If Sikhs Were Forced To Marry Gay Couples?

[Balkaar]

Its surely no accident the all knowing, all seeing gurus didn't see it neccessary to publicly sanctify a homosexual union the same way as a hetro union during the 240 years they walked the earth?

If you'd scroll back through this thread to an earlier comment of mine, I said that the reasons for one to be married were completely different in the times of the Guru Sahibaan, and that the Sikh marital laws would naturally reflect that historical epoch. Namely, the production of legitimate children who could inherit property and further the family line, and the establishment of alliances between families. None of these can accommodate homosexuality. Love did not enter into the equation.

But it does now. The institution of marriage has changed completely, it would be unrecognizable to renaissance Sikhs, and to the Guru Sahibaan. The Guru Sahibaan did not marry for love. They did the bidding of their Satkarjog mothers and fathers and wed the women whom they were instructed to marry, in much the same way as my own grandfather did. Contemporary marriage is not the same practice as the one which Guru Sahib was thinking of when they evolved their ideas on marriage.

[garch]

If you'd scroll back through this thread to an earlier comment of mine, I said that the reasons for one to be married were completely different in the times of the Guru Sahibaan, and that the Sikh marital laws would naturally reflect that historical epoch. Namely, the production of legitimate children who could inherit property and further the family line, and the establishment of alliances between families. None of these can accommodate homosexuality. Love did not enter into the equation.

But it does now. The institution of marriage has changed completely, it would be unrecognizable to renaissance Sikhs, and to the Guru Sahibaan. The Guru Sahibaan did not marry for love. They did the bidding of their Satkarjog mothers and fathers and wed the women whom they were instructed to marry, in much the same way as my own grandfather did. Contemporary marriage is not the same practice as the one which Guru Sahib was thinking of when they evolved their ideas on marriage.

There are many punjabi/indian stories narating romanctic get togethers/tragedies going back hundreds of years if not longer. love marriages may not have been the accepted norm but eloping and love marriages aren't a modern development. This aspect of love is false attachment 'moh' and wouldn't be sanctified by the guru.

The gurus were the human form fully aware of the timeless lord, its manmat to say the gurus would not to be able to recognise an aspect of the current times.

the actions/ideas preached by the gurus were not 'thought of' nor were their ideas 'evolved' it was revelation of the complete path back to our creator.

"jaise mein aave khasam ki bani"

My friend u are no doubt an intelligent person, and i dont mean to patronise u when I say this; but i believe you need to khoj bani further to realise what our great gurus were/are, in turn u will realise they could not have "missed a trick' by overlooking the 'love' aspect that causes a couple to come together (it is another false aspect of our human condition).

[JagsawSingh]

I don't think American law makers are stupid.

Oh dear. Thats just so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.

Anyway, the title of thread asks 'If Sikhs were Forced to marry Gay couples'. If I was absolutely forced to marry a gay, I'd probably marry Ryan Seacrest or someone but I would 100% refuse to marry a couple. Even if they tried to force me by torturing me I would say no. There's only so much abuse my backside could take and I would have to draw the line at 1. 2, I am sure, would lead to negative consequences and complications in terms of plumbing and going to the toilet etc.

[Balkaar]

Oh dear. Thats just so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.

Anyway, the title of thread asks 'If Sikhs were Forced to marry Gay couples'. If I was absolutely forced to marry a gay, I'd probably marry Ryan Seacrest or someone but I would 100% refuse to marry a couple. Even if they tried to force me by torturing me I would say no. There's only so much abuse my backside could take and I would have to draw the line at 1. 2, I am sure, would lead to negative consequences and complications in terms of plumbing and going to the toilet etc.

Fantastic

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

How would that make sense.. Couples only really marry to have kids since you can only be intimate with your spouse, so when you adopt a stranger baby, then what's the point of marrying since you got the child?

My point was what if the homosexual couple adopts and raises the kid into Sikhi, who then helps spread the message of Sikhi. They're basically doing exactly what the hetro couple is doing, but they adopted. And they're doing another good deed by giving a child a home.

[JSinghnz]

No, not really.

If the inability to have offspring equals natural imbalance, an infertile couple are naturally imbalanced.

And if marriage between two homosexuals is impermissible on the grounds that it is naturally imbalanced, then the same could be said of a marriage between two people who cannot have children.

Just looking for some consistency in your arguments.

What a joke of a reply. Try using your gray matter when replying. When a man and woman get married they don't know if they are able to have offspring or not. On the other hand homosexuals know they are not going to have any offspring. I don't think you will be able to comprehend such simple stuff.

[Balkaar]

What a joke of a reply. Try using your gray matter when replying. When a man and woman get married they don't know if they are able to have offspring or not. On the other hand homosexuals know they are not going to have any offspring. I don't think you will be able to comprehend such simple stuff.

That was an appeal to the cerebellum then was it? Use your imagination. Infertile couples can be fully aware that they are barren prior to marriage, and still choose to be wed. It isn't unheard of. By your logic, such a union ought to be considered an abomination.

[JSinghnz]

That was an appeal to the cerebellum then was it? Use your imagination. Infertile couples can be fully aware that they are barren prior to marriage, and still choose to be wed. It isn't unheard of. By your logic, such a union ought to be considered an abomination.

Using colourful language will not make you

sensible or logical for that matter. Your

answer clearly illustrates your confused

state of mind proven by comparing a

homosexual relationship with a marriage.

[S1ngh]

Balkaar,

Do you believe in panj piyaray ?

[garch]

Yeah if you marry you only marry to have a biological child because kids out of marriage aren't the best. So, when you adopt a kid why do you need to get married since that goal has been made..?

Have u read the laawan?

U are making a lot of assumptions, the commitment/vows made at the laawan do not mention children.

Yes children are a large part of marriage but not the only thing that matter, the commitment made at the laawan (marriage ceremony) is for both aatmas to undertake the journey back to the parmatma.

The bottom line is the gurus did not perform anand karaj of homosexuals although there were surely thousands around the area they travelled/lived.

Why???

it doesn't matter.. u either follow them without questioning their judgement in blind faith or you don't and you question their divine wisdom...

These things might not always make sense but take saakhi of when guru nanak tested his sons before passing the jot onto bhai lehna as an example of blind faith in ur guru and its reward.

we will never be able to comprehend the full picture but where the gurus example is clear let's humbly follow it if we are their true disciples.