This channel is not just about my views but also what the Sikh Tradition holds. I'm not trying to be cool, I;m simply stating the facts of the Rehat and the idea of Nirbho, ie no hate. Its funny how some accuse me of being too "hippy" and others of discrimination. You cant please all the people all of the time, however I thank those who have messaged to express support for this "middle of the road" view. I remind you that Amrit has always had a price.
*Sikhism is a very progressive religion. But most sikhs also have a lot of punjabi culture influence because most sikhs are from punjab. So , sometimes punjabi-culture-sentiments override sikhism-sentiments and thats the only source of gay-ignorance and homophobia among sikhs. Otherwise, sikhism is totally silent, unlike abrahamics who call for gays to be stoned to death*
This destroys me, I fought with who I was as a teen. I tried to end my life on so many occasions because of the hate for myself and being gay. I tried so hard to change but I could not. It didn't set in for many years, the wisdom to know that I cannot change because this is how I was formed in the womb. Being told that I cannot take a vow to serve Waheguru like others because of whom I was made by God disturbs me. Am I not an equal child of God because God made me different than you? I started to become Sikh after I was in a committed relationship and marriage to my husband. Now I am being told by you that somehow I am unfit to serve? What service are you giving to Waheguru by closing your mind? The Gurus wrote down what was relevant in their time, but now society has progressed and truths have come into the light. Sikhi must evolve or it is just stabbing at the heart of Waheguru. I will take Amrit, not out of defying Waheguru, because it would not be defying, but out of my commitment to serve and stand as Khalsa. Did Guru Gobind Singh ask those five men who they loved on earth or did he ask the crowed for someone who was willing to serve. Waheguru does not ask for anything but our commitment to love, to serve and to take action. Whom one loves, in a dual-consenting manner that does no harm, is irrelevant. ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ """""ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ""""""ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
Its like becoming a priest and still being married. The persons love for god does not disappear but everyone knows you cannot stay married and become a priest. the five loved ones gave their heads. they were willing to give up their life. Guru gobind singh ji gave his 4 sons. and he declared that before taking amrit. Its a sacrifice. So if you are with your husband then stayed married andbe happy. help people and progress. I havnt taken amrit yet because its such a big commitment.
You need to watch it again. You clearly didn't understand what he was saying. He never said that gays can't serve. It's about gay marriage & being amritdhari(baptized) at the same time. That issue is still open for discussion, not set in stone. Calm down. Millions of kids grow up with problems, eating whatever they are provided, wearing whatever they get, doing whatever they are told, some not liking their skin color, some not liking their physical appearance, etc. Its called life. Toughen up & learn to mold yourself for better & easier life. Same way baptized sikhs are advised against masturbation. Should they also hold a rally to change the rules?
The reason is given in the video, Every Khalsa and every Sikh is subject to the Rehat Maryada, which states that Anand Kaaraj is only between man and woman. So unless that changes, thats the rule.
What are the steps to changing the rehat maryada. was the rehat maryada created by the sikhs or the gurus? If the gurus did not make it is it possible that they do not a have a problem with homosexuality? isn't our soul supposed to be genderless, and the anand karaj is a union of two souls?
WJKK WJKF, I am very confused Basics of Sikhi...do you honestly believe that Guru Ji cares if you are in love with someone from your own gender or someone from the opposite gender? In the Anand Karaj and 4 lavan, do the hymns ever specify if it is between male and female? I'm pretty sure it says couple or two partners. Furthermore, isn't emphasis placed on one's relationship with the Guru above all else in the marriage ceremony...so why are we so focused on who the two individuals are. In addition, you didn't really say why an Amritdhari Sikh cannot marry someone from their own sex, you just said that it is forbidden in the Rehat Maryada...I was just wondering if you could clarify why you are in favor of homosexuals of having equal rights, doing seva, doing Kirtan, being Sikhs, but it stops at having a relationship? WJKK WJKF
Dear Anokh Singh ji, you may not like the answer, but I am just clarifying what the Akaal Takht Sikh Rehat Maryada says. If the Maryada is to change, there is a process. Personally I think that Maryada is a good place to start from in most issues.
Dear Sevadaar of BoS, so if you're saying it can only be changed by the courts of Akal Takht, then that means the Rehat Maryada itself doesn't have to follow what the 10th Guru has established at the time of writing. Forgive me if I've said anything wrong VJKF VJKF
you are guruji thats the truth, thats how you see it, tomorrow you'll say do you really think guruji cares if you make love to your mom; he has better things to do
Allow me to say that if u read gurugranth sahib ji U will find the answer secondly the 4 lawan da path says the alignment of ou body with our soul Guruji has directed us to improve our innerself Marriage of two same sexes in gurdwara is meani gless not becose its forbidden by rehat mariyada But technically speaking gurbani says as a woman longs for his beloved so shall v have the thirst to aline with our higherself as a person
In my interpretation of the Anand Karaj ceremony, it refers to two souls becoming one in the sight of God without gender. There is actually no mention of gender or homosexuality in Gurbani, and both people entering into marriage are considered to be the brides of Waheguru (God) and of course the Guru's were aware of homosexuality. So this leads me to believe that they didn't care nor did they think it was essential to even discussing. We aren't Christian and Homosexuality is not a sin in Sikhi
The Gurus provided an example through their life styles. In that era this question was not even something that came up thus Guru's never had to rule on it. It was objective reality and understood that a man would marry a woman with the goal of having a family and raising that family. We have created confusion today in modern society and now imposing today's confusion on the words of the Guru.
@@TvWebNews that's not supported by the equality espoused in gurbani, gender less marriage and the knowledge that the gurus had known contemporaries that were sufi sants that were openly gay.
@@TvWebNews you're literally interpreting sikhi through a Christian lense, sikhism is about live and let live, compassion, equality, not converting people, standing up for others being oppressed etc. It's clear why the gurus decided not to write about it despite religious texts more than a thousand years senior to the guru granth sahib were obsessed with the topic.
We don't discriminate homosexuals but at the same time homosexualsdon't have the same rights as everyone that is "straight" in Sikhi.... hmmmmm... does anyone else see the contradiction?!?!
There's no contradiction here. Not giving homosexuals the permission to marry is no more discrimination than not allowing a brother and sister to marry. Would you not let a brother and sister marry each other but let two brothers get married to each other, or two sisters get married to each other? If not her son, why not then let a mother marry her own daughter, or a father his son? How about polygamy? Should we approach the Rehat Marydad with a request for polygamy because men are "scientifically" shown to be "biologically wired" to mate with as many women as possible? This would be a travesty of morality, yet it is the very same form of reasoning of people in favor of the homosexual issue - a morally blind scientism mixed with pseudo-moral "rights" language. Really, forbidding certain behaviors is not the same thing as discrimination. Discrimination is more properly understood as an irrational stance against a person, not a behavior. Forbidding the approving of homosexual marriage is not discriminating against a person or persons, but is a position against a behavior that a person insists on performing. No one is forbidden to love the other, only not to engage in sex with all people. In truth, there is no such thing as a gay person or a straight person. There is only a person and a prescribed Path. Follow it or don't, but don't throw mud on an already clear Path. The Guru discriminates against greed and pride, so should we say this is not fair? Should we say it is not fair for the Guru to ask for our heads? Do we want to give our heads but not our private parts?
Narayan Singh Looks like I have to make this very simple to understand for someone like you. First of all, you are comparing rocks to flowers when you compare incest to homosexuality. They are not in the same chapter. So first learn to address the topic using right examples. The argument about monogamy has been going on for a while... so before just selecting one part of an argument do more research on the topic. The findings on monogamy and polygamy is based on studies of species in nature and a reference is drawn based on those studies... again you are not using the right examples. Please do yourself a favor and do more research on the subject matter. The very fact you claim gay people have no rights to marriage is discrimination and what act are you talking about? You are contradicting yourself here when you say there is no such thing as straight and gay and then you say its a wrong behavior. It is wrong based on your understanding of the world based upon the values that have been given to you by society and that you have decided to take on as your own. Guruji is against many things but here is where we have to see the matter placed between the two ears that most of us have. You have to understand why they were against it.... do you think they were against it because it could led to happiness or disaster? Answer that for yourself. Now answer this, who will gay marriages destroy? You? Your family? No one right. So why condemn a group of individuals that have different set of beliefs in terms of relationship than you? Unless you are pure of thought and have never self indulged in pleasuring your dick... don't start saying things such as, "Do we want to give our heads but not our private parts?" Because you sound like a fool. What does wanting to be married have anything to do with private parts. An argument can be made that based on Sikhi teaching that individuals should control their lust therefore they should only have sex to have kids. Once the wife is pregnant they are no longer to fornicate ever again. Isn't that right? So then what are you doing to educate the many individuals on stopping to have sex with their wives. Using your argument, "Do we want to give our heads but not our private parts?"
sureshsingh Your argument criticizing my logic is false. Male and male marriage obviates the rules of incest because the rules against incest are, among other things, based on keeping away genetic deformities, and since a father-son or mother-daughter marriage could not produce any children, it would side-step issues of genetic deformity and therefore of incest. As such, it is not comparing rocks and flowers, but is identifying the same logic running throughout, that of attraction being the new guiding principle in finding a marriage partner. Attraction is not the paramount property in selecting a marriage partner, but character and commitment as well as other factors including being of opposite sex. Read Gurbani a little closer and you will find that it assumes heterosexual normativity. You said, "The findings on monogamy and polygamy is based on studies of species in nature and a reference is drawn based on those studies." This shows that your God is secular science and NOT Gurbani. The Gurus saw into the Ultimate Nature of Reality, into God's Divine Court, and if there was permission given in heaven for such a thing as homosexuality they would have given a clear idea of this. The Gurus were not afraid to be countercultural, so it is not simply because they were men of their times that they did not advocate the permissibility of homosexuality, but because they saw into the Timeless nature of Sat Nam. You also said, "Unless you are pure of thought and have never self indulged in pleasuring your d[]k... don't start saying things such as, "Do we want to give our heads but not our private parts?" Because you sound like a fool. What does wanting to be married have anything to do with private parts." This sort of statement is so contrary to Skihi that it is hard to imagine you have any respect for the Guru at all. You are even using profanity(which you may notice I edited in my quoting of you), which shows you have no respect either for me or for the proper use of the tongue (even in print form). That said, the logic is poor because it assumes that two wrongs make a right, that if a straight person is lead by lust it is therefore okay for a homosexual to be lead by lust; or it is false because it assumes that unless a person is totally pure then they cannot give advice. I am sorry, but this is false because on this basis you would have no ground to criticize me because it would mean you are violating your own principle to be impure and yet render me advice. Furthermore, marriage does have a lot to do with private parts. Why? Because marriage has a lot to do with having children. Sikhism is a householder faith, which means having and raising a family, and outside of technological contraptions only male and female can properly and naturally constitute the basis of a family. And so of course homosexuality leads to disaster. It may not seem to on the surface, but neither does eating too much sugar or fried foods look like it is dangerous on the surface. It erodes the natural family, which erodes society. It teaches that the proper basis for marriage is physical attraction, which is totally false. It undermines the clear teaching of God's natural order, which obviously leads to destruction. Finally, when I say there is no such thing as straight and gay, you ought to understand that this is a reference to the totally made up nature of these categories. Sometimes I am forced to speak according to these categories for the sake of discussion, but in reality these are man-made terms used to make a distinction of "types" of people which are totally made up. People are given a dharma, and often this contravenes feelings and desires, even persistent and longstanding desires. Making "types" out of desires such as represented by gay or straight is irreligious and humanistic, and so I correctly maintain that there is no underlying truth to the terms gay and straight, and that what is true is the dharma of being a man or a woman and living according to the householder ideals of the Sikh Gurus as was exemplified in their lives, man marrying woman.
Narayan Singh I lost interest after the first line in the 3rd paragraphs in what ever you're typing... you're an individual who apparently "believe" they know what god wants. Which is really sad but for someone who is adamant in wanting to discriminate, I find no logic in debating with you. Again I would suggest you do more research between the topic of incest and homosexuality and choose argumentative points carefully, I can crush your arguments as I did before quite easily but there would be no point for you're a person who enjoys discriminating.... carry on typing after this I find no challenge and no intellectual stimulation in debating with someone using poor facts.
sureshsingh You said, "you're an individual who apparently "believe" they know what god wants." Apparently you think you know what God wants, as that sort of statement cuts both ways. Either you know or you don't know, and if you think you don't know, then you have no basis of argumentation, yet if you think you do know, then your critique of me proves senseless. You are misunderstanding my argument, and so in the interest of good will I will explain it again. The basis of marriage is not attraction, for attraction could be towards any one or any thing. There is more to marriage than attraction, and so if someone is attracted to the same sex, it is not a basis for marriage, especially in Sikhi. Homosexuals argue that their attraction to the same sex is the justification for marrying people of the same sex, but this is not proper, because attraction could be for anyone, even one's own parent or child, or for multiple partners. As such, attraction cannot be the fundamental factor, but what is fitting according to God, and God arranges biology and physiology such that man and woman are to join for marriage such that children can come from the joining. The potential for children alone is evidence that male-female coupling is the proper alignment. I don't expect you to thoughtfully consider these arguments, as you admitted openly that you didn't even read my entire response, and so I write for those who may not have a voice in this culture of rampant amoralism.
mano a mano - Does the keyboard have a question mark key? Shaming a Seeker of Truth with Sarcasm? Sarcasm is to rip flesh off bones like a Wolf. You got nipped for not fostering hope but shame. BUZZZZ Foul. You Added nothing but division. Serve the One.
The more I learn about Sikhism the more I am loving it ! I really think entire Hindu population should convert to Sikhism...truely all-inclusive religion...only one who accepts all. The emphasis on the idea of Oneness !
They are not worthy, there ego wouldnt let them, they identify to deeply with being hindus even if there not a real hindu and know nothing about there own religion, they will blindly follow it.
Shut up and convert yourself. Sikhi is a watered down version of Hinduism and also includes elements of Islam. Why would we convert to it? You sound idiotic with the Christmas tree in your display picture. Are you a Hindu, Sikh or Christian?
@@Sideways_Singhsasti copy of "hinduism and Islam"......why will I wear tuban for all of my life in this heat?!.....only drug addicts and ganster are worth of this religion!!
its so nice to see that there are genuine and good people still willing to speak their mind. thanks for your support. it means the world for so many of us.
"You seem to maintain that the presence of the desire is the determining factor in a person's identity" I maintain that one's sexual orientation is biological just like one's hormones are biological. Sexual orientation doesn't make a person's identity, rather it's "a part" of it. Accepting who you are, when who you are isn't harmful, is not a form of slavery. Trying to change who you are because a religious fanatics make erroneous claims, IS a form of slavery.
"If it were the natural condition, the Gurus would have explicitly allowed it and there would have been explicit cases where the gay cause was championed." This is a fallacy. There are thousands of natural conditions that the Gurus didn't mention. It's impossible for the Gurus to mention everything. So it's complete nonsense to assume that just because the Gurus didn't mention homosexuality, that they must have deemed it as wrong.
"Again, if it is completely subjective, you have no ground to argue that homosexuality is right or wrong" Again, I never argued that homosexuality was bad or good, because HETEROSEXUALITY is not good or bad either. It just IS. Attraction to the gender(s) of a human being, just is. The end. It's not good or bad to speak french either. It just "is".
I think gay gursikhs should be allowed to marry one another and have that count as a marriage and union. It seems clear to me that this issue may not have been thought of when the rules were set. And if they were, I think that if the Gurus lived today they would have changed it. 5 years later- I just have a problem with prejudice. The Gurus were equalizers of their time. Withholding rights from homosexuals is prejudice, because being gay is written in DNA. A person cannot change that part of themself.
***** And there's no way on Earth they would have countenanced 'gay marriage' and Khalsa men pursuing other Khalsa in relationship. This is the spiritual sickness that comes from living in such a reprobate 'culture' too long, and allowing their deviant values to soak into you. We should be dyed in the Naam, not soaking up twisted values.
You're defeating your own argument. You say homosexuality is a recent thing, then go on to admit that Romans practiced it widely. That's true, of course; Romans and Greeks indulged in every kind of deviant sexuality; the sex between old men and young boys was especially prized, and bestiality was celebrated too. In divine culture, of course, there is no place for such perversion. It's not a question of hate, it's all about honouring life and the laws of life we were blessed with. As I had said, you're just dutifully representing the voice of a very wayward culture that predominates today; a culture that is very enamoured with how 'advanced' and 'enlightened' we've all become, while the sacred Creation falls apart around our ears. Pollution, global warming, deforestation, species extinction, unprecedented psychosis and anti-social behaviour, violence at epic levels, toxic waste piling up, but we're convinced we're becoming so wonderful and progressive...
First of all, God makes no mistakes. All people are born with an attraction to one or both genders. What "laws of life?" Is there some book carved into a tree that's existed since the beginning of time? Being gay occurs as naturally as you or I being attracted to the opposite sex. What if somebody told you it was wrong to like women? You just do. That's it. You never hurt a woman. Maybe all you want is to be married or in a relationship. And what's wrong with anyone wanting that? Being gay hurts no one. Why should anyone complain that gays can have the same rights that we have always had? Child molestation happens between old men and little girls as often if not way more than boys and men. And being attracted to the same sex does not have anything to do with being attracted to children. I mean just because you like women doesn't mean you would rape a little girl, right? There is nothing perverted about any two adults loving and respecting each other.
If "God makes no mistakes" how do you explain sexual reassignment surgery? Why do so many homosexuals feel like "a girl in a man's body"? Did God make a mistake? Then they proceed to do some frankenstein surgery debacle to try to approximate the opposite gender. Is this 'bold' and 'natural' and beautiful and 'brave'? or can we admit this is some kind of turmoil and mental affliction? As I said, you're speaking as a trusted voice of this 'enlightened' world; I'll stick with the sacred world Har Har gave us.
If we got back the Punjab of the Sikh Empire of Ranjit Singh, then Pakistan and India would have to give it to us. I like the idea, but its unlikely. Better to aim for Khalsa Raj in India.
Personally I think we should start small, establishing rule in one place (just in Panjab of India although I would want the entire Panjab of our Sikh Empire) so we can create more Sikhs who can be rid of backwards Indian culture where they stop practicing nonsensical rituals that have no connection with God (for Sikhs mainly as Hindus have their own ways so I won't stop them) and I think when we have good Parchariks we can start converting more people into Sikhs and soon be able to establish Khalsa Panth all over the world but right now I would want to focus on Panjab and its youth.
I'm not a perfect individual and all I can do is my bit to spread bani. There's no way I can please everyone. I felt the video above was about speaking for tolerance and against homophobia. I;m not destroying any family. Taking Amrit is not compulsory, its a choice of giving your head and accepting the Guru Panths decision and SRM and living in accordance. If we cannot unite inspite of our differences in opinion, then what hope is there for the Panth? Dont we all have to compromise?
Yes we should compromise. What if a gay person wants to be Amritdhari and also have a happy married life? That is the same right that a heterosexual has. Nobody should have to lose one right to gain another.
@@SpoonfulofCinnamon the Panj Pyaare (five cherished) surrendered themselves before Guru Sahib when asked for sacrifice. They obtained the blessing of Amrit and became Khalsa. Other Singhs such as Baba Deep Singh Ji and Bhai Bachittar Singh Ji waged war against tyranny and attained martyrdom fighting for righteousness. The way of the Khalsa is unique. It is not meant to be a mere ritual. Amrit has always had a price. Akaaalluh!
This remains an issue for the Khalsa Panth to decide. no religious fanatic is pulling my ears. I have nothing against Gay people nor legal same sex marriages. However, I have made the decision not to hold views that go against the Sikh rehat Maryada. "Panth Vasse, Mai Ujra" - Unity more than uniformity. VJKKVJKF
+BassIsMyYoga 2112 Thats Turban and its not fashion thing. Beside that anyone can wear it or purchase one but You should only wear it when you can take care of it..thnx
+U.R.GreenMango More Hello, I think we had a miscommunication there. I understand what a turban is and I'm aware it is what a baptized Sikh wears over uncut hair. I also never said it was a "fashion thing". I was asking what the scarves were called that you have on around your necks in this video and wear someone could buy one. :) Sorry for any confusion.
@@SynthesizersForPeace The gurus have given it for practical use, as when ones hands are hygienic and they have to touch something unhygienic, a person can cover their hand in the small turban and handle it, or say they needed to scratch their face but were reading from the guru granth sahib, they could cover their hygienic hand around the cloth, and scratch. It can also be used as a bandage to wrap around a wound. It can be used as a weapon if heavy objects were wrapped inside. It's a physical representation of respect for the guru, to show that we are beggars at his door.
I was referring to a decolonized Punjabi-speaking, Sikh majority state consisting of old Punjab/Sikh Empire. Modern-day demographics would likely prevent the old borders but nevertheless, Punjab is a nation with a people that have been deprived of their right of self-determination.
We don’t need all the land of Ranjit Singh, tho even he and the misls mostly started in modern day Panjab, and North half of Haryana, we don’t need size even if we do we gotta start with something first even if small, just like Ranjit Singh did, even if it’s the tiny modern day panjab the principles of sikhi and the khalsa would reestablish our utopia
Bro, the thing with Hukam is that its not always what we want. I support Panthic Unity and the Sikh rehat Maryada (SRM) is clear about this. As stated in other comments, if the SRM changes via sarbat khalsa, then I'd have no problem with it. As I said, I have no problem with gay/queer Sikhs, I'm more interested in people working to set up Satjug all over the world, fighting injustice etc. As Khalsa, we need to accept the Panths decision. Gay Amritdhari couples could live together without sex??
If ur bahangam (not married ) u devote your life to guru ji entirely you leave everything and just meditate and do Bagti but if you get married the only reason u are getting married is to expand the khalsa panth and help your partner to get closer to guru ji Forgive me for any mistakes Vjkk vjkf
I doubt it but if the Panth agreed it, then I'd accept it. When you say Khalistan, do you mean India or Punjab. Watch our video on "Do we need a Khalistan"?
We were talking about homosexuality in our class at my school and I asked a question that what are the sikhi views about gays and my teacher said there is no such thing written about homosexual people in guru granth sahib ji
but marriage is the unitement of 2 souls and souls are gender less so what's wrong with homosexuality in amritdhari Sikhism? also the guru's were around for 200 years and they clearly highlighted what a Sikh is and isn't and not once did they say that being gay is bad so I don't think there's anything wrong with bring an amritdhari Sikh and gay
+ethereal beauty Thats you opinion bhenji but the Panth has a procedure for making decisions like this, its the sarbat Khalsa. At the current moment, you can be a gay Amritdhari but you cant be in a gay relationship
Gay marriage was seen wrong in the world since the beginning until it has been legalised recently. So it's not surprising that all religions has forbidden it. Religions are ancient. But you still have the choice to pick homosexuality over religion. If that's what you choose to do you still have to respect the view of the religions regardless of you agreeing with the view or not. That's if you want your views to be respected.
I wish the Gurdwara and Sikh Community would accept Sikh gay youth and support them. I feel like the Punjabi/Indian culture is where all the bigotry is and people need to be better Sikhs because the Gurus did not teach hate.
Our Indian culture affects us Sikhs to much. It's disgusting if I see a Sikh being homophobic towards a homosexual. Our Gurus told us to treat everyone with equality and respect regardless of caste, religion, skin colour or sexual orientation. It's sad how much people still live in the past.
In time of gurus, there were no gays or sikhs who used to love each other. Hence presently, every granthi or amritdhari interprets his own personal beliefs as guru's voice for anything that is modern. That's where the problem lies.
There are valid reasons for following Maryada, but I'm wondering what yours are. I personally feel quite conflicted on it, I feel some stuff in it was necessary but some stuff just over reaches it's area of control. I mean some stuff in there nobody follows anymore.
I know of heterosexual relationships that are deeply abusive, and of homosexual relationships that are an example to us all. In fact their relation gives them confidence and wholeness and strength to lead exemplary lives, which benefit not just them, but their whole community. Surely if these people want to offer this union under their God, they should be welcomed with open arms and afforded equality. Religions should always evolve as society evolves, or risk losing all respect of it's own followers. For instance, Christianity is fast losing its congregation. People lose faith because the church is so out of touch with our internal moral compass. For example: "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11 "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) This is just rediculous. Is this what God really wants? If so, I want no part of it. I'm not Sikh. I'm not religious at all, but I can identify with Sikhism more than any other religion I've come across. I think this is due in part to it being relatively new, and therefore more of this time. It is respectful of women,community and self and this is close to my own moral compass. It also seems to put its money where it's mouth is. When the riots were going on, I saw the Southall Sikhs were out in force to protect the WHOLE community. Again, that spoke to me as a human being, and was in harmony with my own moral set. I'm not homosexual, I'm a father and stepfather of 4 children, but if my child told me he/she was homosexual, I would , as a loving father, support and guide them in their sexuality to the best of my ability. How would I assure my children were a force for good, and had good morals and were loving, caring and tolerant in our community, if I shunned them? It's the same I think for religion.
Matt Chapman I totally agree with you that whether a relationship is homosexual or heterosexual, it has no bearing on how loving or nurturing the relationship is. Firstly its not that homosexuals are not welcome into Sikhi - they are and their sexuality has no impact on the actual practice of Sikhi, ie prayer, meditation and service. If you watch the video about "Can Lesbians have Anand Kaaraj" then its made clear that the Khalsa has been given the ability to make changes to the "Rule of Conduct" but for that to happen, we need a sarbat khalsa. Being a Sikh will never mean you have to shun anyone, the main principle of Sikhi is compassion and justice.
Basics of Sikhi I love your videos a lot. I also think it's clear you're passionate to work through the issues; trying to be faithful and fair. Your view is definitely more reasoned than some I've come across, and I'm blessed to hear you often. On this issue though I think there still remains a break between the interior experience, plus how the divine is experienced in relationship, up against how a barrier is placed on this issue at some point for homosexual Sikhs. I know I've felt, if I should have to make a comparison, like a dalit in the caste system - I've been told to accept I can't progress beyond a certain point in the temporal aspects because of what I am. The advice, at least for same, is to deny the attraction (and get married) or stay celibate (then everyone asks why). These injunctions clash with the interior truth of what many feel spiritually - that they shouldn't be denied a relationship/treated in this way on the issue. The reality, at least for many, is that it's very painful and they feel they can't progress, or it's at least hampered, because of it. I think it has been a side issue in the past but I think this will change, of sorts, because there is a reasonable sized homosexual population and it impacts family/friends somewhere along the line. As people increasingly feel they can ask questions, be honest, and so on then I think this issue will come up more and less people will be satisfied with the answer, at least how it currently stands. I don't expect you to change your view or solve the issue. I also know you are but one among many others. I just wanted to say, well, what I did and hope my experience adds something. Thanks.
It is not a fallacy to assert that the overwhelming majority of all major religions have denounced homosexuality, that the Gurus maintained the same practice and did not annul it, and that only in the last twenty years or so has this even been questioned. To claim that what I am saying is "nonsense" is itself nonsense. I am being completely sensible, I am looking at the evidence, I am considering the inner logic of morality, which comes from God, not man and not nature.
This is going to prevent thousands of gay people and trans people who otherwise would give their head to the guru from doing so. That causes far greater harm. Queer people should be allowed to be in a civil marriage and that includes amritdharis. I know this point of view may not be accepted, but I believe the spirit of inclusivity in sikhi should outweigh this. There is no good reason that queer people should not be able to take Amrit and be in a consensual, loving, monogamous marriage. Asking queer sikhs to not marry IS discrimination and is against the broader spirit of the faith. ALL SOULS ARE GENDER NEUTRAL. This is ignorant.
So before we can continue, I'm going to need you to provide me with an objective definition of lust, so that we can compare heterosexuality with homosexuality, to see why the latter should be labelled as lustful, while the former should not be labelled as lustful. Because so far I'm just seeing collective assumptions and agreements on this video, instead of a logical argument in which 1+1 is clearly proven to equal 2.
The mother's act of physically introducing the substance of alcohol into her body while she is pregnant, is the "action" which caused her unborn fetus to develop a chemical dependency on alcohol. Again I ask, what physical substance has to be introduced in order for someone to be gay? Is it gay sex? If so, then how do you explain the gay people who are virgins, or asexual? How did they become gay without having to engage in any acts first?
" Lust is at the root of homosexual coupling, and not at the root of heterosexual coupling" How so? Explain in detail why homosexual couplings are lustful at the root, while heterosexual coupling is not? There has to be a difference of some sort that differentiates between the two couplings. What is it? And how does it make one coupling lustful, and the other coupling non-lustful?
"Also, monogamous lust is condemned by the Gurus and Christ as well" Define monogamous lust. You mean lust that is inside of a marriage, or just inside of a non-married monogamous coupling?
This is heartbreaking. As someone new to Sikhi, I thought I had found something noble. To hear my that some of my friends and family are not as equal as others is a bitter taste. It wounds me to have to walk away from Sikhi, but I will not identify myself with any biggotry.
sorry but sikhi DOES believe in equality amongst all people regardless of their sexual orientation and even homosexuals shall be served like humans but lets not mix sikhi and homosexuality, unless it is of course from birth and such but otherwise homosexuality is purely kaam and based on desire what is the point of keeping kesh when you are changing your gender and going against hukam apologize for any hurt sentiments no one is perfect including me so you have no obligations to any single faith and sikhs do not wish to convert you but the mere desire we have is all of humanity to be engrossed in sewa and Simran and the khalsa is there to provide degh (basic neccesities like langar and shelter) and tegh(social justice) across the world in order to accomplish those serve humanity and contemplate on god, that's all you need and not just the "tag" of being of sikh good luck on your journey
I’ve heard other Sikh gurus say that it’s none of their business what others do in their personal life. Don’t leave based off of two guys’ opinions on the matter.
@@harmanjotsingh4230 Its hukam that people are gay. To think we have any power to change hukam is dukh. To judge someone as 'against hukam', is dukh. Sorry to say, you are creating dukh within yourself. Good luck on your journey
"Alcoholism is not an act, it is a condition, and is sometimes even characterized as a genetic disease" Alcoholism, even when in disease form, cannot exist without the prior action of drinking. Whether it's from someone choosing to drink alcohol, or from a mother drinking while she's pregnant (which would cause a kid to be born with an addiction to alcohol). But what does a person have to do to be gay? You don't have to have sex, kiss, date, or even hold hands with someone, in order to be gay.
"It is entirely consistent with love to maintain that homosexuality is, in the eyes of God, not the right use of sexuality." Do not deceive yourself, homophobia has never been about love, or about religion. It's always been based on the natural hatred of "gender-bending". Gay men are hated because society accuses them of acting like women, and gay women are hated because society condemns their presumption of taking on a male role in a relationship. Religion merely justifies this hatred.
And if according to the "God-given" morality of Islam/Christianity, that the Gurbani is false, then this means that anyone who lives their life by it has a false morality, and is therefore, immoral themselves. Would you agree with this? If not, then what makes your sense of morality more superior to the Muslims/Christians that call your Guru a liar? And just to be clear, I'm an Agnostic Christian, but I'm trying to incorporate Sikhism into my faith.
I agree with singh sahib, but we need amendments in rehat maryada to make it suitable for todays World. Gurus never made any maryada because it is always changeable based on situation or place you live.
You ask a simple question whether homosexuality is permitted, they spend, most of their time talking about not discriminating against them. It is a yes or no question, and elaboration if necessary, the second person answered the question but towards the end of this video.
You keep hiding behind the argument of whats in the "Rehat Marayada" and I think its perplexing that you would even use that argument. That means that you're an ardent supporter of the SGPC even after so much of their underhanded politics have been revealed in perpetuating a genocide against Sikhs within India.
If you watch our playlist on the "Rehat Maryada" you will understand that the SGPC did not make it, they print the document. The Panth made the maryada. The current SGPC is in desperate need of overhaul, yet doesn't mean that the Rehat Marydad becomes redundant
Basics of Sikhi Regardless of whether they created it or not, their ability to accurately interpret and administer has been called into question many times by the Panth. I think this is another instance where they have missed the mark. How can you deny to consenting adults the ability to be blessed in holy matrimony by their Guru? It seems like the anti-thesis of the egalitarian and anti-oppression principles that the entire faith was founded upon.
Basics of Sikhi you also do not ever in any of parchar discuss the impact of colonization the community has faced and the need for us to unlearn colonial practices we've taken on.
A Singh colonization wouldn't be a basic topic and usually does work on the blame game. The singh sabha formed it and gave it to the panth apart from the sgpc there are members of the panth who don't follow it
You tell me. I am saying that I see nowhere in Gurbani or the Bible anywhere were "x" is a moral but "y" is an ethic. The distinction is modern and based on western's culture's alienation from traditional morals, and so they came up with euphemism because they realize that morality must be discussed in some context, even if they have no enduring basis for their subjective opinions about behavior.
I agree with Bhai Sahib completely here. Being Gay is okay. --> There is no vehement objection to being gay; e.g. Khusra and Hijras. E.g. there is no stoning of gays as mentioned in our elder religions like Islam and Christianity even though these teachings were there. Gay marriage no. --> Anand Karaj only blesses a man and a woman. Gay sex; no --> As there can be no sex outside marriage.
ur saying dnt discriminate against gays, but then ur saying it is not prohibited in the guru granth sahib ji and cant do anand karaj for a gay marriage, so that is discrimination, because ur sayn we dnt allow same sex marriages LOL badway u boys are on this specific topic.
Discrimination can be at different levels. Most Gay people I know are happy to be level alone and not stared at, persecuted or stopped from succeeding financially. I hardly think that preventing a gay Sikh couple from doing the 'sikh' marriage is really discrimination, they can still do a UK Government legal marriage.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not discriminate against gays and when preforming the anand karaj its basically two souls that become one so it wouldn't matter if the marriage is between gay or straight couple. I understand what many are saying but in the Guru Granth Sahib it says that you are encouraged to start a family and have children and i believe that whenever theres mention of marriage, Guru Granth Shaib refers the marriage to be between a male and a female. Also if where encouraged to have children you can only have that between a male and a female. Theres probably a reason why there is two different genders so we could give birth to life so we have to put all are needs aside and see the truth through reading the Guru Granth Sahib
dexterous dexter Sikh marriage isn't a right of humans in general, but a privilege of Sikhs who live according to Gudbani, and Gurbani assumes heterosexuality. If a person lives outside of the teachings of the Guru, then they have no right to a ceremony done in the Name of the Guru.
dexterous dexter I appreciate a response like that, but would ask why you think that homosexuality wasn't known back then. It is a behavior that has been known of and rejected in all major religions including Sikhism since the earliest recorded history of the major monotheistic religions. I agree that Sikhism is inclusive, but it is unwavering as regards righteousness. Righteousness never evolves, and the reason this is so is because it based on the character of God, not the character of man, and since God never changes then the righteousness never changes. This is why we say "Ad Sach, Jugad Sach, Habee Sach, Nanak Hosee Bee Sach," and it is why we can know that what is righteous never changes. If righteousness changes, and we simply become inclusive for inclusiveness' sake, then we can include polygamy, serial monogamy, white lies, gossip, shaved beards, thong underwear, etc. If righteousness changes, then it means that what was formerly righteous is no longer righteous. And who decides what's righteous, as if righteousness were up to a vote or simply band wagon morality. What has changed in recent history is the take-over of morality by Western decadence. Things like The Pill and condoms create a distinction in people's minds between sex and the having of children, and so now sex is about intimacy with no real natural conclusion (i.e. a baby). And so as this continues, people think intimacy can be had with whomever seems attractive, and so since sex is now said to be about intimacy, not children, and with no consequences, homosexuality seems like a viable outlet for "sexual self-expression." Gurbani is divine in origin, and so its assumptions are divine ones, and therefore binding ones, and if we can't trust Gurbani then we certainly cannot trust man's attempts at inventing his own new and improved morality. As such, it is a sacrifice of our personal will in the matter, and accept in simplicity and humility of heart that our egos aren't reinventing a new, more inclusive morality, but are simply tearing down the divine morality established and transmitted by the Gurus in truth yesterday, today, tomorrow, and forever. Sat Nam.
dexterous dexter If you don't think there is a right or wrong answer, then you cannot say my answer is wrong, and worse, you can't say your answer is right. A problem is that you are assuming the Gurus didn't conceive of homosexuality, as if they were somehow deficient in common knowledge of such matters. They said they read all the sacred texts, and the sacred texts and teachings of both Hinduism and Islam DID and DO include a condemnation of homosexuality, and so the Gurus were most certainly aware of it and clearly did not contravene this teaching. In fact, the Gurus maintained a continuity with the faith of the saints who had gone before, and have included writings of Hindu and Muslim saints in the Guru Granth itself. If anything, this indicates a continuity with the universal condemnation of homosexuality. Again, you are speaking as if we know BETTER than the Gurus when you say, "which makes me wonder had homosexuality been known at that time like we do today it probably would have been included..." You then hide in a "non-literal" interpretation of the Guru as if the Guru can be manipulated by the fancies of one's desirous imagination. The problem you are having is that the Gurus knew and know BETTER than we do, and so we do not advance on the Guru, for the Guru is always in advance of us, otherwise it is not a Guru. But you would make the Guru the follower of man. Whenever the Guru speaks about marriage, even in more figurative language, it always uses "heteronormative" language. It is always a husband with a bride, never a husband with a husband, or a bride with a bride. At all points the Guru upholds the basic logic of male-female coupling, especially in its "non-literal" portions. Now, just because many homosexuals are nice, upstanding people, does not justify their sexual orientation. We are all nice in some ways and yet sinful in others. For example, the fact that person X is nice doesn't make right the fact that he gossips. But, someone enamored of today's scientism will say, sociologists have studied and showed that gossiping helps to build tighter bonds among workers, and studies show x, y, and z about a, b, and c benefits of gossip. These studies, however, could NEVER contradict the Gurus condemnation of such things as gossiping. The same is true of homosexuality. Sure, maybe on the surface it seems harmless, but it is against the teachings of the Guru, and no manipulation of the Siri Guru Granth Sahib will make it agree with homosexuality. You can submit to the Guru or not, and you can surrender your ego or not, but the Guru says what He says, and it is definitely against homosexuality.
I agree, but here is the sticking point, for one can only know this by their conformity to the Guru's teaching, not by a mere claim to historical continuity. The Guru's teaching transcends time and therefore the Guru's morality cannot change. If the Khalsa Panth changes the mode of its morality, then it has cut itself off from the living Guru as expressed in the Siri Guru Granth Sahib.
"It is not a fallacy to assert that the overwhelming majority of all major religions have denounced homosexuality" You're right. The fallacy is in taking this fact and trying to assert truth with it. Religions are not factual entities, they are completely subjective. Again, if you're going to say that homosexuality must be wrong because most religions deem it as such, then you must also admit that Sikhism is wrong since more prominent religions disagree with it. See the fallacy yet?
You apparently know little about Christ, the Scriptures, and the traditional interpretations of these by the saints. Righteousness is universal across the faiths you mentioned, especially concerning this issue. Read St. Maximus the Confessor, my friend, and you will see a spokesman for the Christian Church that states with John that anyone who practices is righteousness is born of God. Inasmuch as a person is righteous is the degree to which he is indwelt by God, according to Maximus.
By stating that you can be gay and amritdari if celibate completely invalidates a queer persons core identity by saying they are sexually inept. Waheguru Maharaj created me and let me tell you he made no mistake.
Following the Guru means giving up the personal will and inclination. Nanak called himself a slave of God; he did not stand before God and declare his rights or his human biology as a means of not obeying God. We all are "born" with an ego sense, and yet this is precisely what we give up when we follow the Guru. Homosexuality is like all other sin: it erupts from the ego sense, the desire for pleasure. Pleasure, however, is only found in God.
So I assume you would contend a sterile women/men should be prevented from being married as would then be entering a marriage and having sex would be solely for desire in that circumstance?
"Same-sex attraction is not equivalent to being gay" Yes it is. For one can't be gay without same-sex attraction. However, one can be in a same-sex relationship without being gay. Just as a homosexual can be in a heterosexual relationship without technically being a heterosexual.
Let me ask you is incest ok or does it go against the laws of nature? Just because people live in these relationships does not make it right! If you want to follow society and the pressures they apply to you and your mind by all means continue to do so. If you cannot heed the warning of Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself then I have nothing more to add. So are you saying time now is ripe for gays but when the population was not as high, it was different?
There is no grey area here. The only grey area here is in our thinking. SRM is very clear on the Anand Karaj. If homosexuals can be allowed to do an Anand Karaj, then where do you draw the line? tomorrow if an incest couple says they also want to have an Anand Karaj should that be allowed as well? or should a person who due to his beastiality urges loves his dog and wants to have an Anand Karaj should that we allowed? let's not change the SRM due to to influance of Kaam krodh lobh moh kankaar
"the OT which called "man-laying" a sin in Leviticus 19 and 21" It's leviticus 18 and 22. And this verse doesn't mean what you think it does. Or let me put it like this. This verse, though supposedly written by Moses 3500 years ago, was actually written hundreds of years after Moses' death, during the time in which Israel was exiled by the Babylonians. Not only that, but this verse was also edited by Biblical redactors.
I cannot find where I used the term "against nature." When I earlier used the term nature, I referenced that it merely gave a hint. I certainly never said nature was a source of morality, and I have certainly not changed my pace; but you have consistently dodged all of the reasoning I have provided against homosexuality. You are finding excuses to avoid thinking this through. I have consistently maintained that the Gurus are the source of morality, and you are quoting a zoologist!
I am teaching to treat people equally in front of their Guru. And I am advocating that people need not be concerned with whom I am promised to and have a consensual loving relationship with. Furthermore, people have no business regulating my relationship with someone I love. That is the Guru's job and let him be my judge.
There is a difference between "standing law" and "special command." The same is in our culture all the time. It is wrong to commit violence, but in certain cases it is considered the responsibility of the state to punish criminals with the use violence. Your dilemma has been solved by Christians, I suggest you look them up. I can provide references if you are genuinely interested.
Treating people equally is completely different than treating a sin as though it were not a sin. Sikhs treat everyone equally, and yet we maintain a commitment to righteousness. One cannot spread true love without a commitment to righteousness. Don't you realize that orgies and adultery are between consenting adults? Would you say those aren't sins? Why? No one is trying to regulate you, but you should regulate yourself BECAUSE the Guru is your judge. Commitment to sin and to Guru don't mix.
I'm interested in Sikhi because of the more egalitarian nature that possesses. Sikhi promotes equality more than the Abrahamic religions. Sikhi would never support a slave structure, whereas the Bible tells slaves to obey their masters, even when they are cruel to them. I absolutely love the courage that is demanded of the Khalsa. As a black woman, I feel like I have many things in common with the Sikh people. Your people have suffered oppression in many of the same ways as my people.
This shows how poorly educated people are on the topic of homosexuality and how homophobic our community is. One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.
Adultery is not the desire for another person's spouse. That is coveting as well. Adultery itself is the actual action of physically cheating on your spouse with another person. You can not be logically labelled an adulterer until you've physically cheated on your spouse. So neither thievery, nor adultery can be compared homosexuality. Firstly because being gay does not require an action, and secondly because same-sex acts are not based on harming others.
In time of gurus, there were no gays or sikhs who used to love each other. Hence presently, every granthi or amritdhari interprets his own personal beliefs as guru's voice for anything that is modern. That's where the problem lies.
so ban sterile individual from being married. Furthermore, ban 90% of the people whom are going infront of the guru that have had sex outside marriage in heterosexual relationships and NOT only limit it to the queer segments of the Sikh community.
While your views do seem to be the majority, do you think it's possible that within your lifetimes most Sikh authorities outside Khalistan would embrace same-sex marriage for ordinary Sikhs?
If the "vessel/their body/sex" plays NO role, then why have gay sex? This shows the flaw in the thinking. The body and pleasing it through sex plays a huge role. Loving another person, being best friends for ever, has nothing to do with sex. If all you want is to be best friends, why get married and why live a life of sensuality and sexual pleasure? It is totally antagonistic to Sikhi. The Guru teaches to conquer desire and lust, and yet your are advocating lust as a virtue.
Lust is just a figment of the religious imagination. It's an arbitrary term that can be used against any person who takes control of their sex lives, and defies the will of nonsensical religious views of sex. There's nothing wrong with having sexual desire, since humans were created with that desire.
You pretend not to discriminate and then ultimately you do. Do not live in duality Jagraj - you cannot have it both ways - if you pardon the pun lol ;)
No, it's not a contradiction. You simply aren't understanding. When women do drugs or drink alcohol while they are pregnant, the fetus is always at risk of being born with a dependency on the substance that the mother was using while she was pregnant with them. So women who smoke crack while they're pregnant can and do give birth to babies that are addicted to crack. The same thing happens to women that drink while pregnant. The mother's "actions" caused her newborn baby's addiction.
People can take what God said is right or wrong for them to do or decide what is right or wrong for them to do themselves. It's up to them. They have free will.
"homosexuality is just a state of mind that is fueled by sexual lust" How is homosexuality fueled by sexual lust? How is heterosexuality not fueled by lust? Explain to me how a man being attracted to a woman is not lustful, but a man being attracted to a man is?
"Thievery is the desire for something that doesn't belong to a person which is acted on physically by the taking." No, coveting is the desire for something that doesn't belong to a person. Thievery itself is strictly the ACT of stealing something that doesn't belong to you. You're not a thief because you covet something, you're a thief because you actively stole something, or tried to steal something.
Again you showed the contradiction: "(which would cause a kid to be born with an addiction to alcohol)." How could "the kid" be "born with an addiction" of something he has not had alcohol, or are you saying he drank it in utero(something I am not sure would support your case, either)?
The Sikhs have been discriminated against in the same ways as my people. The only difference is that Sikhs maintain a good community unit (minus their disgusting treatment of Sikh homosexuals), and you have the tools to teach your children to be sant sipahis. My community is too broken to get anything done at this current time.
"All they need to do is imagine it in order for them to excite the desire" Why would anyone imagine anything unless they already had a natural desire which first compelled them to imagine it in the first place? And if they first had a natural inclination (i.e sexual orientation) in order to feel compelled to imagine something (and then lust about it), then isn't more accurate to say that one's sexual orientation leads to lust, rather than one's lust leading to their sexual orientation?
End the discussion if you like, but still you must think it through: Feelings and desires are not the basis of morality. We are all born egotists, so by your logic, we should all reject the Guru because He is asking us to give up our rightful egotism, which is discrimination. In short, you cannot hold onto sin and the Guru at the same time; they are mutually exclusive. No one is born gay or straight. Along with your head, sexuality should be given to the Guru.
"If you do not admit religious Scripture as a source of moral authority, or that they are relevant to a discussion of the right use of Scripture, I am not sure how you can say you are either Christian or interested in Sikhi" Not all Christians are the same, and not all Christians believe the same things about the Bible. I'm a Christian because I believe in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (though I do openly question that as well). I'm not a Christian because I believe in the entire Bible.
*Guru Granth Sahib doesn't mention anything about homosexuality and that's just because Guru Granth Sahib only talks about spiritual things and sexuality has no bearing on your ability to be spiritual*
Also, the fact that you are advocating that queer Sikhs should live an ascetic lifestyle if they are blessed with amrit is even more troublesome. Guru Nanak several times in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji vehemently rejects the ascetic lifestyle. Guru Nanak Dev Ji himself states that an ascetic "one who burns up his egoity, and whose alms consist in enduring hardships of life and in purifying his mind and soul. He who only washes his body is a hypocrite" (SGGJ, 952).
I agree, but there needs to be a clear understanding for people who get caught in the traps of the world's false, man-centered ideologies. Otherwise we put the people at risk because we don't have clear articulations of moral truth. It is only through Naam, Bani, and Kirtan that we can do this, but there's no sense in confusing the matter by not being clear on these other issues. Not becoming fuzzy, the challenge is to hold to the truth and not fall into judgmentalness or lack of compassion.
Very true - you cannot please everyone and ultimately you can only be true to yourself and people will always complain whatever you try to do :). I would suggest to you though that your view isn't middle of the road, but rather its swinging to either side - hence my comment. You may gain greater consistency by either dropping your own views or dropping the "panthic" view, otherwise people may be confused by what your position on a given topic really is. Just a thought :)
"If morality were subjective, then logically you could not say homosexuality is moral any more or less than saying it is immoral" Exactly! Just like heterosexuality is neither moral nor immoral, homosexuality is neither moral nor immoral as well. They just "are". Being black isn't moral or immoral, being Punjabi isn't moral or immoral. Speaking French isn't moral or immoral. These things just are.
Again, if it is completely subjective, you have no ground to argue that homosexuality is right or wrong. Each is simply a subjective statement of no real value because of the nature of subjectivity. I am saying that each of these major religions have received the same ruling on it, and these provide a universal witness for the unacceptability for homosexuality. It is entirely consistent with love to maintain that homosexuality is, in the eyes of God, not the right use of sexuality.
Homosexuality just is, and it has nothing to do with whether someone is good or bad. So why punish them? God made them that way and God did not put people on Earth to hurt each other. Gays throughout history have been murdered, outcast from their families, denied jobs, denied by the military. They are just people. Some major religions accepted slavery so do you think that's okay?
Actually, heterosexuality is not a sin, but the means ordained by God to propagate the species. The Gurus themselves were married and had children, and were not sinning in this. Homosexuality is purely and only born of sensual desire. Desire is at the root of sexual sin, including heterosexual sin, but marriage is the only proper means in which sex can be had which is not corrupted by desire, but is blessed with the possibility of having children and family.
Jesus confirmed the state of the Old Testament as it existed in His day, and we have access to this, and the Hebrew and Greek Septuagints agree that this is the meaning. Biblical redactors? Which ones? When? How? How would you know? Was it a conspiracy against homosexuals from all time? How do you explain Paul, or because he teaches traditional values he is suspect?
One cannot claim equality for all and then deny sexual relations and marriage between gays. Such opposing statements are a contradiction in terms and hypocritical. And to "TheDespairbear", just because these two men make such claims, it doesn't mean they speak the Truth. Listen with your heart and you will know that Sikhi embraces you and your sexuality Wholeheartedly! And finally to the 2nd man who commented at the end of the video, there is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle!" Such loose talk not only serves to expose one's ignorance, it does a massive disservice to this most beautiful Wisdom tradition.
The entire mode of this thought is based on error. To claim that a behavior is against Sikhi is not to discriminate or victimize. By this logic, putting thieves or drunk drivers in jail discrimination. Why not throw away the turban and become skin heads? Having requirements, even behavioral ones, is not discrimination. Sikhi is VOLUNTARY, thus it cannot be discrimination. No one says they shouldn't get jobs or chant bani, just that the entire notion of "being gay" is no different from other sin.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
This channel is not just about my views but also what the Sikh Tradition holds. I'm not trying to be cool, I;m simply stating the facts of the Rehat and the idea of Nirbho, ie no hate. Its funny how some accuse me of being too "hippy" and others of discrimination. You cant please all the people all of the time, however I thank those who have messaged to express support for this "middle of the road" view. I remind you that Amrit has always had a price.
*Sikhism is a very progressive religion. But most sikhs also have a lot of punjabi culture influence because most sikhs are from punjab. So , sometimes punjabi-culture-sentiments override sikhism-sentiments and thats the only source of gay-ignorance and homophobia among sikhs. Otherwise, sikhism is totally silent, unlike abrahamics who call for gays to be stoned to death*
+Sarabjeet Singh i agree.
agreed
Why change Sikhi just to cater to gays?
@noorsulaimani Sikhi is growing in other countries outside of India whereas Punjab is losing its Sikhi
@Surinder Singh SidhA,thoriMATwala
Such a triggered response cannot be saach
This destroys me, I fought with who I was as a teen. I tried to end my life on so many occasions because of the hate for myself and being gay. I tried so hard to change but I could not. It didn't set in for many years, the wisdom to know that I cannot change because this is how I was formed in the womb. Being told that I cannot take a vow to serve Waheguru like others because of whom I was made by God disturbs me. Am I not an equal child of God because God made me different than you? I started to become Sikh after I was in a committed relationship and marriage to my husband. Now I am being told by you that somehow I am unfit to serve? What service are you giving to Waheguru by closing your mind? The Gurus wrote down what was relevant in their time, but now society has progressed and truths have come into the light. Sikhi must evolve or it is just stabbing at the heart of Waheguru. I will take Amrit, not out of defying Waheguru, because it would not be defying, but out of my commitment to serve and stand as Khalsa. Did Guru Gobind Singh ask those five men who they loved on earth or did he ask the crowed for someone who was willing to serve. Waheguru does not ask for anything but our commitment to love, to serve and to take action. Whom one loves, in a dual-consenting manner that does no harm, is irrelevant.
ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ """""ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ""""""ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
Its like becoming a priest and still being married. The persons love for god does not disappear but everyone knows you cannot stay married and become a priest. the five loved ones gave their heads. they were willing to give up their life. Guru gobind singh ji gave his 4 sons. and he declared that before taking amrit. Its a sacrifice. So if you are with your husband then stayed married andbe happy. help people and progress. I havnt taken amrit yet because its such a big commitment.
You need to watch it again. You clearly didn't understand what he was saying. He never said that gays can't serve. It's about gay marriage & being amritdhari(baptized) at the same time. That issue is still open for discussion, not set in stone. Calm down.
Millions of kids grow up with problems, eating whatever they are provided, wearing whatever they get, doing whatever they are told, some not liking their skin color, some not liking their physical appearance, etc. Its called life. Toughen up & learn to mold yourself for better & easier life.
Same way baptized sikhs are advised against masturbation. Should they also hold a rally to change the rules?
@@soorma01 bro...d gay struggle is real mahn...nd he has emboldened himself enuf...try to understand him...m sayin dis as a straight hindu...
There is no place in Sikh panth for deviants.
You may not like the answer but it is simply the truth, do not twist the gurus actions and words for your own benefit.
The reason is given in the video, Every Khalsa and every Sikh is subject to the Rehat Maryada, which states that Anand Kaaraj is only between man and woman. So unless that changes, thats the rule.
What are the steps to changing the rehat maryada. was the rehat maryada created by the sikhs or the gurus? If the gurus did not make it is it possible that they do not a have a problem with homosexuality? isn't our soul supposed to be genderless, and the anand karaj is a union of two souls?
Taj K I looked it up and the Rehat Maryada was made by a comitee
WJKK WJKF, I am very confused Basics of Sikhi...do you honestly believe that Guru Ji cares if you are in love with someone from your own gender or someone from the opposite gender? In the Anand Karaj and 4 lavan, do the hymns ever specify if it is between male and female? I'm pretty sure it says couple or two partners. Furthermore, isn't emphasis placed on one's relationship with the Guru above all else in the marriage ceremony...so why are we so focused on who the two individuals are. In addition, you didn't really say why an Amritdhari Sikh cannot marry someone from their own sex, you just said that it is forbidden in the Rehat Maryada...I was just wondering if you could clarify why you are in favor of homosexuals of having equal rights, doing seva, doing Kirtan, being Sikhs, but it stops at having a relationship? WJKK WJKF
Dear Anokh Singh ji, you may not like the answer, but I am just clarifying
what the Akaal Takht Sikh Rehat Maryada says. If the Maryada is to change,
there is a process. Personally I think that Maryada is a good place to
start from in most issues.
Okay thank you for the clarification.
Dear Sevadaar of BoS, so if you're saying it can only be changed by the courts of Akal Takht, then that means the Rehat Maryada itself doesn't have to follow what the 10th Guru has established at the time of writing.
Forgive me if I've said anything wrong
VJKF VJKF
you are guruji thats the truth, thats how you see it, tomorrow you'll say do you really think guruji cares if you make love to your mom; he has better things to do
Allow me to say that if u read gurugranth sahib ji
U will find the answer secondly the 4 lawan da path says the alignment of ou body with our soul
Guruji has directed us to improve our innerself
Marriage of two same sexes in gurdwara is meani gless not becose its forbidden by rehat mariyada
But technically speaking gurbani says as a woman longs for his beloved so shall v have the thirst to aline with our higherself as a person
In my interpretation of the Anand Karaj ceremony, it refers to two souls becoming one in the sight of God without gender. There is actually no mention of gender or homosexuality in Gurbani, and both people entering into marriage are considered to be the brides of Waheguru (God) and of course the Guru's were aware of homosexuality. So this leads me to believe that they didn't care nor did they think it was essential to even discussing. We aren't Christian and Homosexuality is not a sin in Sikhi
Spot on ji.
Saach
It’s not a sim but according to the rehat mariyada, they must remain celibate.
The Gurus provided an example through their life styles. In that era this question was not even something that came up thus Guru's never had to rule on it. It was objective reality and understood that a man would marry a woman with the goal of having a family and raising that family. We have created confusion today in modern society and now imposing today's confusion on the words of the Guru.
@@TvWebNews that's not supported by the equality espoused in gurbani, gender less marriage and the knowledge that the gurus had known contemporaries that were sufi sants that were openly gay.
@@TvWebNews you're literally interpreting sikhi through a Christian lense, sikhism is about live and let live, compassion, equality, not converting people, standing up for others being oppressed etc. It's clear why the gurus decided not to write about it despite religious texts more than a thousand years senior to the guru granth sahib were obsessed with the topic.
We don't discriminate homosexuals but at the same time homosexualsdon't have the same rights as everyone that is "straight" in Sikhi.... hmmmmm... does anyone else see the contradiction?!?!
There's no contradiction here. Not giving homosexuals the permission to marry is no more discrimination than not allowing a brother and sister to marry. Would you not let a brother and sister marry each other but let two brothers get married to each other, or two sisters get married to each other? If not her son, why not then let a mother marry her own daughter, or a father his son? How about polygamy? Should we approach the Rehat Marydad with a request for polygamy because men are "scientifically" shown to be "biologically wired" to mate with as many women as possible? This would be a travesty of morality, yet it is the very same form of reasoning of people in favor of the homosexual issue - a morally blind scientism mixed with pseudo-moral "rights" language.
Really, forbidding certain behaviors is not the same thing as discrimination. Discrimination is more properly understood as an irrational stance against a person, not a behavior. Forbidding the approving of homosexual marriage is not discriminating against a person or persons, but is a position against a behavior that a person insists on performing. No one is forbidden to love the other, only not to engage in sex with all people. In truth, there is no such thing as a gay person or a straight person. There is only a person and a prescribed Path. Follow it or don't, but don't throw mud on an already clear Path.
The Guru discriminates against greed and pride, so should we say this is not fair? Should we say it is not fair for the Guru to ask for our heads? Do we want to give our heads but not our private parts?
Narayan Singh Looks like I have to make this very simple to understand for someone like you. First of all, you are comparing rocks to flowers when you compare incest to homosexuality. They are not in the same chapter. So first learn to address the topic using right examples.
The argument about monogamy has been going on for a while... so before just selecting one part of an argument do more research on the topic. The findings on monogamy and polygamy is based on studies of species in nature and a reference is drawn based on those studies... again you are not using the right examples. Please do yourself a favor and do more research on the subject matter.
The very fact you claim gay people have no rights to marriage is discrimination and what act are you talking about? You are contradicting yourself here when you say there is no such thing as straight and gay and then you say its a wrong behavior. It is wrong based on your understanding of the world based upon the values that have been given to you by society and that you have decided to take on as your own.
Guruji is against many things but here is where we have to see the matter placed between the two ears that most of us have. You have to understand why they were against it.... do you think they were against it because it could led to happiness or disaster? Answer that for yourself. Now answer this, who will gay marriages destroy? You? Your family? No one right. So why condemn a group of individuals that have different set of beliefs in terms of relationship than you?
Unless you are pure of thought and have never self indulged in pleasuring your dick... don't start saying things such as, "Do we want to give our heads but not our private parts?" Because you sound like a fool. What does wanting to be married have anything to do with private parts.
An argument can be made that based on Sikhi teaching that individuals should control their lust therefore they should only have sex to have kids. Once the wife is pregnant they are no longer to fornicate ever again. Isn't that right? So then what are you doing to educate the many individuals on stopping to have sex with their wives. Using your argument, "Do we want to give our heads but not our private parts?"
sureshsingh Your argument criticizing my logic is false. Male and male marriage obviates the rules of incest because the rules against incest are, among other things, based on keeping away genetic deformities, and since a father-son or mother-daughter marriage could not produce any children, it would side-step issues of genetic deformity and therefore of incest.
As such, it is not comparing rocks and flowers, but is identifying the same logic running throughout, that of attraction being the new guiding principle in finding a marriage partner. Attraction is not the paramount property in selecting a marriage partner, but character and commitment as well as other factors including being of opposite sex. Read Gurbani a little closer and you will find that it assumes heterosexual normativity.
You said, "The findings on monogamy and polygamy is based on studies of species in nature and a reference is drawn based on those studies."
This shows that your God is secular science and NOT Gurbani. The Gurus saw into the Ultimate Nature of Reality, into God's Divine Court, and if there was permission given in heaven for such a thing as homosexuality they would have given a clear idea of this. The Gurus were not afraid to be countercultural, so it is not simply because they were men of their times that they did not advocate the permissibility of homosexuality, but because they saw into the Timeless nature of Sat Nam.
You also said, "Unless you are pure of thought and have never self indulged in pleasuring your d[]k... don't start saying things such as, "Do we want to give our heads but not our private parts?" Because you sound like a fool. What does wanting to be married have anything to do with private parts."
This sort of statement is so contrary to Skihi that it is hard to imagine you have any respect for the Guru at all. You are even using profanity(which you may notice I edited in my quoting of you), which shows you have no respect either for me or for the proper use of the tongue (even in print form). That said, the logic is poor because it assumes that two wrongs make a right, that if a straight person is lead by lust it is therefore okay for a homosexual to be lead by lust; or it is false because it assumes that unless a person is totally pure then they cannot give advice. I am sorry, but this is false because on this basis you would have no ground to criticize me because it would mean you are violating your own principle to be impure and yet render me advice.
Furthermore, marriage does have a lot to do with private parts. Why? Because marriage has a lot to do with having children. Sikhism is a householder faith, which means having and raising a family, and outside of technological contraptions only male and female can properly and naturally constitute the basis of a family.
And so of course homosexuality leads to disaster. It may not seem to on the surface, but neither does eating too much sugar or fried foods look like it is dangerous on the surface. It erodes the natural family, which erodes society. It teaches that the proper basis for marriage is physical attraction, which is totally false. It undermines the clear teaching of God's natural order, which obviously leads to destruction.
Finally, when I say there is no such thing as straight and gay, you ought to understand that this is a reference to the totally made up nature of these categories. Sometimes I am forced to speak according to these categories for the sake of discussion, but in reality these are man-made terms used to make a distinction of "types" of people which are totally made up. People are given a dharma, and often this contravenes feelings and desires, even persistent and longstanding desires. Making "types" out of desires such as represented by gay or straight is irreligious and humanistic, and so I correctly maintain that there is no underlying truth to the terms gay and straight, and that what is true is the dharma of being a man or a woman and living according to the householder ideals of the Sikh Gurus as was exemplified in their lives, man marrying woman.
Narayan Singh I lost interest after the first line in the 3rd paragraphs in what ever you're typing... you're an individual who apparently "believe" they know what god wants. Which is really sad but for someone who is adamant in wanting to discriminate, I find no logic in debating with you. Again I would suggest you do more research between the topic of incest and homosexuality and choose argumentative points carefully, I can crush your arguments as I did before quite easily but there would be no point for you're a person who enjoys discriminating.... carry on typing after this I find no challenge and no intellectual stimulation in debating with someone using poor facts.
sureshsingh You said, "you're an individual who apparently "believe" they know what god wants."
Apparently you think you know what God wants, as that sort of statement cuts both ways. Either you know or you don't know, and if you think you don't know, then you have no basis of argumentation, yet if you think you do know, then your critique of me proves senseless.
You are misunderstanding my argument, and so in the interest of good will I will explain it again. The basis of marriage is not attraction, for attraction could be towards any one or any thing. There is more to marriage than attraction, and so if someone is attracted to the same sex, it is not a basis for marriage, especially in Sikhi. Homosexuals argue that their attraction to the same sex is the justification for marrying people of the same sex, but this is not proper, because attraction could be for anyone, even one's own parent or child, or for multiple partners. As such, attraction cannot be the fundamental factor, but what is fitting according to God, and God arranges biology and physiology such that man and woman are to join for marriage such that children can come from the joining. The potential for children alone is evidence that male-female coupling is the proper alignment.
I don't expect you to thoughtfully consider these arguments, as you admitted openly that you didn't even read my entire response, and so I write for those who may not have a voice in this culture of rampant amoralism.
Does the Soul have a Gender...
+Joojhaar Singh No Sir it does not.
Does the keyboard have a question mark key?
mano a mano - Does the keyboard have a question mark key?
Shaming a Seeker of Truth with Sarcasm? Sarcasm is to rip flesh off bones like a Wolf. You got nipped for not fostering hope but shame. BUZZZZ Foul. You Added nothing but division. Serve the One.
Nope
No sir atma ka koi ling nahi hai
The more I learn about Sikhism the more I am loving it ! I really think entire Hindu population should convert to Sikhism...truely all-inclusive religion...only one who accepts all. The emphasis on the idea of Oneness !
I agree sir but it is alarming how the jatwaadi sikhs are encroaching on this beautiful faith
They are not worthy, there ego wouldnt let them, they identify to deeply with being hindus even if there not a real hindu and know nothing about there own religion, they will blindly follow it.
Shut up and convert yourself. Sikhi is a watered down version of Hinduism and also includes elements of Islam. Why would we convert to it? You sound idiotic with the Christmas tree in your display picture. Are you a Hindu, Sikh or Christian?
@@Sideways_Singhsasti copy of "hinduism and Islam"......why will I wear tuban for all of my life in this heat?!.....only drug addicts and ganster are worth of this religion!!
I'm not advocating, I'm simply stating a fact of the Panthic law and trying to prevent victimisation and discrimination.
its so nice to see that there are genuine and good people still willing to speak their mind. thanks for your support. it means the world for so many of us.
"You seem to maintain that the presence of the desire is the determining factor in a person's identity"
I maintain that one's sexual orientation is biological just like one's hormones are biological. Sexual orientation doesn't make a person's identity, rather it's "a part" of it. Accepting who you are, when who you are isn't harmful, is not a form of slavery. Trying to change who you are because a religious fanatics make erroneous claims, IS a form of slavery.
"If it were the natural condition, the Gurus would have explicitly allowed it and there would have been explicit cases where the gay cause was championed."
This is a fallacy. There are thousands of natural conditions that the Gurus didn't mention. It's impossible for the Gurus to mention everything. So it's complete nonsense to assume that just because the Gurus didn't mention homosexuality, that they must have deemed it as wrong.
"Again, if it is completely subjective, you have no ground to argue that homosexuality is right or wrong"
Again, I never argued that homosexuality was bad or good, because HETEROSEXUALITY is not good or bad either. It just IS. Attraction to the gender(s) of a human being, just is. The end. It's not good or bad to speak french either. It just "is".
I think gay gursikhs should be allowed to marry one another and have that count as a marriage and union. It seems clear to me that this issue may not have been thought of when the rules were set. And if they were, I think that if the Gurus lived today they would have changed it.
5 years later- I just have a problem with prejudice. The Gurus were equalizers of their time. Withholding rights from homosexuals is prejudice, because being gay is written in DNA. A person cannot change that part of themself.
+Simran Khalsa
You've got a way to go before you understand Sikhi, 'Khalsa'.
*****
And there's no way on Earth they would have countenanced 'gay marriage' and Khalsa men pursuing other Khalsa in relationship. This is the spiritual sickness that comes from living in such a reprobate 'culture' too long, and allowing their deviant values to soak into you.
We should be dyed in the Naam, not soaking up twisted values.
You're defeating your own argument. You say homosexuality is a recent thing, then go on to admit that Romans practiced it widely. That's true, of course; Romans and Greeks indulged in every kind of deviant sexuality; the sex between old men and young boys was especially prized, and bestiality was celebrated too.
In divine culture, of course, there is no place for such perversion.
It's not a question of hate, it's all about honouring life and the laws of life we were blessed with.
As I had said, you're just dutifully representing the voice of a very wayward culture that predominates today; a culture that is very enamoured with how 'advanced' and 'enlightened' we've all become, while the sacred Creation falls apart around our ears. Pollution, global warming, deforestation, species extinction, unprecedented psychosis and anti-social behaviour, violence at epic levels, toxic waste piling up, but we're convinced we're becoming so wonderful and progressive...
First of all, God makes no mistakes. All people are born with an attraction to one or both genders. What "laws of life?" Is there some book carved into a tree that's existed since the beginning of time?
Being gay occurs as naturally as you or I being attracted to the opposite sex. What if somebody told you it was wrong to like women? You just do. That's it. You never hurt a woman. Maybe all you want is to be married or in a relationship. And what's wrong with anyone wanting that?
Being gay hurts no one. Why should anyone complain that gays can have the same rights that we have always had?
Child molestation happens between old men and little girls as often if not way more than boys and men. And being attracted to the same sex does not have anything to do with being attracted to children. I mean just because you like women doesn't mean you would rape a little girl, right?
There is nothing perverted about any two adults loving and respecting each other.
If "God makes no mistakes" how do you explain sexual reassignment surgery? Why do so many homosexuals feel like "a girl in a man's body"? Did God make a mistake? Then they proceed to do some frankenstein surgery debacle to try to approximate the opposite gender. Is this 'bold' and 'natural' and beautiful and 'brave'? or can we admit this is some kind of turmoil and mental affliction? As I said, you're speaking as a trusted voice of this 'enlightened' world; I'll stick with the sacred world Har Har gave us.
If we got back the Punjab of the Sikh Empire of Ranjit Singh, then Pakistan and India would have to give it to us. I like the idea, but its unlikely. Better to aim for Khalsa Raj in India.
Personally I think we should start small, establishing rule in one place (just in Panjab of India although I would want the entire Panjab of our Sikh Empire) so we can create more Sikhs who can be rid of backwards Indian culture where they stop practicing nonsensical rituals that have no connection with God (for Sikhs mainly as Hindus have their own ways so I won't stop them) and I think when we have good Parchariks we can start converting more people into Sikhs and soon be able to establish Khalsa Panth all over the world but right now I would want to focus on Panjab and its youth.
I'm not a perfect individual and all I can do is my bit to spread bani. There's no way I can please everyone. I felt the video above was about speaking for tolerance and against homophobia. I;m not destroying any family. Taking Amrit is not compulsory, its a choice of giving your head and accepting the Guru Panths decision and SRM and living in accordance. If we cannot unite inspite of our differences in opinion, then what hope is there for the Panth? Dont we all have to compromise?
Yes we should compromise. What if a gay person wants to be Amritdhari and also have a happy married life? That is the same right that a heterosexual has.
Nobody should have to lose one right to gain another.
@@SpoonfulofCinnamon the Panj Pyaare (five cherished) surrendered themselves before Guru Sahib when asked for sacrifice. They obtained the blessing of Amrit and became Khalsa. Other Singhs such as Baba Deep Singh Ji and Bhai Bachittar Singh Ji waged war against tyranny and attained martyrdom fighting for righteousness. The way of the Khalsa is unique. It is not meant to be a mere ritual. Amrit has always had a price. Akaaalluh!
This remains an issue for the Khalsa Panth to decide. no religious fanatic is pulling my ears. I have nothing against Gay people nor legal same sex marriages. However, I have made the decision not to hold views that go against the Sikh rehat Maryada. "Panth Vasse, Mai Ujra" - Unity more than uniformity. VJKKVJKF
Wjkk Wjkf! :) I was wondering what that scarf that you too are wearing is called and wear may someone purchase one? Thanks, All the best!
+BassIsMyYoga 2112 Thats Turban and its not fashion thing. Beside that anyone can wear it or purchase one but You should only wear it when you can take care of it..thnx
+U.R.GreenMango More Hello, I think we had a miscommunication there. I understand what a turban is and I'm aware it is what a baptized Sikh wears over uncut hair. I also never said it was a "fashion thing". I was asking what the scarves were called that you have on around your necks in this video and wear someone could buy one. :) Sorry for any confusion.
Oh my bad. Thats Parna or Siropa. its same as turban but not that long. One can wear that on his head too..
+U.R.GreenMango More Thanks, appreciate the info. Have a nice week.
@@SynthesizersForPeace The gurus have given it for practical use, as when ones hands are hygienic and they have to touch something unhygienic, a person can cover their hand in the small turban and handle it, or say they needed to scratch their face but were reading from the guru granth sahib, they could cover their hygienic hand around the cloth, and scratch.
It can also be used as a bandage to wrap around a wound.
It can be used as a weapon if heavy objects were wrapped inside.
It's a physical representation of respect for the guru, to show that we are beggars at his door.
I was referring to a decolonized Punjabi-speaking, Sikh majority state consisting of old Punjab/Sikh Empire. Modern-day demographics would likely prevent the old borders but nevertheless, Punjab is a nation with a people that have been deprived of their right of self-determination.
We don’t need all the land of Ranjit Singh, tho even he and the misls mostly started in modern day Panjab, and North half of Haryana, we don’t need size even if we do we gotta start with something first even if small, just like Ranjit Singh did, even if it’s the tiny modern day panjab the principles of sikhi and the khalsa would reestablish our utopia
The Khalsa Panth is not just any group of people, they are Gurus form.
Guru g said clearly singh n kaur... now you change the whole conpect. Be brave to say its wrong .. nothing wrong in it...
Sorry, Can you elaborate the Promoting thing? I think it Natural isn't it?
Bro, the thing with Hukam is that its not always what we want. I support Panthic Unity and the Sikh rehat Maryada (SRM) is clear about this. As stated in other comments, if the SRM changes via sarbat khalsa, then I'd have no problem with it. As I said, I have no problem with gay/queer Sikhs, I'm more interested in people working to set up Satjug all over the world, fighting injustice etc. As Khalsa, we need to accept the Panths decision. Gay Amritdhari couples could live together without sex??
If ur bahangam (not married ) u devote your life to guru ji entirely you leave everything and just meditate and do Bagti but if you get married the only reason u are getting married is to expand the khalsa panth and help your partner to get closer to guru ji
Forgive me for any mistakes
Vjkk vjkf
I doubt it but if the Panth agreed it, then I'd accept it. When you say Khalistan, do you mean India or Punjab. Watch our video on "Do we need a Khalistan"?
Hive mentality, get some critical thinking skills
We were talking about homosexuality in our class at my school and I asked a question that what are the sikhi views about gays and my teacher said there is no such thing written about homosexual people in guru granth sahib ji
but marriage is the unitement of 2 souls and souls are gender less so what's wrong with homosexuality in amritdhari Sikhism? also the guru's were around for 200 years and they clearly highlighted what a Sikh is and isn't and not once did they say that being gay is bad so I don't think there's anything wrong with bring an amritdhari Sikh and gay
+ethereal beauty Thats you opinion bhenji but the Panth has a procedure for making decisions like this, its the sarbat Khalsa. At the current moment, you can be a gay Amritdhari but you cant be in a gay relationship
Basics of Sikhi does that never change?
+kaur it could change if the pink pyare get together to decide otherwise
ScienceSunday oh I see. It would be cool if they made a rehat maryada that a non amritdhari can follow too
Gay marriage was seen wrong in the world since the beginning until it has been legalised recently. So it's not surprising that all religions has forbidden it. Religions are ancient. But you still have the choice to pick homosexuality over religion. If that's what you choose to do you still have to respect the view of the religions regardless of you agreeing with the view or not. That's if you want your views to be respected.
I wish the Gurdwara and Sikh Community would accept Sikh gay youth and support them. I feel like the Punjabi/Indian culture is where all the bigotry is and people need to be better Sikhs because the Gurus did not teach hate.
Our Indian culture affects us Sikhs to much. It's disgusting if I see a Sikh being homophobic towards a homosexual. Our Gurus told us to treat everyone with equality and respect regardless of caste, religion, skin colour or sexual orientation. It's sad how much people still live in the past.
In time of gurus, there were no gays or sikhs who used to love each other. Hence presently, every granthi or amritdhari interprets his own personal beliefs as guru's voice for anything that is modern. That's where the problem lies.
wow man thanks for your kind words thumbs up to you
There are valid reasons for following Maryada, but I'm wondering what yours are. I personally feel quite conflicted on it, I feel some stuff in it was necessary but some stuff just over reaches it's area of control. I mean some stuff in there nobody follows anymore.
I know of heterosexual relationships that are deeply abusive, and of homosexual relationships that are an example to us all. In fact their relation gives them confidence and wholeness and strength to lead exemplary lives, which benefit not just them, but their whole community. Surely if these people want to offer this union under their God, they should be welcomed with open arms and afforded equality.
Religions should always evolve as society evolves, or risk losing all respect of it's own followers. For instance, Christianity is fast losing its congregation. People lose faith because the church is so out of touch with our internal moral compass. For example:
"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
This is just rediculous. Is this what God really wants? If so, I want no part of it.
I'm not Sikh. I'm not religious at all, but I can identify with Sikhism more than any other religion I've come across. I think this is due in part to it being relatively new, and therefore more of this time. It is respectful of women,community and self and this is close to my own moral compass.
It also seems to put its money where it's mouth is. When the riots were going on, I saw the Southall Sikhs were out in force to protect the WHOLE community. Again, that spoke to me as a human being, and was in harmony with my own moral set.
I'm not homosexual, I'm a father and stepfather of 4 children, but if my child told me he/she was homosexual, I would , as a loving father, support and guide them in their sexuality to the best of my ability. How would I assure my children were a force for good, and had good morals and were loving, caring and tolerant in our community, if I shunned them? It's the same I think for religion.
Matt Chapman I totally agree with you that whether a relationship is homosexual or heterosexual, it has no bearing on how loving or nurturing the relationship is. Firstly its not that homosexuals are not welcome into Sikhi - they are and their sexuality has no impact on the actual practice of Sikhi, ie prayer, meditation and service. If you watch the video about "Can Lesbians have Anand Kaaraj" then its made clear that the Khalsa has been given the ability to make changes to the "Rule of Conduct" but for that to happen, we need a sarbat khalsa. Being a Sikh will never mean you have to shun anyone, the main principle of Sikhi is compassion and justice.
Basics of Sikhi
I love your videos a lot. I also think it's clear you're passionate to work through the issues; trying to be faithful and fair. Your view is definitely more reasoned than some I've come across, and I'm blessed to hear you often. On this issue though I think there still remains a break between the interior experience, plus how the divine is experienced in relationship, up against how a barrier is placed on this issue at some point for homosexual Sikhs.
I know I've felt, if I should have to make a comparison, like a dalit in the caste system - I've been told to accept I can't progress beyond a certain point in the temporal aspects because of what I am. The advice, at least for same, is to deny the attraction (and get married) or stay celibate (then everyone asks why). These injunctions clash with the interior truth of what many feel spiritually - that they shouldn't be denied a relationship/treated in this way on the issue. The reality, at least for many, is that it's very painful and they feel they can't progress, or it's at least hampered, because of it.
I think it has been a side issue in the past but I think this will change, of sorts, because there is a reasonable sized homosexual population and it impacts family/friends somewhere along the line. As people increasingly feel they can ask questions, be honest, and so on then I think this issue will come up more and less people will be satisfied with the answer, at least how it currently stands.
I don't expect you to change your view or solve the issue. I also know you are but one among many others. I just wanted to say, well, what I did and hope my experience adds something. Thanks.
It is not a fallacy to assert that the overwhelming majority of all major religions have denounced homosexuality, that the Gurus maintained the same practice and did not annul it, and that only in the last twenty years or so has this even been questioned. To claim that what I am saying is "nonsense" is itself nonsense. I am being completely sensible, I am looking at the evidence, I am considering the inner logic of morality, which comes from God, not man and not nature.
@Basics of Sikhi, if a person were to marry someone of the same sex but remain celibate would that mean they could take Amrit?
This is going to prevent thousands of gay people and trans people who otherwise would give their head to the guru from doing so. That causes far greater harm. Queer people should be allowed to be in a civil marriage and that includes amritdharis. I know this point of view may not be accepted, but I believe the spirit of inclusivity in sikhi should outweigh this. There is no good reason that queer people should not be able to take Amrit and be in a consensual, loving, monogamous marriage. Asking queer sikhs to not marry IS discrimination and is against the broader spirit of the faith. ALL SOULS ARE GENDER NEUTRAL. This is ignorant.
Very interesting that this video is 9 years old and only 645 likes. I think that goes to show how most people feel.
So before we can continue, I'm going to need you to provide me with an objective definition of lust, so that we can compare heterosexuality with homosexuality, to see why the latter should be labelled as lustful, while the former should not be labelled as lustful. Because so far I'm just seeing collective assumptions and agreements on this video, instead of a logical argument in which 1+1 is clearly proven to equal 2.
The mother's act of physically introducing the substance of alcohol into her body while she is pregnant, is the "action" which caused her unborn fetus to develop a chemical dependency on alcohol. Again I ask, what physical substance has to be introduced in order for someone to be gay? Is it gay sex? If so, then how do you explain the gay people who are virgins, or asexual? How did they become gay without having to engage in any acts first?
" Lust is at the root of homosexual coupling, and not at the root of heterosexual coupling"
How so? Explain in detail why homosexual couplings are lustful at the root, while heterosexual coupling is not? There has to be a difference of some sort that differentiates between the two couplings. What is it? And how does it make one coupling lustful, and the other coupling non-lustful?
"Also, monogamous lust is condemned by the Gurus and Christ as well"
Define monogamous lust. You mean lust that is inside of a marriage, or just inside of a non-married monogamous coupling?
This is heartbreaking. As someone new to Sikhi, I thought I had found something noble. To hear my that some of my friends and family are not as equal as others is a bitter taste. It wounds me to have to walk away from Sikhi, but I will not identify myself with any biggotry.
Walk away, Jed. Bye.
sorry but sikhi DOES believe in equality amongst all people regardless of their sexual orientation and even homosexuals shall be served like humans but lets not mix sikhi and homosexuality, unless it is of course from birth and such but otherwise homosexuality is purely kaam and based on desire
what is the point of keeping kesh when you are changing your gender and going against hukam
apologize for any hurt sentiments
no one is perfect including me so you have no obligations to any single faith and sikhs do not wish to convert you but the mere desire we have is all of humanity to be engrossed in sewa and Simran and the khalsa is there to provide degh (basic neccesities like langar and shelter) and tegh(social justice) across the world in order to accomplish those
serve humanity and contemplate on god, that's all you need and not just the "tag" of being of sikh
good luck on your journey
I’ve heard other Sikh gurus say that it’s none of their business what others do in their personal life. Don’t leave based off of two guys’ opinions on the matter.
@@Michelle-nk3wm there r only 10 Sikh Gurus
it's not for random ppl to cut Sikhi n cherry pick
@@harmanjotsingh4230
Its hukam that people are gay.
To think we have any power to change hukam is dukh.
To judge someone as 'against hukam', is dukh.
Sorry to say, you are creating dukh within yourself.
Good luck on your journey
"Alcoholism is not an act, it is a condition, and is sometimes even characterized as a genetic disease"
Alcoholism, even when in disease form, cannot exist without the prior action of drinking. Whether it's from someone choosing to drink alcohol, or from a mother drinking while she's pregnant (which would cause a kid to be born with an addiction to alcohol). But what does a person have to do to be gay? You don't have to have sex, kiss, date, or even hold hands with someone, in order to be gay.
"It is entirely consistent with love to maintain that homosexuality is, in the eyes of God, not the right use of sexuality."
Do not deceive yourself, homophobia has never been about love, or about religion. It's always been based on the natural hatred of "gender-bending". Gay men are hated because society accuses them of acting like women, and gay women are hated because society condemns their presumption of taking on a male role in a relationship. Religion merely justifies this hatred.
And if according to the "God-given" morality of Islam/Christianity, that the Gurbani is false, then this means that anyone who lives their life by it has a false morality, and is therefore, immoral themselves. Would you agree with this? If not, then what makes your sense of morality more superior to the Muslims/Christians that call your Guru a liar? And just to be clear, I'm an Agnostic Christian, but I'm trying to incorporate Sikhism into my faith.
I agree with singh sahib, but we need amendments in rehat maryada to make it suitable for todays World. Gurus never made any maryada because it is always changeable based on situation or place you live.
You ask a simple question whether homosexuality is permitted, they spend, most of their time talking about not discriminating against them. It is a yes or no question, and elaboration if necessary, the second person answered the question but towards the end of this video.
You keep hiding behind the argument of whats in the "Rehat Marayada" and I think its perplexing that you would even use that argument. That means that you're an ardent supporter of the SGPC even after so much of their underhanded politics have been revealed in perpetuating a genocide against Sikhs within India.
If you watch our playlist on the "Rehat Maryada" you will understand that the SGPC did not make it, they print the document. The Panth made the maryada. The current SGPC is in desperate need of overhaul, yet doesn't mean that the Rehat Marydad becomes redundant
Basics of Sikhi Regardless of whether they created it or not, their ability to accurately interpret and administer has been called into question many times by the Panth. I think this is another instance where they have missed the mark. How can you deny to consenting adults the ability to be blessed in holy matrimony by their Guru? It seems like the anti-thesis of the egalitarian and anti-oppression principles that the entire faith was founded upon.
Basics of Sikhi
you also do not ever in any of parchar discuss the impact of colonization the community has faced and the need for us to unlearn colonial practices we've taken on.
A Singh colonization wouldn't be a basic topic and usually does work on the blame game. The singh sabha formed it and gave it to the panth apart from the sgpc there are members of the panth who don't follow it
You tell me. I am saying that I see nowhere in Gurbani or the Bible anywhere were "x" is a moral but "y" is an ethic. The distinction is modern and based on western's culture's alienation from traditional morals, and so they came up with euphemism because they realize that morality must be discussed in some context, even if they have no enduring basis for their subjective opinions about behavior.
I agree with Bhai Sahib completely here.
Being Gay is okay. --> There is no vehement objection to being gay; e.g. Khusra and Hijras. E.g. there is no stoning of gays as mentioned in our elder religions like Islam and Christianity even though these teachings were there.
Gay marriage no. --> Anand Karaj only blesses a man and a woman.
Gay sex; no --> As there can be no sex outside marriage.
ur saying dnt discriminate against gays, but then ur saying it is not prohibited in the guru granth sahib ji and cant do anand karaj for a gay marriage, so that is discrimination, because ur sayn we dnt allow same sex marriages LOL badway u boys are on this specific topic.
Discrimination can be at different levels. Most Gay people I know are happy to be level alone and not stared at, persecuted or stopped from succeeding financially. I hardly think that preventing a gay Sikh couple from doing the 'sikh' marriage is really discrimination, they can still do a UK Government legal marriage.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not discriminate against gays and when preforming the anand karaj its basically two souls that become one so it wouldn't matter if the marriage is between gay or straight couple. I understand what many are saying but in the Guru Granth Sahib it says that you are encouraged to start a family and have children and i believe that whenever theres mention of marriage, Guru Granth Shaib refers the marriage to be between a male and a female. Also if where encouraged to have children you can only have that between a male and a female. Theres probably a reason why there is two different genders so we could give birth to life so we have to put all are needs aside and see the truth through reading the Guru Granth Sahib
dexterous dexter Sikh marriage isn't a right of humans in general, but a privilege of Sikhs who live according to Gudbani, and Gurbani assumes heterosexuality. If a person lives outside of the teachings of the Guru, then they have no right to a ceremony done in the Name of the Guru.
dexterous dexter I appreciate a response like that, but would ask why you think that homosexuality wasn't known back then. It is a behavior that has been known of and rejected in all major religions including Sikhism since the earliest recorded history of the major monotheistic religions.
I agree that Sikhism is inclusive, but it is unwavering as regards righteousness. Righteousness never evolves, and the reason this is so is because it based on the character of God, not the character of man, and since God never changes then the righteousness never changes. This is why we say "Ad Sach, Jugad Sach, Habee Sach, Nanak Hosee Bee Sach," and it is why we can know that what is righteous never changes. If righteousness changes, and we simply become inclusive for inclusiveness' sake, then we can include polygamy, serial monogamy, white lies, gossip, shaved beards, thong underwear, etc. If righteousness changes, then it means that what was formerly righteous is no longer righteous. And who decides what's righteous, as if righteousness were up to a vote or simply band wagon morality.
What has changed in recent history is the take-over of morality by Western decadence. Things like The Pill and condoms create a distinction in people's minds between sex and the having of children, and so now sex is about intimacy with no real natural conclusion (i.e. a baby). And so as this continues, people think intimacy can be had with whomever seems attractive, and so since sex is now said to be about intimacy, not children, and with no consequences, homosexuality seems like a viable outlet for "sexual self-expression."
Gurbani is divine in origin, and so its assumptions are divine ones, and therefore binding ones, and if we can't trust Gurbani then we certainly cannot trust man's attempts at inventing his own new and improved morality. As such, it is a sacrifice of our personal will in the matter, and accept in simplicity and humility of heart that our egos aren't reinventing a new, more inclusive morality, but are simply tearing down the divine morality established and transmitted by the Gurus in truth yesterday, today, tomorrow, and forever. Sat Nam.
dexterous dexter If you don't think there is a right or wrong answer, then you cannot say my answer is wrong, and worse, you can't say your answer is right.
A problem is that you are assuming the Gurus didn't conceive of homosexuality, as if they were somehow deficient in common knowledge of such matters. They said they read all the sacred texts, and the sacred texts and teachings of both Hinduism and Islam DID and DO include a condemnation of homosexuality, and so the Gurus were most certainly aware of it and clearly did not contravene this teaching. In fact, the Gurus maintained a continuity with the faith of the saints who had gone before, and have included writings of Hindu and Muslim saints in the Guru Granth itself. If anything, this indicates a continuity with the universal condemnation of homosexuality.
Again, you are speaking as if we know BETTER than the Gurus when you say, "which makes me wonder had homosexuality been known at that time like we do today it probably would have been included..." You then hide in a "non-literal" interpretation of the Guru as if the Guru can be manipulated by the fancies of one's desirous imagination. The problem you are having is that the Gurus knew and know BETTER than we do, and so we do not advance on the Guru, for the Guru is always in advance of us, otherwise it is not a Guru. But you would make the Guru the follower of man.
Whenever the Guru speaks about marriage, even in more figurative language, it always uses "heteronormative" language. It is always a husband with a bride, never a husband with a husband, or a bride with a bride. At all points the Guru upholds the basic logic of male-female coupling, especially in its "non-literal" portions.
Now, just because many homosexuals are nice, upstanding people, does not justify their sexual orientation. We are all nice in some ways and yet sinful in others. For example, the fact that person X is nice doesn't make right the fact that he gossips. But, someone enamored of today's scientism will say, sociologists have studied and showed that gossiping helps to build tighter bonds among workers, and studies show x, y, and z about a, b, and c benefits of gossip. These studies, however, could NEVER contradict the Gurus condemnation of such things as gossiping. The same is true of homosexuality. Sure, maybe on the surface it seems harmless, but it is against the teachings of the Guru, and no manipulation of the Siri Guru Granth Sahib will make it agree with homosexuality. You can submit to the Guru or not, and you can surrender your ego or not, but the Guru says what He says, and it is definitely against homosexuality.
What about people who are born gender ambiguous ? Those that are born with XXY or X or XYY chromosomes? Not male or female?
They cant get married
I agree, but here is the sticking point, for one can only know this by their conformity to the Guru's teaching, not by a mere claim to historical continuity. The Guru's teaching transcends time and therefore the Guru's morality cannot change. If the Khalsa Panth changes the mode of its morality, then it has cut itself off from the living Guru as expressed in the Siri Guru Granth Sahib.
"It is not a fallacy to assert that the overwhelming majority of all major religions have denounced homosexuality"
You're right. The fallacy is in taking this fact and trying to assert truth with it. Religions are not factual entities, they are completely subjective. Again, if you're going to say that homosexuality must be wrong because most religions deem it as such, then you must also admit that Sikhism is wrong since more prominent religions disagree with it. See the fallacy yet?
You apparently know little about Christ, the Scriptures, and the traditional interpretations of these by the saints. Righteousness is universal across the faiths you mentioned, especially concerning this issue. Read St. Maximus the Confessor, my friend, and you will see a spokesman for the Christian Church that states with John that anyone who practices is righteousness is born of God. Inasmuch as a person is righteous is the degree to which he is indwelt by God, according to Maximus.
By stating that you can be gay and amritdari if celibate completely invalidates a queer persons core identity by saying they are sexually inept. Waheguru Maharaj created me and let me tell you he made no mistake.
Following the Guru means giving up the personal will and inclination. Nanak called himself a slave of God; he did not stand before God and declare his rights or his human biology as a means of not obeying God. We all are "born" with an ego sense, and yet this is precisely what we give up when we follow the Guru. Homosexuality is like all other sin: it erupts from the ego sense, the desire for pleasure. Pleasure, however, is only found in God.
So I assume you would contend a sterile women/men should be prevented from being married as would then be entering a marriage and having sex would be solely for desire in that circumstance?
"Same-sex attraction is not equivalent to being gay"
Yes it is. For one can't be gay without same-sex attraction. However, one can be in a same-sex relationship without being gay. Just as a homosexual can be in a heterosexual relationship without technically being a heterosexual.
Let me ask you is incest ok or does it go against the laws of nature? Just because people live in these relationships does not make it right! If you want to follow society and the pressures they apply to you and your mind by all means continue to do so. If you cannot heed the warning of Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself then I have nothing more to add. So are you saying time now is ripe for gays but when the population was not as high, it was different?
There is no grey area here. The only grey area here is in our thinking. SRM is very clear on the Anand Karaj. If homosexuals can be allowed to do an Anand Karaj, then where do you draw the line? tomorrow if an incest couple says they also want to have an Anand Karaj should that be allowed as well? or should a person who due to his beastiality urges loves his dog and wants to have an Anand Karaj should that we allowed? let's not change the SRM due to to influance of Kaam krodh lobh moh kankaar
"the OT which called "man-laying" a sin in Leviticus 19 and 21"
It's leviticus 18 and 22. And this verse doesn't mean what you think it does. Or let me put it like this. This verse, though supposedly written by Moses 3500 years ago, was actually written hundreds of years after Moses' death, during the time in which Israel was exiled by the Babylonians. Not only that, but this verse was also edited by Biblical redactors.
Eu admiro o seu trabalho e sua fé 🙏🌻🌹
Compared to other religions Sikhism's attitude is much more reasonable and has much more respect for human rights
in short: focus on bigger problems now, when the right time comes we'll deal with the smaller ones
I cannot find where I used the term "against nature." When I earlier used the term nature, I referenced that it merely gave a hint. I certainly never said nature was a source of morality, and I have certainly not changed my pace; but you have consistently dodged all of the reasoning I have provided against homosexuality. You are finding excuses to avoid thinking this through. I have consistently maintained that the Gurus are the source of morality, and you are quoting a zoologist!
I am teaching to treat people equally in front of their Guru. And I am advocating that people need not be concerned with whom I am promised to and have a consensual loving relationship with. Furthermore, people have no business regulating my relationship with someone I love. That is the Guru's job and let him be my judge.
There is a difference between "standing law" and "special command." The same is in our culture all the time. It is wrong to commit violence, but in certain cases it is considered the responsibility of the state to punish criminals with the use violence. Your dilemma has been solved by Christians, I suggest you look them up. I can provide references if you are genuinely interested.
It is one thing to fail to meet the criteria set by the Gurus, and another to change the moral system to match the sinfulness we all struggle with.
Treating people equally is completely different than treating a sin as though it were not a sin. Sikhs treat everyone equally, and yet we maintain a commitment to righteousness. One cannot spread true love without a commitment to righteousness. Don't you realize that orgies and adultery are between consenting adults? Would you say those aren't sins? Why? No one is trying to regulate you, but you should regulate yourself BECAUSE the Guru is your judge. Commitment to sin and to Guru don't mix.
I'm interested in Sikhi because of the more egalitarian nature that possesses. Sikhi promotes equality more than the Abrahamic religions. Sikhi would never support a slave structure, whereas the Bible tells slaves to obey their masters, even when they are cruel to them. I absolutely love the courage that is demanded of the Khalsa. As a black woman, I feel like I have many things in common with the Sikh people. Your people have suffered oppression in many of the same ways as my people.
This shows how poorly educated people are on the topic of homosexuality and how homophobic our community is. One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.
so panthic law expects us to go against the hukam of Guru Nanak Dev Ji?
Adultery is not the desire for another person's spouse. That is coveting as well. Adultery itself is the actual action of physically cheating on your spouse with another person. You can not be logically labelled an adulterer until you've physically cheated on your spouse. So neither thievery, nor adultery can be compared homosexuality. Firstly because being gay does not require an action, and secondly because same-sex acts are not based on harming others.
In time of gurus, there were no gays or sikhs who used to love each other. Hence presently, every granthi or amritdhari interprets his own personal beliefs as guru's voice for anything that is modern. That's where the problem lies.
Have you heard about Khajuraho temple ??
Go and search about that .
@dilpreetbrar104 it's hindu temple sikh limited to Punjab only.
so ban sterile individual from being married. Furthermore, ban 90% of the people whom are going infront of the guru that have had sex outside marriage in heterosexual relationships and NOT only limit it to the queer segments of the Sikh community.
While your views do seem to be the majority, do you think it's possible that within your lifetimes most Sikh authorities outside Khalistan would embrace same-sex marriage for ordinary Sikhs?
If the "vessel/their body/sex" plays NO role, then why have gay sex? This shows the flaw in the thinking. The body and pleasing it through sex plays a huge role. Loving another person, being best friends for ever, has nothing to do with sex. If all you want is to be best friends, why get married and why live a life of sensuality and sexual pleasure? It is totally antagonistic to Sikhi. The Guru teaches to conquer desire and lust, and yet your are advocating lust as a virtue.
Lust is just a figment of the religious imagination. It's an arbitrary term that can be used against any person who takes control of their sex lives, and defies the will of nonsensical religious views of sex. There's nothing wrong with having sexual desire, since humans were created with that desire.
You pretend not to discriminate and then ultimately you do. Do not live in duality Jagraj - you cannot have it both ways - if you pardon the pun lol ;)
No, it's not a contradiction. You simply aren't understanding. When women do drugs or drink alcohol while they are pregnant, the fetus is always at risk of being born with a dependency on the substance that the mother was using while she was pregnant with them. So women who smoke crack while they're pregnant can and do give birth to babies that are addicted to crack. The same thing happens to women that drink while pregnant. The mother's "actions" caused her newborn baby's addiction.
People can take what God said is right or wrong for them to do or decide what is right or wrong for them to do themselves. It's up to them. They have free will.
Basics of Sikhi THANK YOU THANK YOU.. Waheguru Ju Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Je ki Fateh
"homosexuality is just a state of mind that is fueled by sexual lust"
How is homosexuality fueled by sexual lust? How is heterosexuality not fueled by lust? Explain to me how a man being attracted to a woman is not lustful, but a man being attracted to a man is?
"Thievery is the desire for something that doesn't belong to a person which is acted on physically by the taking."
No, coveting is the desire for something that doesn't belong to a person. Thievery itself is strictly the ACT of stealing something that doesn't belong to you. You're not a thief because you covet something, you're a thief because you actively stole something, or tried to steal something.
Again you showed the contradiction: "(which would cause a kid to be born with an addiction to alcohol)." How could "the kid" be "born with an addiction" of something he has not had alcohol, or are you saying he drank it in utero(something I am not sure would support your case, either)?
The Sikhs have been discriminated against in the same ways as my people. The only difference is that Sikhs maintain a good community unit (minus their disgusting treatment of Sikh homosexuals), and you have the tools to teach your children to be sant sipahis. My community is too broken to get anything done at this current time.
"All they need to do is imagine it in order for them to excite the desire"
Why would anyone imagine anything unless they already had a natural desire which first compelled them to imagine it in the first place? And if they first had a natural inclination (i.e sexual orientation) in order to feel compelled to imagine something (and then lust about it), then isn't more accurate to say that one's sexual orientation leads to lust, rather than one's lust leading to their sexual orientation?
End the discussion if you like, but still you must think it through: Feelings and desires are not the basis of morality. We are all born egotists, so by your logic, we should all reject the Guru because He is asking us to give up our rightful egotism, which is discrimination. In short, you cannot hold onto sin and the Guru at the same time; they are mutually exclusive. No one is born gay or straight. Along with your head, sexuality should be given to the Guru.
According to SGGS, Akal Purakh is the only "PURAKH" (Men), rest all of us are his NAARI (Women).... Isnt' it..????
No waheguru is genderlesss it is just language in which waheguru is mentioned as men and humans as women.
just a question if you are sikh you cant marry the same sex but can you date them? like as boyfriend or girlfriend or not even that
Cannot date
"If you do not admit religious Scripture as a source of moral authority, or that they are relevant to a discussion of the right use of Scripture, I am not sure how you can say you are either Christian or interested in Sikhi"
Not all Christians are the same, and not all Christians believe the same things about the Bible. I'm a Christian because I believe in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (though I do openly question that as well). I'm not a Christian because I believe in the entire Bible.
*Guru Granth Sahib doesn't mention anything about homosexuality and that's just because Guru Granth Sahib only talks about spiritual things and sexuality has no bearing on your ability to be spiritual*
Also, the fact that you are advocating that queer Sikhs should live an ascetic lifestyle if they are blessed with amrit is even more troublesome. Guru Nanak several times in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji vehemently rejects the ascetic lifestyle. Guru Nanak Dev Ji himself states that an ascetic "one who burns up his egoity, and whose alms consist in enduring hardships of life and in purifying his mind and soul. He who only washes his body is a hypocrite" (SGGJ, 952).
I agree, but there needs to be a clear understanding for people who get caught in the traps of the world's false, man-centered ideologies. Otherwise we put the people at risk because we don't have clear articulations of moral truth. It is only through Naam, Bani, and Kirtan that we can do this, but there's no sense in confusing the matter by not being clear on these other issues. Not becoming fuzzy, the challenge is to hold to the truth and not fall into judgmentalness or lack of compassion.
Very true - you cannot please everyone and ultimately you can only be true to yourself and people will always complain whatever you try to do :). I would suggest to you though that your view isn't middle of the road, but rather its swinging to either side - hence my comment. You may gain greater consistency by either dropping your own views or dropping the "panthic" view, otherwise people may be confused by what your position on a given topic really is. Just a thought :)
"If morality were subjective, then logically you could not say homosexuality is moral any more or less than saying it is immoral"
Exactly! Just like heterosexuality is neither moral nor immoral, homosexuality is neither moral nor immoral as well. They just "are". Being black isn't moral or immoral, being Punjabi isn't moral or immoral. Speaking French isn't moral or immoral. These things just are.
Again, if it is completely subjective, you have no ground to argue that homosexuality is right or wrong. Each is simply a subjective statement of no real value because of the nature of subjectivity. I am saying that each of these major religions have received the same ruling on it, and these provide a universal witness for the unacceptability for homosexuality. It is entirely consistent with love to maintain that homosexuality is, in the eyes of God, not the right use of sexuality.
Homosexuality just is, and it has nothing to do with whether someone is good or bad. So why punish them? God made them that way and God did not put people on Earth to hurt each other.
Gays throughout history have been murdered, outcast from their families, denied jobs, denied by the military. They are just people.
Some major religions accepted slavery so do you think that's okay?
Actually, heterosexuality is not a sin, but the means ordained by God to propagate the species. The Gurus themselves were married and had children, and were not sinning in this. Homosexuality is purely and only born of sensual desire. Desire is at the root of sexual sin, including heterosexual sin, but marriage is the only proper means in which sex can be had which is not corrupted by desire, but is blessed with the possibility of having children and family.
Jesus confirmed the state of the Old Testament as it existed in His day, and we have access to this, and the Hebrew and Greek Septuagints agree that this is the meaning. Biblical redactors? Which ones? When? How? How would you know? Was it a conspiracy against homosexuals from all time? How do you explain Paul, or because he teaches traditional values he is suspect?
One cannot claim equality for all and then deny sexual relations and marriage between gays. Such opposing statements are a contradiction in terms and hypocritical.
And to "TheDespairbear", just because these two men make such claims, it doesn't mean they speak the Truth. Listen with your heart and you will know that Sikhi embraces you and your sexuality Wholeheartedly!
And finally to the 2nd man who commented at the end of the video, there is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle!" Such loose talk not only serves to expose one's ignorance, it does a massive disservice to this most beautiful Wisdom tradition.
The entire mode of this thought is based on error. To claim that a behavior is against Sikhi is not to discriminate or victimize. By this logic, putting thieves or drunk drivers in jail discrimination. Why not throw away the turban and become skin heads? Having requirements, even behavioral ones, is not discrimination. Sikhi is VOLUNTARY, thus it cannot be discrimination. No one says they shouldn't get jobs or chant bani, just that the entire notion of "being gay" is no different from other sin.