choice is yours, but there are somethings that should not be out in public...
 

Saleem

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
1,928
Vick you didnt say I dont want them making out or having gay sex in front of you, you were saying it's fine that they're gay as long as they don't act all gay/flamboyant around you. Which is like what someone else said, "black people are fine as long as theyre not near me" or like you said "i'm fine with black ppl as long as they don't act all n*****ly around me". you're either ok with them, sterotypical-flamboyance and all, or not. No one said you have to embrace making out in public -- a lot of people can't stand heterosexual PDAs and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable.
 

sulmoney

smd, bitch
Messages
532
sorry for not expanding my moderator note at time of writing it:

i received a direct complaint from a member who said that if his/her gay friends read it, they would have been offended, and as harman eloquently and saleem copy paste from me said, it would have been the same as saying, "its ok to be black as long as you dont act like a stereotypical black around me". the moderator message was meant to be preemptive to avoid any potential offensive statements from coming up. sorry for any confusion
-sulman "regular font" mirza
 

Sher Foundation

New Member
Messages
33
Clearly the question was Prop 8 and what Sikhism states on this issue. Talking about "flaming" guys and assuming crap about their lifestyle because of an inferiority complex is way out of line. Also, this is a public forum but the moderators run this website. There is no harm in enforcing general etiquette when it comes to posting on here. One does not have to read the moderator comments as moderator notes ARE in blue and in no way are they trying to force their opinion on us. Not to mention, our moderators are active participants on this forum as well. Lastly, public breast feeding is allowed in most of the states including california. If Society (or even the majority) of society cant stand it, it would not be a law. Lets not assume how society feels. It was a simpler time when our Gurus lived that is why this issue is not in the SGGS. Although I would be pissed if the SGPC tries to enforce how they feel about this through the rehat mareyada.
 

Saleem

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
1,928
Yes let's please get back on topic to the original question, which was an interesting one.
 

Vick

Member
Messages
990
Talking ebonics or whatever and being flamboyantly gay are two different things... One deals with sexuality, the other deals with a form of communication... Sexual orientation is a still a sensitive topic in the United States... I have nothing against the way black people talk.. You can just look at it like another language of some sort... But sexuality is different... I define marriage as between a man and a woman. Gay people are human, I understand that. But at the same time, they have to understand that their actions are not exactly the norm in society. Some people look down upon gays, some people straight hate on them... I'm not one of those, they have decided to live a certain lifestyle and I respect that. I guess I dont understand gay people or something. What makes them so out there? Why is it so hard to fit in with everyone else? It's the way they conduct themselves that I have a problem with. If they lived like 99% of America, then I would have no problems at all with them... Like I said before, I know a handful of gay people personally, and I have no problems with them... You can like some and not all... Its not an all or nothing situation...
 

Summy

New Member
Messages
11
Haha Vick, your a funny guy.
---

Sher foundation, and Moderators,

Thats fine if you want to add your two cents on the subject or what people have to say, do it under your account name. There are people who when i see their name, I skip by their comment because they have nothing substanial to say. I dont want read your opinions about what people have to say. No matter how outrageous it may seem, let them say it, moderate it, and then move on. Enforce the etiquette but dont add your little opinion after you reinforce the rules of the website. The truth is, I have been acccused of forcing by opinions on others, right under my bost, which belittles what I have to say, and how I say it. You want to moderate, do it, enforce the rules, but do it in a manner that doesnt include your own spin on things...


Sher foundation, it was a "simpler" time when our Guru's lived? Homosexuality has been a part of this world long before our Guru's. You cant believe that the issue of homosexuality wasnt present during the times of our gurus. Our guru's thoughts transcend time and society, so having said that, this bullshit argument of "well the times when our gurus lived in were different and simple, and gays didnt run wild like they do today" doesnt fly. Does that mean that I shouldnt as a gursikh wake up and naam jaap in the morning because when the gurus said to do it, it was a simpler time? Common. Believe it or not, homosexuality was part of the society in India in which gurus did grow up

All that is being said with sikhism is that, IF the guru's felt a need for the equality of same sex marriages to be a part of the sikhi lifestyle, then they wouldnt have restricted the practices of marriage and the act of being married to men and women. Not saying that gurus didnt believe in same sex marriages, or if they were inherently against same sex relations, it is just something to think about.

If you read the guru ji completely, there is such an emphasis on marriage life, expanding ones family etc... So much on the importance of conceiving and carrying children, and this is all in an effort to complete god's creations, and will. So, one may find homosexuality inherently against these values. One may find that the notions of homosexuality who cant create, is something unatural. ON the flip side, you have the underlying essentality of the soul's and not a body. IN sikhi we have no connection to the body. The soul is eternal, and any wedding be them between a sikh and a jew or a sikh and a sikh, is a connection between two souls. This is explicity in Guru Ji. That a marriage lasts for lifetimes beyond this one. So, that can provide examples where homosexuality is acceptable in sikhi. If the body means nothing, then who cares if its a man or a woman.

If you look at it wholistically, weddings and the emphasis on marriage and creation in sikhi may lead one to believe that sikhi is not favourable with gay marriage. But the theory can be used to support it. An actual marriage in my opinion between two sikhs of the same sex, to me sounds impossible without changing tradition, so again, that calls into the validity of the religious ceremony.
 

Sher Foundation

New Member
Messages
33
Hahahahaha as much as i like you summy and your thoughts i sense defensiveness in your words (might be wrong). When i say "it was a simpler time" why do you take it so literally? You really think people back in the day were out trying to prevent gay practice laws from being passed? You really think back in the day partnership rights from the government was an issue? Get with the program man that is not what im trying to say. Were communication systems as good as they are today? I never said that homosexuality did not exist back in the day. It just was not the 1st thing..or the 2nd thing..or even probably (im guessing do not get mad or take this literally) the 100th thing that concerned our gurus. You honestly think that if this was an issue back then and the gurus knew about it...they would not have a say on the issue?? The SGGS is pretty straight forward in its teachings. There is little gray area and many people have their own interpretations to that but really..the SGGS was not meant to be a riddle or a puzzle.

Truth is it was a simpler time back then. The amount of social issues that exist today, especially those that have been over dramatized are incomparable to how life once used to be. I think everyone can tell you it was a simpler time.

"Does that mean that I shouldnt as a gursikh wake up and naam jaap in the morning because when the gurus said to do it, it was a simpler time?"

no.

VIck i could not agree with you more man. This issue can get way out of hand so let me simplify my thoughts. I too believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. The term "marriage" holds such religious and sacred value that by allowing gays to get married for example in a church or in a gurudwara...i would feel extremely uncomfortable with that. Dont get me wrong, i am totally down for gay PARTNERSHIP, a civil partnership, so that they can get all the rights (medical, etc) as a regular married couple but i just dont think that the actual practice of marriage should be changed. I mean who knows what next? People fighting over marrying their dogs? (believe it or not there are people that much in love with their pets) I know this is an extreme example but there is no stopping the future implications and problems if the barrier of marriage is broken.
 

Saleem

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
1,928
Maybe if this takes off we can split the topic and discuss this separately buuuut: SF, I always hear this slippery slope argument ("people will marry their dogs!!!1") and I don't believe it for a second.

I think two of the panels here are pretty relevant


The idea of interracial marriage is that two equal, consenting adults should be allowed to marry.
The idea of gay marriage is that two equal, consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

The slippery slope does not extend to children (WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN) or marrying housepets (which both you and the cartoon mention). Give me one fathomable, realistic extension of two consenting, human adults marrying that could be a result of gay marriage; note that it BY DEFINITION need to be endorsed by the majority of society, so I don't think incest is on this list. As the cartoon says, I don't think this slope is nearly as slippery as you think it is.
 

Sher Foundation

New Member
Messages
33
haha thats a funny cartoon but thats why i called my dog example "extreme" tho. I just feel that marriage has more significance than the bonding 2 "adults" (children, etc). There are religious implications as well. Im trying to think of a good metaphor but none are coming to mind right now! haha

Pavan
 

Meistro

Asi Shounk Nu Karaiyaan Muschaan Kundiyaan...
Messages
2,065
Hey guys, thanks for for insightful comments with regards to this topic. Summy, I specifically asked you for your opinions on this and you helped a lot. Totally broaded my perspective on this issue and helped me decided on the vote I wanted to submit. Thanks again folks!
 

Summy

New Member
Messages
11
No problem Mesitro, THANK YOU for bringing up some substanial on BTF, can begin to tell you how much I appreciate it. Breath of fresh air. READ BELOW IF YOU INTERESTED ON HOW TO GET SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGALIZED. (IN RED)

Sher Foundation,

I personally believe that claiming that it was a simpler time is not something I buy. Because that claims the issue of sexual equality is inherently beyond the notions and the substance of sikhi. Do you get it? I understand what you think that gay marriage and relations were no as socially present as it is today, which I agree. But it did exist, and there are examples of sexual prosecution during the times of sikhi. I believe that when the joining of two souls is discussed in a context of man and woman, it is not nescessarily a indictment of the Guru's stance on this issue, it just means that it is a possible avenue for one to look at as a notion that sikhi belives in marriage between only a man and a woman.

I am rarely defensive. I encourage criticism of my thought, because not enough people criticize with anything but more than a vague idea of what they want to say on this site. I encourage you to critisize me so long as you have substanial ideas backing it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As somewhat of a law amaetur law historian, every generation has their cases that redefines social ACCEPTABLE norms. Whether it was plessey, loving, to scott v sandford, hell even bradwell v illinois and mueller were cases that changed the acceptability of conterversial issues. People dont put enough faith in the judical branch of the government. Even though people may argue that its power may extend beyond what the orginal constitution had meant for it to be, there is little debate that its rulings do not just move past judical rulings, but into decisions that morph into moral compasses for our society.

A very unknown circumstance from the plessey ruling was that even though today we may see the ruling as so incredibly offenseive (seperate but equal), it was INCREDIBLY progressive for its day in age. The CJ said in the case: "The assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the coloured race with a badge of inferiority? is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the coloured race chooses to put that construction upon it? . In earlier race cases, African Americans were believed to be, by the Justices, as inferior to whites; however, with this quote, we can see that the Justices did not refer to African Americans as inferior, and believed that any such feelings were falsely constructed

This ruling was EXTREMELY influential in American society as it started the shift from blacks as inferior to blacks with some sort of entitlement. Eventually the country would move into some sense of equality with the civil rights movment.

So IF WE ARE REALLY SERIOUS about legalizing gay marriage, and consequently GAINING MASS AMOUNTS OF SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY, in a short amount of time, history shows the judical branch is the way to go. If the judical branch can enforce a law on the basis of inequality then you going to get more progressive rulings. Now, the next president is most liekly going to nominate more than 1 court justice to the SC. If McCain has his way, there is going to be someone there who is a strict constitionalist, which will probably mean the end of the same sex fight for a little while. I am not sure about who Obama was to send to the SC, but we need a progressive judge that doesnt abide this ridicolous 200+ plus year old document that can justify inequality on the basis of sexual orientation, and even justifying slavery.
 
Top