sarbat

Sarbat Jee, your premise of argument is that the Akal Takht Jathadar is wrong about not accepting homosexuals doing Anandkaraj because he made some other questionable moves in the past. So what you are saying is if a person makes one wrong move they lose the right to make any correct move in the future. This is faulty reasoning. You need to support your argument based on it's own merit rather then questioning the Akal Takht Jathadar. The Akal Takht's edict on homosexuality is not based on the Jathadars opinion but based on Sikh traditions and the teachings and lifestyle of the Gurus, Bhagats, Sikhs for the last 500 years.

No one is encouraging persecution of gays or saying they can't practice their lifestyle, go ahead. But why do you have to demand an Anand Karaj? by demanding that homsexuals be allowed the right to conduct an Anand Karaj you are saying Sikhs should accept violation of the Rehit Maryadha. The Anand Karaj is a very sacred ceremony between a Sikh man and Sikh woman.

Khalsa Ji,

The jathedar's statement is not specifically about Anand Karaj but about homosexuality generally. This general statement, we believe, is flawed.

With regard to Anand Karaj, we share your reverence of it as a sacred institution. We go further and say that it should only be between two practising Gursikhs. How many gurdwaras nowadays conduct Anand Karaj ceremonies between non-practising Sikhs let alone non-Gurmukhs?

We believe that gay couples should have the right to marry in law. We also would like for Gursikh (and only Gursikh) same-sex couples to be able to make that commitment before their Guru. Anand Karaj should not be available to non-practising Sikhs, gay and straight alike. It is a disrespect to our Guru and to our Panth.

We think it is hypocritical that a haircut guy can marry a haircut girl in a Gurdwara, but two amritdhari Singhs or Kaurs cannot.

We are not so naive as to think that this is any easy clear cut topic, nor so arrogant as to say we are completely right. There are many questions that arise about the nature of homosexuality and homosexual relationships, the nature and role of Kaam in this, what bearing our past Karams have on all this. We say that it deserves a debate on the facts and merits, not on culturally dogmatic positions.

To be totally clear, we do not advocate or demand the right for non-practising Sikhs to have an Anand Karaj ceremony. Practising Sikh in my mind means a Gursikh.

With regard to the Rehat Maryada, I do not believe we ought to violate it, but the SGPC RM is deficient in many ways and needs revisiting (as it was supposed to have been every 20 or so years). For example, the SGPC RM says that Nitnem is only 3 banis, and lays down two different versions of Rehraas Sahib - one for private use and one for public.

Again, Sikhi is not about dogmatic following but about a reasoned approach, firmly rooted in Gurbani - and I emphasise this. We do not advocate anything that is contrary to Gurbani.

I hope this makes things clearer.

With respect,

Sarbat

Agree with this 100%, would be interested on Sarbat group's thoughts on the Akal takht and this particular edict..

Can OP share there own views on these two points?

I don't have a problem with people not understanding or even disagreeing with the akal takhts hukams but all must bow down and humbly accept them.

Gurfateh Ji

It is the duty of all Sikhs to respect and follow sandesh from Akal Takht Sahib. However, this relies on those exercising the authority of ATS maintaining that respect. Our Guru does not teach blind obedience. It is not a case of accepting all sandesh or none. Akal has blessed us all with the ability to think and reason. He further blessed us with Sikhi, to help direct our thinking and reasoning.

The Jatehdars Sahibs exercising the authority of ATS repeatedly act in manner that puts them at odds with the Panth. Attending the khumbh mela, comments about women inviting rape, weak positions on important Sikh issues - Prof. Bhullar, Rajonwala, '84 reparations and criminal case.

There have been two sandesh in relation to homosexuality. Both were in response to non-Sikh events - one was a Canadian parliament vote, and the other a ruling by the Dehli courts. In our humble opinion, it is not the role of ATS to behave like a blogger or a newspaper and comment on current affairs (we reference the Delhi rape comments again). These sandesh do not reason but react in violent and ill thought out way to external events.

We are not arrogant enough to say that we are right and The ATS Jatehdars are wrong, but they need to do more than write what is nothing more than a press release. A sandesh from ATS needs to be rooted in Gurbani, not the personal opinions of the Jatehdars. To us, these sandesh look to be more based on Punjabi cultural bias and not on Gurbani. They have a duty to set out reasoning unambiguously - we do not think they have done that. Even if you do not agree with our position, surely we can all agree that ATS should be particularly cautious to avoid any accusations of cultural bias in what they put out, and in this case, there is the appearance of heavy cultural bias.

Fateh Ji

Gurfateh Ji

Please find attached the Sarbat (LGBT Sikhs) statement on the UK Same Sex Marriage Bill (PDF).

Incase of difficulty opening the attachment, the text version is below.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Sarbat

Sarbat statement on the UK Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

We at Sarbat are delighted to see the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex
Couples) Bill overwhelmingly voted in favour by a majority of MPs (400 to 175).

The Bill will extend the legal form of marriage to lesbian, gay and bisexual couples and
permit religious groups to perform such marriages should they wish.

This is an important step towards equality for same sex couples. An overwhelming majority
of the public now favour allowing same sex couples to marry, and support has increased
rapidly. Most people now agree that it will strengthen, and not weaken the institution of
marriage.

Sarbat actively promotes the rights of LGBT Sikhs. The Sikh faith enshrines equality for all
and it does not discriminate against gay men or women who wish to make a life-long
commitment to each other.

We believe that there is no room for discrimination within our community for being who we
are. Indeed, Sikhism being a progressive religion, built upon the fundamental principle of
“all being equal” – any such discrimination would be going against Sikhi itself.

There is no reason why a committed Sikh couple should not be allowed to get married in a
Gurdwara. The Lavaan (Sikh Wedding Hymns) are also non-gender specific, and so
same-sex marriage is possible within the Sikh Dharam. However, most Gurdwaras (Sikh
places of worship) in the current time would be reluctant to conduct a same-sex marriage
because of an edict made by the Jathedar (Leader) of the Akal Takht in 2005 which
banned same sex marriages.

Sarbat’s view is that this guidance is flawed. It is based more on cultural and personal
bias, rather than on a view of Gurbani (holy scriptures). Furthermore, the guidance issued
is contrary to Sikh teachings.

This statement is not in the spirit of his appointment, which is to promote Sikhi values and
principles and to issue guidance and statements that are rooted in Sikhi. We invite the
Jathedar Sahib to issue a clarification of his original statement, explaining what Sikh
principles and teachings he draws on to reach his conclusion.

The Jathedar has been heavily criticised in the past for making ill-judged comments. The
case of the Delhi rape victim in December 2012, being one such example.

We remain optimistic that, this most basic of human rights, will be recognised by the larger
Sikh community.

Sarbat is a social and support group for and by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered
Sikhs. We offer a platform for like-minded Sikhs from all walks of life, and aim to promote
the LGBT Sikh cause in a fair and courteous manner.

Sarbat

Sarbat Statement on UK Marriage Bill 2013.pdf

Mr Jag SIngh

THINK AGAIN

you say sikhs are not gay.,,, well check this out!!

http://www.sarbat.net/

This is what happens when Manmat takes over. Thank God for Akal Takht's Hukam.

Some one should message him and say instead of putting Singh after your name, but Kaur. The soul has no gender, so it don't matter

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

If the soul has no gender, then how is it wrong for two souls to marry and become one in front of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, regardless of what the external gender is of both individuals? I would ask you to read the articles on that website and then post a reply. If you wish to have a discourse based on what is discussed there, please feel free to contact the website or discuss matters in an adult fashion on this message board.

The Akal Takht has issued many hukums, but they are not always adhered to. Just look at what has happened in respect of sitting at tables or on the floor for langar, and what is currently happening in India in relation to the Nanakshahi calendar. The Akal Takht can make the wrong decisions (such as when a siroppa and kirpan was given to General Dyer, the instigator of the Amritsar Massacre in 1919) , or decisions which are not respected by the wider Sikh community.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji and the following Gurus ensured that the language of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib was the colloquial language of the day, so that everyone could take from Bani without the need for intercessors. We were considered by the Gurus to be intelligent enough to read and understand the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, but unfortunately not so considered by the 'powers that be' in the present form of Sikhi. Hence the plethora of Hukums by the Akal Takht over the past two decades when the religion had successfully survived centuries of oppression without the need for such hukums.

One thing we should never forget is Guru Nanak Dev Ji's words - Hum nahin changay, bura nahi koi. "I am not good, and nobody is bad." The world is not inherrently bad, nor are the humans who inhabit it, and no Sikh can claim to be entirely good if he or she is a true Sikh (or "learner").

On the issue of marriage, would you want gay Sikhs to be marrying heterosexual Sikhs in order for there to be no 'visible' homosexuality in the community, and thus detrimentally affect the lives of both people in the marriage, or would you rather that gay Sikhs were accepted by the community in order for there to be no unhappy marriages or marriages of convenience? It is a very interesting issue which does not appear to have been given much thought by the wider Sikh community. It is not just homosexual Sikhs who suffer in such marriages, but also the heterosexual husband or wife to that marriage.

To the original poster, I would again repeat Guru Nanak Dev Ji's words and wish him or her all of the best in the search for somebody to marry.

Bul chuk di maaf.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

How will a Sikh Channel be accountable to individuals who only pay their TV Licence and do not have any access to Satelite or Cable TV? Surely it will be of niche interest in any event, and any impact it will have on British society or the Sikh diaspora will be minimal?

The SGGS does not mention homosexuality as being a sin or a prohibited lifestyle. I agree that the Gurus, past and present, espoused a belief in living the life of a householder (Gristi Jeevan), but it is possible to live such a life if one is gay.

Sikhism does not prohibit or condone homosexuality. It sees it as merely inconsequential because the main aim for Sikhs is to attain unity with Waheguru. For Sikhs to imply such a prohibition into the religion when none existed at the time of the living Gurus is incomprehensible.

Kaam is indeed one of the five thieves of the religion. However, the true Sikh approach to 'kaam' is not about the removal of all lust from one's life. If that were the case, then the ideal for Sikhs would be the life of a Sanyassi rather than Gristi Jeevan. It is physically impossible for sexual intercourse to take place without the element of lust, and sexual intercourse on a single occasion does not always result in a conception. Lust forms part of the act of conceiving a child. The issue for Sikhs is to ensure that lust does not become an all-consuming fire. Lust is something which is to be managed. If it is possible to do so within the context of a heterosexual relationship, then I would be very grateful if somebody could tell me why it is not possible to do so in a homosexual one?

Homosexuals in many countries are now able to have marriages and partnerships, and are able to adopt children and live a Gristi Jeevan. Homosexuality is much more than just whether one sleeps with a man instead of a woman or vice versa. Homosexual relationships have depth, meaning and fulfilment in much the same way that heterosexual relationships do. It is not just about sexual intercourse.

If you are to consider the stance that Sikhism takes in respect of sexuality, then that needs to be an even approach to both homosexuality and heterosexuality. Both are able to have children (by adoption or by in vitro fertilisation). Both are able to lead active lives within the community. Both are able to be spiritual beings. Both are able to control lustful feelings.

Some Sikhs may find homosexuality something to laugh about. Others have committed suicide or self-harmed due to the cultural impact that their homosexuality has upon their families. Before you reply to this post, please carefully consider the language that you use, and please be aware of the fact that some young Sikh men and women who are questioning their sexuality may read your reply whilst in a fragile state of mind.

Bhul chuk maaf karna.

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh.

Mod Note: While you are free to express your views, Sri Akal Takht Sahib has forbidden same gender marriages, therefore the link to the website you provided has been removed.