Hypothetical New Sikh Sect That Accepts Homosexuality

[Balkaar]

Just a little something I spotted and thought worth mentioning:

"Two Moroccan gay men have been sentenced to four months each in jail after they were arrested for standing too close to one another as they posed for a photograph in front of a historic site in Rabat. Male homosexuality is widespread in Morocco. Until recently there was a de facto toleration of same-sex relations, providing they were private and hidden. The intensifying repression coincides with more gay Moroccans coming out and the emergence of online gay publications and chat rooms.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/22/moroccan-gay-men-four-months-prison-photograph

Just felt the need to mention this, not sure why, probably to back Balkaar's argument up.

I am straight by the way, 100%, I love the ladies.

Yes Eduardo! I don't like the way certain individuals are accusing me of being a queen-in-hiding just because I defend gay people. Apparently that in itself means I'm as good as homosexual to these people.

Even you felt the need to reiterate your heterosexuality to spare yourself the suspicion. It's ridiculous.

[Kira]

Just a little something I spotted and thought worth mentioning:

"Two Moroccan gay men have been sentenced to four months each in jail after they were arrested for standing too close to one another as they posed for a photograph in front of a historic site in Rabat. Male homosexuality is widespread in Morocco. Until recently there was a de facto toleration of same-sex relations, providing they were private and hidden. The intensifying repression coincides with more gay Moroccans coming out and the emergence of online gay publications and chat rooms.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/22/moroccan-gay-men-four-months-prison-photograph

Just felt the need to mention this, not sure why, probably to back Balkaar's argument up.

I am straight by the way, 100%, I love the ladies.

I find it shocking you even had to say that. I guess only woman can be supportive of womans rights or blacks for black rights.

@Balkaar Bhaji that was an excellent post there.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

I find it shocking you even had to say that. I guess only woman can be supportive of womans rights or blacks for black rights.

@Balkaar Bhaji that was an excellent post there.

Someone pretended to be black to fight for blacks rights even if they're white.

[MisterrSingh]

I am straight by the way, 100%, I love the ladies.

The gentleman doth protest too much. Just kidding.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

Just a little something I spotted and thought worth mentioning:

"Two Moroccan gay men have been sentenced to four months each in jail after they were arrested for standing too close to one another as they posed for a photograph in front of a historic site in Rabat. Male homosexuality is widespread in Morocco. Until recently there was a de facto toleration of same-sex relations, providing they were private and hidden. The intensifying repression coincides with more gay Moroccans coming out and the emergence of online gay publications and chat rooms.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/22/moroccan-gay-men-four-months-prison-photograph

Just felt the need to mention this, not sure why, probably to back Balkaar's argument up.

I am straight by the way, 100%, I love the ladies.

*Non-Sikhs have a right to be Paapi, the Rehat doesn't apply to them and as long as their paap doesn't effect the innocent lives of others they should be allowed to Paap. (Because we believe only GuruPrassad can end our 5 evils.) I assume they're not GurSikhs so I say they have a right to basic sin.

[MisterrSingh]

*Non-Sikhs have a right to be Paapi, the Rehat doesn't apply to them and as long as their paap doesn't effect the innocent lives of others they should be allowed to Paap. (Because we believe only GuruPrassad can end our 5 evils.) I assume they're not GurSikhs so I say they have a right to basic sin.

Bro, nobody should have the right to be evil or commit sin as you put it, even if we're not taking rehat into account. Homosexuality aside, you're entering dangerous territory, because your reasoning suggests there's one Creator (and Judge, etc) for Sikhs, and another for non-Sikhs. That suggests duality, and as Sikhs, you know very well yourself, duality is a no-no. Fundamentally, there is good and evil (albeit with various shades of gray) and we should all be held accountable for our actions dependent on where our deeds fall on this so-called scale. Extenuating circumstances or the like based on religion is strange. Someone could argue one day, "My religion says I can kill, so that's why I killed Jacfsing2. Therefore I'm exempt from divine retribution or judgement or whatever." Imagine if there were no spiritual ramifications for such an act! That would suggest God is unjust and partisan when we know he clearly isn't.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

Bro, nobody should have the right to be evil or commit sin as you put it, even if we're not taking rehat into account. Homosexuality aside, you're entering dangerous territory, because your reasoning suggests there's one Creator (and Judge, etc) for Sikhs, and another for non-Sikhs. That suggests duality, and as Sikhs, you know very well yourself, duality is a no-no. Fundamentally, there is good and evil (albeit with various shades of gray) and we should all be held accountable for our actions dependent on where our deeds fall on this so-called scale. Extenuating circumstances or the like based on religion is strange. Someone could argue one day, "My religion says I can kill, so that's why I killed Jacfsing2. Therefore I'm exempt from divine retribution or judgement or whatever." Imagine if there were no spiritual ramifications for such an act! That would suggest God is unjust and partisan when we know he clearly isn't.

I was talking about basic Sin. Now you tell me, should we force non-Sikhs to follow the Rehat? That's a Sharia; we are not Muslims who enforce religious law upon everyone. Guru Nanak forgave Sajan Thug, not many other Sinners; he also forgave Kauda Rakshas. Either you don't understand that Guru Nanak Dev Ji is the only one who can change lives. I really don't understand what was the problem with me saying Guru Nanak forgives any who come to him? (Am I expected to be politically correct)

[Akalifauj]

edit

[MisterrSingh]

I was talking about basic Sin. Now you tell me, should we force non-Sikhs to follow the Rehat? That's a Sharia; we are not Muslims who enforce religious law upon everyone. Guru Nanak forgave Sajan Thug, not many other Sinners; he also forgave Kauda Rakshas. Either you don't understand that Guru Nanak Dev Ji is the only one who can change lives. I really don't understand what was the problem with me saying Guru Nanak forgives any who come to him? (Am I expected to be politically correct)

First of all, not following rehat doesn't make a non-Sikh evil or a sinner. Sikhs from other jathas could argue you're a sinner because you don't follow THEIR rehat.

As for non-Sikhs you xould say they are uninformed or unaware, yes I suppose, but not a bad person. Secondly, there was hardly a mention of the word forgiveness in your original post. If that's what you meant then you're right in that particular context, brother. I'm still not certain I'm on-board with exemptions to sin and stuff. Maybe it's my understanding? If so I apologise.

[jkvlondon]

If you prepare for test in this manner. How come you couldn't simply tell what X was. X, being to remember what Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib ji said to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji? This shows, who is more concerned with presenting Gurbani as is.

Again you simply cannot even remembering what the Guru said to his son and repeating it here. First learn to remember what the Guru says and the second test is to apply what the Guru has said. Yet you have a deep burning desire to add your thoughts into Guru Sahib`s advice to his son. Guru Sahib didn`t imply anything. He already told you what he wants from his son very clearly; with your wife, increase your relationship, but don`t go to another woman`s bed even in your dream. The word used by Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib ji for how to relate to the wife is ਸਾਥ. Guru Sahib says to increase ਸਾਥ.

Once again, you are unable to remember what the Guru said. First part of the tuk in question on ang 274 is speaking about sexual instinct. Second have is speaking about kaam, krodh, lobh, moh, and anhkar.

If marriage is the union of 2 souls. Why are you making one of the basis for marriage sexual inclination toward the same or opposite sex? All along I have said the Guru said through Gurbani; marriage is between a man and a woman. It is your camp, who says sexual inclination toward the same gender should be accepted in Sikhi.

Yet you say the below:

How can there be a homosexual couple, when there is no such thing as couple outside of marriage in Sikhi? Homosexual couple basis is on sexual inclination toward the same sex. Add the word couple to it and now you have a relationship based on sexual attraction between two same sex individuals.

The same SGPC you bash are the one's who said women can be in the Punj Pyare. According to western thinking, which you hold dearly, this SGPC of the 1930s was 'forwarding' thinking and gave 'freedom' to women. You shot yourself in the foot. Nice, very nice!!!!!

Is this what you call holding a different view; misrepresenting Gurbani by not being able to repeat what the Guru said, discounting the importance of Gurbani on this topic, and mixing your thinking with Gurbani and writing the whole statement off as Guru Sahib's wisdom?

just to correct the misconception SGPC just prints the SRM which in fact is the one approved of by Akal Takht and the different jathebandian taksali, akj, sikh vidhaans Kahn Singh Nabha, Bhai Vir Singh ji, Sants and sects e.g. nihang, nirmala and udasi so Panthic agreed SRM