Sikhnet Promotes Homosexuality

[VanHelsingh]

I'm not too sure of that.

Really? You'd think the kharkoos would let stuff like that go unchecked? If people were being told not to use contraception by them (as I discovered today in the 'Should Sikhs Be Having Many Children?' thread) then the next logical step would've been paying visits to suspected gay boys, and having a "word" with them.

[dalsingh101]

Really? You'd think the kharkoos would let stuff like that go unchecked? If people were being told not to use contraception by them (as I discovered today in the 'Should Sikhs Be Having Many Children?' thread) then the next logical step would've been paying visits to suspected gay boys, and having a "word" with them.

I wasn't talking about kharkoos, I was talking about 'aahm junta', the everyday bods that make up our society in East Panjab.

But you are right, if the attitude towards lewd folk singers was anything to go by, they'd probably have 'words'. But then this supposes that these people are open about their pooftery, which they aren't in Panjabi society (as far as I know).

I wonder how the kharkoos treated the khushrays and whatnot in Panjab in the 80s?

If people were being told not to use contraception by them

You sure this wasn't an attack on casual sex practices outside of marriage?

[VanHelsingh]

You sure this wasn't an attack on casual sex practices outside of marriage?

No, it was a directive issued at various Amrit Sanchars in order to swell the numbers of the panth, which to be fair, is understandable.

I wasn't talking about kharkoos, I was talking about 'aahm junta', the everyday bods that make up our society in East Panjab.

But you are right, if the attitude towards lewd folk singers was anything to go by, they'd probably have 'words'. But then this supposes that these people are open about their pooftery, which they aren't in Panjabi society (as far as I know).

I wonder how the kharkoos treated the khushrays and whatnot in Panjab in the 80s?

Homosexuality bubbles underneath the surface in Indian society back home. It's very well hidden but the signs are there when people get careless. I don't wish to get lewd or anything like that, but when I was a kid and went on holiday to India with my mum, there was hushed talk of two girls (well, women in their early 20's) being 'caught' at a wedding function in the pind, if you know what I mean. It's something that's disturbed me even to this day.

[dalsingh101]

I remember one boy telling me his cousin was 'taken' by kharkoos in 92. His dad had to go over there and sort it out. Don't know if this was true. They were a bit of a 'daku' family...

In any case, the modern movement for Sikh independence is young in my eyes. Yes, I personally do believe we have a lot to learn about administration and organisation and even where to be strict and where not to in a hypothetical new nation.

I mean, look at the situation now, if Khalistan was theoretically gained tomorrow, you're essentially talking about a majority (by a big margin) mona nation.

[VanHelsingh]

I remember one boy telling me his cousin was 'taken' by kharkoos in 92. His dad had to go over there and sort it out. Don't know if this was true. They were a bit of a 'daku' family...

In any case, the modern movement for Sikh independence is young in my eyes. Yes, I personally do believe we have a lot to learn about administration and organisation and even where to be strict and where not to in a hypothetical new nation.

I mean, look at the situation now, if Khalistan was theoretically gained tomorrow, you're essentially talking about a majority (by a big margin) mona nation.

Yeah, but the people who'd come forward to run it would be Sikhs with kesh and beards.

[dalsingh101]

Yeah, but the people who'd come forward to run it would be Sikhs with kesh and beards.

Look at Libya, Egypt, Bahrain etc. etc.

If people were overly heavy handed, would you not eventually get a movement against the leadership and some sort of civil war. Or people will vote with their feet and leave Khalistan in droves. Religious Sikhs need to grasp the fact that right now they are a minority and others simply don't share their views on adhering strictly to the prescriptions of faith. More 'secular' Sikhs (or should we say nonpracticing, monay, lax or whatever 'Sikhs'?), need to grasp that their more religious brothers/sisters need a space of their own too.

If people read Akal Ustat they would realise that God made diversity himself. Personally I think brothers who interpret the faith in a very rigid and dogmatic way, fail to grasp the share complexity of human nature and social dynamics myself. On the other hand, there is a genuine question to be asked with regard to just how far do we let things slide. Where do we draw the line between accepting a diverse society and okaying gundgi?

This is a tricky question. And this gay issue is a wonderful example of that very dilemma. How do we angle it?

Anyway, one thing that frequently goes against the overtly religious is that they can be called up on not allowing people, who do not share their high degree of commitment and discipline towards faith, a voice in matters. They essentially want a hegemony, even if they are a minority.

In my opinion, you can either have a 'theocratic' dictatorship or people have to search deep to find some model of society that works with the whole spectrum of people that exist in ANY society including ours. When religion goes wrong, it often leads to people seeing things from a very narrow perspective, we can see a working example of that in Afghanistan today.

Like I said, I still think we are a young community, and we make dumb mistakes like youngsters do (hell look at America!!)

We've had an easy time with just ignoring homosexuality (and a thousand and one other issues) and doing this seems to cause the problem to later manifest itself obtrusively in our society.

Personally, seeing as our leadership (if 'leadership' exists) seems to be made up of greedy pendu types, I'm just going to stick to a personal relationship with the faith and try and avoid the warped, corrupted 'politics' that characterises our people right now. Otherwise I'd probably convert in disgust at the actions of a lot of our own.

But it could be worse, at least we don't have a rampant paedo problem like some other faiths for instance.

[VanHelsingh]

I completely understand those points, and to be honest, its the above (potential) issues you've mentioned that I spend so much time thinking about.

I too have been thinking about these recent uprisings - 'revolutions' if you will - in the Middle East and Africa, and I began to wonder that if Sikhs had their own homeland at this moment in time, would the youth who haven't followed Sikhi to the letter be rebelling against a theocratic regime as some Gursikhs are hoping to implement?

You know for a fact that western sympathies would lie with the "cool-looking", clean-shaven youngsters who wanted to break free from the religious shackles imposed by the "bad" men with beards(!) That would be a tragedy as it would severely distort the message and beauty of Sikhi, and equate it with the intolerant regimes littering the Middle East at the moment (even those that hide behind democratic rule, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc).

But then I also understand the kind of society and ways of living and existences that Sikhi espouses, and its not easy or palatable for the average western mind to digest. Yes, it may seem stringent, difficult and inflexible but isn't that what hardcore Sikhi is about (the kind that the aforementioned kharkoos follow)? Are they not the ideal representation of what a Sikh should be? By criticising them (or people who share their world-view), are we not just lazy and irreligious because we cannot emulate their example? Isn't it about shunning the easy options and not following the path that everyone else is taking, but striking out and taking the difficult road because it IS the right way for a true Sikh?

Just because people don't want to follow the uber-orthodox version of Sikhi, doesn't that make the people weak and incorrect, and NOT a negative reflection on the faith itself?

If we had a wonderful leader who was the perfect Sikh, but after seeing the youth trying to force change towards a non-Gursikh state, would we cheer on this leader if he decided to launch attacks against these rebels? Surely we should support this hypothetical leader because he would be trying to preserve Sikhi in its purest form by quelling any rebellion that would lead towards a non-Gursikh state?

[Only five]

why is homosexuality a bad thing? people dont choose to be homosexual, who wants to be picked on and looked down upon by their peers?

i think this is just arrogant

Then talk to Sri Waheguru ji and tell him, hes arrogant. Any form of kaam is bad, whether that be heterosexual or homosexual. Marriage in Sikhi is for man and woman. A person's common sense is not counted to rationalize homosexuality into Gurmat.

no... theres been homosexuality forever, the earliest record of it in China is 600 BCE, there are even records of homosexual artifacts and artwork dating back from 10th millennium BC at the end of the Paleolithic age.

Yes homosexuality existed in the Gurus time, so be kind to show us the Shabads that say homosexuality is okay in Sikhi?

[Only five]

Mehtab veer,in the link, below the video there is a discussion...where Guru Jot Singh who is one of the Sikhnet admins openly says disturbing things. Please,read it yourself. Then you will understand why I used the word "promotes" .

Guruvah, I agree. Sikhnet does promote homosexuality and the worst part is. They don't have the Khalsa attitude to be up front about it. If they want to promote homosexuality, then do it in a open manner where they don't jump through hoops. They are dead wrong on this and the video is very childish and disrespectful.

Sikhi is not bound to cultures and lives in this world with it's own culture. There is no politics involved in saying homosexual marriages are not allowed. What people want to do on their own time is their business. Sikhi doesn't push anyone to follow Gurmat, so no person has the right to push their twisted views of homosexuality on Sikhi. That includes Guruka Singh, who wants to please the audicience from his video, rather than follow Sikhi.

There is nothing new about Sikhi closing the topic on homosexuality. Sikhi has closed the topic in the Gurus time.

[Mehtab Singh]

Mehtab veer,in the link, below the video there is a discussion...where Guru Jot Singh who is one of the Sikhnet admins openly says disturbing things. Please,read it yourself. Then you will understand why I used the word "promotes" .

Actually I was referring to the video. I don't bother reading comments under it.