Sikhnet Promotes Homosexuality

[deadbodydisposal]

What happened buddy? I know for a fact your not a Singh or even from surrey.

Singh look at it this way aswell. If homosexual can get married by the Anand Karaj. Then what about bisexual people? Are you going to deny them two partners because they are attracted to both genders? So Gurmat focuses on Sri Waheguru ji.

you sound like your from pm, dont lie, am i right, am i right :D i know i am

why not let them, if its homosexaul, bisexaul, whatever kind of sexual their all going to be attracted to something just like hetrosexuals. It doesnt change shardha of a person just cause they choose one of their life partners to be something else, in the end we're all going to die alone why would it matter if you choose a guy or girl as ur life partner. I dont know how a homosexual would see this kind of discussion because im a hetro and i doubt im doing their side of the argument any justice. But in the end a person is a human being why would we blame them and be like "thats wrong" isn't that just plain anti-sikhi. If theres evidence of it being linked through biology and theirs evidence they probably have no choice, arn't we fighting a losing battle, its almost like we're opressing a group of people... we as sikhs get <Edited> off at the thought of having to register under the Hindu marriage act, yet how would a gay sikh feel knowing that their own people look down on them and its being protrayed that even god doesnt like them... how will we ever get out of kalyug when we're giving people reasons to be athiests or go away from sikhi.

[dalsingh101]

Make sure some one films the fight and puts it on youtube for us please.

[Only five]

you sound like your from pm, dont lie, am i right, am i right :D i know i am

why not let them, if its homosexaul, bisexaul, whatever kind of sexual their all going to be attracted to something just like hetrosexuals. It doesnt change shardha of a person just cause they choose one of their life partners to be something else, in the end we're all going to die alone why would it matter if you choose a guy or girl as ur life partner. I dont know how a homosexual would see this kind of discussion because im a hetro and i doubt im doing their side of the argument any justice. But in the end a person is a human being why would we blame them and be like "thats wrong" isn't that just plain anti-sikhi. If theres evidence of it being linked through biology and theirs evidence they probably have no choice, arn't we fighting a losing battle, its almost like we're opressing a group of people... we as sikhs get <Edited> off at the thought of having to register under the Hindu marriage act, yet how would a gay sikh feel knowing that their own people look down on them and its being protrayed that even god doesnt like them... how will we ever get out of kalyug when we're giving people reasons to be athiests or go away from sikhi.

Instead of picking fights on the net. You should read more Gurbani and focus on your jeevan. Sikhi does not allow polygamous marriages and neither does it allow same sex marriages. Gurbani tells us to conquer our sexual instinct. Since sexual instinct provides a person with so called no choice and its a losing battle, then you are saying Gurbani, Sri Sukhmani Sahib is wrong and science is right. So no, its not a losing battle and heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals people have a choice. Gurbani is never wrong.

[dalsingh101]

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).

You know what would be the most shameful outcome for Khalistan. Imagine hordes of the clean shaven people of Sikh background fleeing it to get to an India they perceive as less oppressive! Or even keshdharis who hold unorthodox religious views, like sanatanists.

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?

One thing that sticks in my mind is that (as far as I know) none of the Gurus EVER compelled anyone to follow Sikhi or instructed any Sikhs to compel others in this way. It's always been a voluntary thing. So what do we do if hordes of people don't want to follow for whatever reason in a theoretical K'stan?

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?

We are told that this path is most difficult, finer than a hair and the edge of a sword. We are also told that it is 'rare' ones who truly follow the path. It's not about judging the faith, it's about what Sikh society does with those who may fall short of the lofty standards or those who simply do not wish to live this way despite being born in a Sikh family.

We have two options. Either we tolerate them to some degree or we do a taliban. Now if we have a fair few of them and start to systematically restrict them from opportunities, then we set up the ground for rebellion or mass exodus. And I curse the Sikh who is arrogant enough to feel that us depleting numbers is a minor issue in a world where numbers count.

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?

Lets go the other way, what if a clever but corrupt keshdhari man, wormed his way into power and used it for his own ends, using a facade of religiosity to neuter people who objected to him. Don't say it's not possible because Badal is doing it as we speak.

I tell you what, I think a big chunk of Amritdhari Sikhs who have been brought up in the west would struggle to live in a K'stan as envisaged by many of its more aggressive and dogmatic proponents.

Anyway we are seriously digressing. If you want to carry on, I suggest you start a new thread.

[S1ngh]

and.. pffftt .. Thread Locked !

Sri Akal Takht Sahib says NO on this issue and we stand under the banner of Akal Takht's Nishaan Sahib.

From Forum Rules & Guidelines

1. While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts.
2. Do not post messages that advocate harm or death to anyone, threaten the livelihood of anyone, or otherwise harass anyone.
3. No personal attack on Jatehdars of Sri Akal Takht Sahib or other 4 Takhts regardless of whatever information you may have.

Thread now marked for deletion within 24 hours.