Jump to content

Gurdwara pushing for LBTQ marriage


Guest Das singh
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/11/2020 at 8:39 PM, Guest jigsaw_puzzled-singh said:

I posted a message with statistics that disprove everything you said a week ago. The Moderators refused to post it here, That's when the discussion here ended. If the Mods want to portray an illusion that everyone else is a a shirt-lifter and only Sikhs are manly warriors than then what is the point of even pretending to have a 'discussion' here ?

I never said "Sikhs are only manly warriors" but Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy and a Paap. I don't know maybe missionaries support this mental disorder or not but they are heretics I wouldn't be surprised if they support such paaps too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Darklord
On 8/9/2020 at 6:18 PM, Guest Fareed said:

There is no documented history of homosexuality in our religion, but this does not mean it is and evil thing. It's always existed, but people have been fearful of being themselves publicly because it has always been frowned upon. It's an interesting issue. Our Guru never addressed it directly, meaning it must not be so relevant. But what is relevant and is explicitly addressed is in Gurbani is "homai". Ego. Thinking that you are better than someone else or that you should discriminate against others because they seem different. That is definitely against our religion. Our Guru does not make mistakes. In the Anand Karaj ceremony, when the Lavaan is read, it speaks of the union between two souls, not the union of a man and a woman. We must stop drowning in the illusion that we are our bodies. SatNam Waheguru. It means the Divine Oneness is Our True Identity.  Our Guru wants us to look within, not waste our time focusing on genitalia, or else they would have included the union of "man and woman" explicitly in the ceremony and would have forbidden everything else. Our Guru does things for a reason.  If you're not following justice, equality and love...FOR ALL PEOPLE....if you're not attempting to understand the other until you realize we are all One and there is no other....then you are not a Sikh of the Guru. I'm not trying to bash or defend anyone, and I apologize if it felt like I was. My soul just really felt the need to share this perspective and I humbly request that you consider this point, if it helps at all, when thinking of homosexuality in our panth. It's not an answer, only a prospective that hopefully contributes in some way.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

ਧਨ ਪਿਰੁ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਨਿ ਬਹਨਿ ਇਕਠੇ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਏਕ ਜੋਤਿ ਦੁਇ ਮੂਰਤੀ ਧਨ ਪਿਰੁ ਕਹੀਐ ਸੋਇ ॥: Dhan pir(u) aaheeani bahani ikathae hoi. Ek joti dui mooratee dhan pir(u) kaheeai soi: Wife and husband are not they who pose as one whole; wife and husband are they who are two bodies with one soul (sggs 788).

It is clear in gurbani that it say Dhan (husband) Pir(wife). not Dhan dhan or Pir Pir. so its clear that Guru Sahib considers a Man and a women for anand karaj. You try your Liberal agenda in some other religion we don't need it. You were talking about Homai well Kaam is also there in regards to homo lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jigsaw_puzzled-singh
On 8/14/2020 at 3:19 AM, Jonny101 said:

I never said "Sikhs are only manly warriors" but Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy and a Paap. I don't know maybe missionaries support this mental disorder or not but they are heretics I wouldn't be surprised if they support such paaps too

You did however say you think that it is a fact that homosexuality is less prevelant among Sikhs.  The Mods here allowed that point of view here to sit as fact while at the same time they refused to post any message with facts proving otherwise. Whichever way you look at it it is clear that a frank and honest 'discussion' on a subject has not been allowed to take place by the Mods of this 'discussion' forum.

Now.....You like to use the word 'missionary' alot. I wish you wouldn't because whenever you do most people are like me and picture images in their mind of a victorian christian missionary in a top hat trying to teach the gospel to tribes in darkest africa. Who and what the hell is a 'missionary' ? and whoever they are, they must be super powerfull super men if, apparently, they can be responsible for drugs, corruption, water table, soil erosion and homosexuality among Punjabis.

Look, the point is this:  I feel as uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual behaviour as you do but at the same time I do at least understand that these people exist. Perhaps they feel as equally repulsed at the thought of a heterosexual man like myself being intimate with a woman. But heterosexual men like myself do exist and they must accept that and I must accept the fact that they exist. There is no room for hatred here. Just because you or I feel uncomfortable about some people it doesn't mean we should and can turn our heads the other way and pretend they don't exist and thus deny them access to the same rights and priviledges we enjoy....including marriage. Hatred begats more hatred. We Sikhs should know this better than anyone because we should never forget how, in 1915, all Sikhs were expelled from the west coast of Canada because people with hate in their hearts and minds could not control that hate. When Vancouver's Mayor, politicians, judges and police realised they couldn't legally deport Sikhs from Canada because they were British subjects those hate-mongers delved deep into their hate book and used homosexuality as a valid and legal reason to expel. Thus, all Sikhs were expelled from Canada not because they were Sikhs but because the police, politicians and courts colluded to say that the Sikhs indulge in homosexual practices (which at the time was illegal in Canada). That in itself should be enough for us to understand and appreciate which side of this debate we should be on. Which side of history do we want to be in - the right side or the wrong side ?  Personally, we can go on feeling as uncomfortable or comfortable with homosexuality as we want - I know I will always feel uncomfortable with it but common sense dictates that the uncomfortableness must never tip over into hate. They exist. They're human beings. It's we heterosexuals who need to change a little by becoming more reasonable and accomodating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2020 at 11:52 AM, Guest jigsaw_puzzled-singh said:

You did however say you think that it is a fact that homosexuality is less prevelant among Sikhs.  The Mods here allowed that point of view here to sit as fact while at the same time they refused to post any message with facts proving otherwise. Whichever way you look at it it is clear that a frank and honest 'discussion' on a subject has not been allowed to take place by the Mods of this 'discussion' forum.

Now.....You like to use the word 'missionary' alot. I wish you wouldn't because whenever you do most people are like me and picture images in their mind of a victorian christian missionary in a top hat trying to teach the gospel to tribes in darkest africa. Who and what the hell is a 'missionary' ? and whoever they are, they must be super powerfull super men if, apparently, they can be responsible for drugs, corruption, water table, soil erosion and homosexuality among Punjabis.

Look, the point is this:  I feel as uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual behaviour as you do but at the same time I do at least understand that these people exist. Perhaps they feel as equally repulsed at the thought of a heterosexual man like myself being intimate with a woman. But heterosexual men like myself do exist and they must accept that and I must accept the fact that they exist. There is no room for hatred here. Just because you or I feel uncomfortable about some people it doesn't mean we should and can turn our heads the other way and pretend they don't exist and thus deny them access to the same rights and priviledges we enjoy....including marriage. Hatred begats more hatred. We Sikhs should know this better than anyone because we should never forget how, in 1915, all Sikhs were expelled from the west coast of Canada because people with hate in their hearts and minds could not control that hate. When Vancouver's Mayor, politicians, judges and police realised they couldn't legally deport Sikhs from Canada because they were British subjects those hate-mongers delved deep into their hate book and used homosexuality as a valid and legal reason to expel. Thus, all Sikhs were expelled from Canada not because they were Sikhs but because the police, politicians and courts colluded to say that the Sikhs indulge in homosexual practices (which at the time was illegal in Canada). That in itself should be enough for us to understand and appreciate which side of this debate we should be on. Which side of history do we want to be in - the right side or the wrong side ?  Personally, we can go on feeling as uncomfortable or comfortable with homosexuality as we want - I know I will always feel uncomfortable with it but common sense dictates that the uncomfortableness must never tip over into hate. They exist. They're human beings. It's we heterosexuals who need to change a little by becoming more reasonable and accomodating.

Problem is when you try to equate a sexual deviancy with racial/religious equality. Being of a different race or religion is not a paap but indulging in homosexual acts is a Paap which can take you to Nark just like incest and pedophilia which are also sexual deviancies. Just think if tomorrow incest became part of the new pop culture of the west then the same arguments will be used to normalize that lifestyle and impose it on the rest of society. 

We can already see how this lgbtq madness is getting out of hand where they are indoctrinating little children through sex Ed.

Little children are being exposed to these sickos

 

Screenshot_20200810-230335_YouTube.jpg

Screenshot_20200810-230353_YouTube.jpg

In what parallel universe is this OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jonny101 said:

 

Screenshot_20200810-230335_YouTube.jpg

Screenshot_20200810-230353_YouTube.jpg

In what parallel universe is this OK?

If kids this age are being exposed to this sh1t then what are they going to do when they're older?

With the naked men, is it even legal? Especially with kids around

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2020 at 9:03 AM, Jonny101 said:

Problem is when you try to equate a sexual deviancy with racial/religious equality. Being of a different race or religion is not a paap but indulging in homosexual acts is a Paap which can take you to Nark just like incest and pedophilia which are also sexual deviancies. Just think if tomorrow incest became part of the new pop culture of the west then the same arguments will be used to normalize that lifestyle and impose it on the rest of society. 

We can already see how this lgbtq madness is getting out of hand where they are indoctrinating little children through sex Ed.

Little children are being exposed to these sickos

 

Screenshot_20200810-230335_YouTube.jpg

Screenshot_20200810-230353_YouTube.jpg

In what parallel universe is this OK?

This is just messed up. According to Sikh religion we can't harm them or do anything bad.(In some muslim countries they throw them off the roof) They can Live there life as celibate Sikh or leave the religion.  But they can't force us to change our Rehat maryada. This will never happen. its a line drawn in stone. We make our stand here..... NO FURTHER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a ted Talk from back in 2018 there this Lady talking about how Pedophilia is just like being gay. LOL I thought I would share this with everyone. She is trying to justify pedos lifestyle saying that is how they feel inside.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, singhdalbir said:

Here is a ted Talk from back in 2018 there this Lady talking about how Pedophilia is just like being gay. LOL I thought I would share this with everyone. She is trying to justify pedos lifestyle saying that is how they feel inside.

 

and psychopaths feel like they have to kill or torture , does that make that a valid basis to allow them to do that or legislate pro- homocide for them ? Such a pathetic and blatant reductio ad absurdum .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use