T O P
[deleted]

As the article points out, homophobia is more prevalent amongst the older, conservative Sikhs while the younger people (especially those raised in the West) are mostly fine with it. My personal view is that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality in Sikhi, and hence I support LGBT rights. It's a shame that people like Bawa Singh Jagdev are spewing intolerance and giving the impresssion that their views are shared by all Sikhs.


ChardiKala

My view: - Does Sikhi say gay people are bad? No. - Can you be gay and Sikh at the same time? Yes. - Is Sikhi against 2 gay Sikhs getting [civic] married and living together? No. - Should the *Anand Karaj* be opened up to include a gay ceremony? Definitely a grey area, and this being Reddit there will likely be many people saying yes. I am pretty neutral on this right now but [here are arguments for why it should not](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sikh/comments/4dnbx0/the_arguments_against_homosexual_anand_karaj/)


khalsa_fauj

I'm a little concerned about how people use the fact that Gurbani doesn't explicitly say homosexuality is bad as a defence that it is 'ok'. The absence of a position on the subject doesn't mean that one can assume that it's therefore acceptable. Gurbani doesn't say anything about bestiality, paedophilia, sado-masochism, etc but I would never use that as a means to say that 'well...Gurbani doesn't say it's bad' because it's not like Gurbani says its good either. I know it's just your opinion that Sikhi doesn't say being gay is bad or that two gay people living together is bad or that a Sikh being gay is bad, but I don't think Gurbani explicitly portrays those things as positive either. Simran, Seva, Sangat, Keertan, etc... These are the things that Guru Sahib has told us to focus on. This is what Guru Sahib wants and would like His Sikhs to do.


Nice-Try-606

At the end of the day, we are all equal. You are supposed to treat everyone equal. Being homophobic goes against that. But, you’re right. Gurbani didn’t state much to anything about the lgbtq community, but people should rather be kind than to shame or show much hesitation to the lgbtq community when they’re humans too. you can’t change that part of yourself regardless.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChardiKala

I don't find using metaphors in order to derive real-world policy in this way to be a compelling form of reasoning. Using this logic, one could equally say that the Khalsa is an incestuous organization because all Amritdhari are the sons/daughters of Guru Gobind Singh ji and Mata Sahib Kaur and therefore, marrying each other is akin to a brother and sister marrying one another.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChardiKala

There's lots of things people don't choose to be (or do), doesn't necessarily mean the Khalsa can allow everything. Again, please give the thread a read.


[deleted]

That doesn't seem to be a very good argument. You *could* choose not to act on it, and if you're bisexual you *could* choose to pretend you're straight and hide the gay side.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Yes, but they can't do an Anand Karaj.


ChardiKala

Please read the arguments against homosexual anand karaj thread that I linked above. You seem to be conflating the *spiritual message of Gurbani* with the *social organization* of the Khalsa, when the two do not necessarily completely overlap. I absolutely agree that gays are not bad people and have no spiritual deficiency that would prevent them from connecting with with Waheguru, but there are definitely reasons to be hesitant about opening up Anand Karaj to nontraditional forms of marriage. Your argument here does not address those points at all.


TheTurbanatore

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! > What is your view of Gay Sikhs? Sikhi doesn't really touch on the topic of Homosexuality. It is very much possible to be Gay and Sikh at the same time. As for Gay marriages, Yes, they are allowed. However "Gay Anand Karajes" are being debated and each Gay couple should discuss it with the Panj Pyare on a case by case bases. Conservative Sikhs often bring up how the Akal Takth passed a resolution banning "Gay Anand Karajes". It should be noted that the Akal Takth is not what it used to be and in today's age is an order of often times very conservative, uneducated, old men. Recent research shows that for many people, being gay is not a choice, and we as Sikhs should accept that because that's how Waheguru made them. One of the arguments against "Gay Anand Karajes" is that being Gay is just a form of lust. This argument is easily countered using my previous point that research shows a lot of Gay people don't choose to be Gay. Another point is that "Lust" doesn't exclusively affect Gay people and is also prominent is straight couples as well. The third popular argument brought up by Sikhs who appose a "Gay Anand Karaje", is that marriage is strictly for procreation, not love, this completely ignores all the straight couples who get married for purposes other than procreation. Does this mean we stop couples who dont plan of having kids fro getting married? Furthermore how do we predict the couples intent? They could just lie. Their is no accurate way of predicting the couples intent. When it comes to procreation, Gay couples who are biologically female can still procreate, just not with each other, and others could just adopt a child. A valid point the conservatives bring up is that It is true that when raising a child, a man and a women posses certain qualities that improve the child's upbringing, but that doesn't mean Gay couples can't do that, it could just be less effective than straight couples. The last argument brought up by Conservative Sikhs who are against the "Gay Anand Karaj", is that their is not historical reference for it. From a Sikh point of view, unless the Guru explicitly prohibited it then it means nothing. How can their be a Gay Anand. Karaj during the times of the physical manifestations of the Guri (1-10) of their weren't any openly Gay Sikh couples in the first place? I cannot find a single reference for any Gay Sikh couples during 1500s to 1700s. I'm sure if they did exist and humbly asked the Guru they would not be declined. The problem with the argument coming from Historical reference is that it is completely rooted in the past and does not reflect today's diverse world. Who cares if their wasn't any Gay Anand Karaj in the past, the Guru is still with us, right here, right now and can change anything. It only if we make the effort. Im not trying to be Politically Correct, but I personally don't care about "Gay Anand Karajes", and the panth has not come to a steady conclusion, despite recent evidence. I think that each Gay couple should be dealt with on a case by case bases from the Panj Pyare. However there is one pre-requisite that must never be changed: both participants in the Anand Karan must be Sikh!


[deleted]

Why is this nonsense suddenly on the throats of Sikhi? Its mentioned over and over that Sikhi isnt some sort of authoritative set of laws. We have 1 sole objective and that is to connect to Waheguru.


[deleted]

In addition Gay Sikhs should be allowed to do anand kharaj, why cant they? Theres literally nothing wrong with that. Its 2 people in front of the Guru, God is genderless.


[deleted]

I disagree, the Guru said Anand Karaj is between a man and woman who are Sikhs. Let's not distort Sikhi with this.


[deleted]

In the Gurus time, such issues never arose. So it was never specifically addressed. You apply the Principles of Sikhi to various situations and you can develop the Sikhi perspective. Sikhi is a life template.


[deleted]

You are implying God somehow cares about your sexuality. Meaningless attribute in the scheme of things. You are present on this earth and blink of an eye you face death. Find waheguru now before you lose your chance.


hilokvs

who taught you god is genderless vahiguru is purkh


[deleted]

God is formless, and indescribable. We can't put human attributes to Waheguru.


[deleted]

I have no issue with gay Sikhs, Waheguru made them that way so we should accept it. I just don't accept Anand Karaj between two homosexuals or non-Sikhs.


hilokvs

being gay is fine. gay just means happy nothing else homosexuality is not


[deleted]

If it's wrong, why did God make them gay? Karma?


hilokvs

bhenji there is a lot to this discussion.. and some of it is akath katha ... sab kish vahiguru da hukam vich hai ..kudrat sab vichaar ... gay is fine .. homosexuality is wrong ...


Nice-Try-606

“gay” is a term made to represent men loving men, exclusively. homosexual has and still is used in a derogatory way, but especially back then. therefore the term gay was created. yes, it also means happy, it’s a play on words if you will.