CdnSikhGirl

If cow protection is a must then there is NO WAY someone can condone dairy products at all.  

The fact is known, the baby calves are KILLED / SLAUGHTERED within first week of life so that the milk produced for the calf can be used instead for human consumption.

Anyone who is against meat eating because of killing the animal, but drinks dairy is a hypocrite!  
One cow produces milk only for a limited time after birth of a calf.  Then to make more milk, she is impregnated again. Anyone who thinks that all these baby calves are kept and allowed to grow and live full lives, are in serious denial.  Dairy farmers would run out of space.  They either sell them for slaughter or kill them in first week of life.  
If you are against killing of animals... you should be vegan.  There are milk alternatives like rice milk or almond milk.  

Don't be a hypocrite! 

why is this in bhagti section , just curious

dairy farms are just as bad Bhenji so if that upsets you, you should not be using dairy products either. 

Husband is also to look upon his wife as patni parshmewari meaning both husband and wife are too see God in each other but your translation of that shabad is wrong.  The shabad is saying that all humans are to take God as their husband lord. It's suggesting that no human is worthy of this sacrifice only God is. Your translation of the last two lines are wrong as it says that those wives (male and female both as all souls are feminine) who see the transcendent lord as husband... Ie only give themselves to God and no human...It's not those wives who see their physical husband as God over them. This is wrong thinking. 
 
Though as Gurmukhs we are to see the divine in each other and in everyone. There is no hierarchy where men are Gods over women... This is wishful thinking of men.
 
But not surprising to see this wrong thinking come from a male who thinks of women as only half human.  
 
Sikhi sees husbands and wives as equals... Two halves of one whole.  If husband is seen as a God over his wife then how can they be in a mutually loving relationship? They can never... Unless they both sacrifice for each other and see (and serve) the divine light in each other.  Mutually....
Otherwise the marriage is only for the males benefit and it's essentially sanctioned slavery of women.  
 
 
And paapiman not this is truly how you think of women, you will never ever ever have a happy wife but instead she will resent you... That is if you can even get a woman to agree to marry you which is not likely once she knows you think of her as only half a human and a 'downgrade' to being male.  If you are ok being miserable and alone and want to spend your life trying to justify to yourself (because you aren't convincing anyone else) that women are so lowly and inferior, then you will be miserable and alone and your obsession to put women down and take away the equality the Gurus gave women then you will have to answer for it one day.  Just remember that... Do you think the Gurus demanded subordination of women or do you think they wanted equal treatment and respect? If you think it's the first one then you better be damn sure because someday you WILL have to explain to Guru Ji yourself.

You are from canada so egg is not fertilized so its just a by product of an animal such as milk or cheese. Do you feel guilty for drinking milk or eating cheese?? There is no need to feel guilty cause its veggie...
If we try telling this to punjabi apney they would cast us out lol

The struggle is not between you and your husband. The struggle is between your own mind and what Gurbani says. You have a knack of twisting what Gurbani says. Personally I put it down to you not understanding it and relying on translations/what others tell you.
 
Look here for example:
and here:
Who says wives give up control of anything? Or the husband gets full control?
Women don't sit whimpering in corners waiting for a command from their husbands.
This is just common sense thought, not particular to any faith/religion.
 
There you go  again, looking for the implicit to be the explicit. It goes without saying.
 
How many couples will agree on everything?
Ok. i thought you had understood what i had posted earlier. In the RM it explicitly says that a woman should obey her husband. It explicitly says that man should never make any decision without his wife's input. Both apply the other way around implicitly.

I think you(paapiman veerji) are trying to make others to believe/read what you blindly understand!
See!! Gurbani is NEVERRRRR contradicting!
In Gurbani,it's pronounced as Jeev istri/female soul/"she" at many times ,so does it mean that it's  valid only for females ? No! There is a central message in each tuk!
Same here! Tuks you've provided or discussed go in same ways.
Taking human incarnation into consideration,there Word " Husband" has been used. And you know there were no any person's personal views in any gurbani tuk,that's totally divine/straight from cosmic sounds of sachkhand.So in GENERAL ,husband word is used at most places.It does not mean that word "WIFE" doesnt exsist at all.It means opposite partner of a particular one.Try to get the core idea!
First of all, husband word is only for WAHEGURU/SUPREME OF ALL MIGHTIES/OUR ONLY PARTNER HERE AND AFTER!
AND JUST LET if that's been used for reference of physical husband(of marriage lol),then  there that indicates husband for a female and wife for a male.So that goes both sides!
Kaho Nanak jin preyo parmeshar kar janeya
Dhan Satee Dargeh parwaneya||
Here gurbani states to see our true husband(who is none other than our true satguru) as GOD as parbraham! Then she is the true satee who shall be saved at this hands ! Here it goes to both males and females.Both are ought to accept our husband/satpursh/satguru as almighty/greatest of all/GOD.
Okay!! Let if we take it in terms of physical husband as constituent of marriage,then 
Here meaning comes out as No one(whether male or female) can be a satee by burning herself/himself in fire ,only those can be called who have served their husbands(for females) /wives(for males) as God.As God means greatest mighty /supreme of alk,in same manner here GOd word indicates that highest position in this physical life of physical world.So Gurbani says"when we talk about this physical world(just excluding that spiritual concept of only waheguru) then here one person is ordered to see his/her spouse to be greater than anyone else in his/her life.That's just a general message for entire manhood.
So for a female only his husband deserves that special place as they are physically one now and vice versa!
So here That's not only for a man or woman!,That's for a human soul being in a body !

Why does there have to be a shit storm?

Husband is also to look upon his wife as patni parshmewari meaning both husband and wife are too see God in each other but your translation of that shabad is wrong.  The shabad is saying that all humans are to take God as their husband lord. It's suggesting that no human is worthy of this sacrifice only God is. Your translation of the last two lines are wrong as it says that those wives (male and female both as all souls are feminine) who see the transcendent lord as husband... Ie only give themselves to God and no human...It's not those wives who see their physical husband as God over them. This is wrong thinking. 
 
Though as Gurmukhs we are to see the divine in each other and in everyone. There is no hierarchy where men are Gods over women... This is wishful thinking of men.
 
But not surprising to see this wrong thinking come from a male who thinks of women as only half human.  
 
Sikhi sees husbands and wives as equals... Two halves of one whole.  If husband is seen as a God over his wife then how can they be in a mutually loving relationship? They can never... Unless they both sacrifice for each other and see (and serve) the divine light in each other.  Mutually....
Otherwise the marriage is only for the males benefit and it's essentially sanctioned slavery of women.  
 
 
And paapiman not this is truly how you think of women, you will never ever ever have a happy wife but instead she will resent you... That is if you can even get a woman to agree to marry you which is not likely once she knows you think of her as only half a human and a 'downgrade' to being male.  If you are ok being miserable and alone and want to spend your life trying to justify to yourself (because you aren't convincing anyone else) that women are so lowly and inferior, then you will be miserable and alone and your obsession to put women down and take away the equality the Gurus gave women then you will have to answer for it one day.  Just remember that... Do you think the Gurus demanded subordination of women or do you think they wanted equal treatment and respect? If you think it's the first one then you better be damn sure because someday you WILL have to explain to Guru Ji yourself.

There is probably a reason why you don't see women lining up to be on this forum LOL. Just think about that for a moment... 
Here is a comment from a Singhni on FB on the suggestion that only wives must be obedient... she obviously agrees that it goes both ways and justifies it thus:
"PARTHAAEE SAAKHEE MAHAPURSH BOLDAY SAANJHI SAGAL JAHANAY ..means that if a great man talks about some person, then the story he tells is for ALL. if Guru Ji writes about women, that doesn't mean that ONLY applies to women. in rehit maryada it says that Sikh doesn't look at other's daughters, wives, mothers. does that mean that now women CAN look becasue the line says a Sikh doesn't look at daughters etc????????????"

And another:
"the bhavana, feeling, of wanting to serve the husband should be there in the husband for his wife too.. otherwise it's not going to work. God came and did chores for his Bhagats. the point is to adore and serve each other"
And another:
"the Shabad says that because she did sati for her human husband now she's wandering through incarnations.. she should do sati for GOD not a human"
And another:
"My husband loves cooking for me"
Ohhh and this comment:
"tell that guy that he is wrong and how dare he twist the words of the Saints."
Also on the subject of that katha Paapiman tried to use to justify women being lower than men:
"Sant ji is saying here that if she does paath without ANY desire (as all humans should do whther male or female) then SHE will be mukt. so, what we can learn from this katha is, why would she do Paath to be a male in her next life when she can do paath in THIS life as a FEMALE and be mukt????????" Sant Ji was actually speaking AGAINST nonensense that men are higher because these teachings make women want to be men and take them from their true path!! in this Katha Sant Gurbachan Singh ji is slapping the taksali views"
Also:
"there is no guarantee that if a woman follows her husband then she'll be saved. what if he tell her to do paap?? tell her that kill the girl ?? how is that a god????"
Also:
"yes... he said that it's a wrong idea.. that if we follow such ideas that are posted then why not follow SUN SAKHEEAY PRABH MILAN NEESAANI, MAN TAN ARAP, TAJ LAAJ LOKAANI.. according to their thiking, then this line would also translate to, HEY LISTEN GIRLFRIEND, THE SIGN OF MEETING GOD IS GIVING UP YOUR MIND AND BODY AND FORGET WHAT THE WORLD SAYS. THEN YOU WILL BE SOHAGAN/BRIDE... so i guess a guy can have a girlfriend, make her have sex with him to prove that's given her body and mind to him and to show the world that she doesn't care aboout honor , and THEN she can become a bride of his (as he's the husband eh?). ...... in reality this line means, listen FRIEND, the way to meet God is to give up your mind and body to God, forget the world's views and honors."
"so if these lines are mistranslated as the way these DDT weirdos have then the other line should be taken in the human form too and make the line translated as hey girlfriend, you can meet your husband by doing this. which is absolutely wrong!"

No means no even if someone is drunk.  And if two people are drunk, it should be implied on both sides, that neither is competent to make that decision.  In the above situation, both are obviously in the wrong for even being intoxicated to put themselves in that position, but even if so... A girl can be completely blitzed drunk, and wearing skimpy clothes its still not an invitation.  We have to be careful to not get into victim blaming either because then we end up with a ton of real rape cases which are blamed on the victim and that is horrible too probably more so than blaming a guy for making a bad decision.  Can you imagine if you were actually raped and you were blamed for it as the victim? Would you even tell anyone if you thought that was a possibility?  Probably not... and thats why so many cases in India etc go unreported.  Instead the girl suffers in silence, and it eats away at her... and many end up committing suicide - and vast majority of these cases are not even alcohol related.  This is what misogynist thinking does... girls who are real victims are blamed for their own attack, and then they kill themselves. But the guys at least they get off scott free.... thats what you want??
Here in Halifax NS Canada, we had a high profile case... a teenager got drunk... so what most teenagers make this mistake but she certainly did not ask to be f*d by 2 guys and have video of it taken while her head was hanging out the window puking.  She did not ask for sex, she did not consent to sex and the males were enough in their right minds that they were able to not only perform sexually, but take turns, and video it and then they were definitely NOT drunk the next day at school when they spread the video all around the school after which point, everyone started to call her slut etc. and she was further degraded and harassed relentlessly. The males claimed she "wanted it" because of the clothing she was wearing... but at no point did she solicit, or consent to sex with these guys.  She told them "no" several times on the video.  She ended up switching schools but it followed her and only a couple years later she locked herself in the bathroom, wrapped a cord around her neck tied to the shower rod, and jumped off the side of the tub killing herself at age 17.  
So is it considered 'feminism' to want justice for this?? If it was a guy raped by another guy or a guy even raped by a girl (which HAS happened before) I would want the same justice... but dont even claim to think that most of these cases are instigated by the girl.  A lot of cases the girl is so drunk she doesnt know what is going on.  Incoherent babble is NOT considered consent...... ever.  In a court of law....
 
 

It is so easy to rile you up Satkirin lol
I am just fooling around with you.

No power struggle here... my husband and I treat each other as equals.  There should be no one person in control over the other.  Why should I have to always obey while he isn't expected to do the same?  Why is it that the wife has to give up control and the husband gets full control?  That only causes feelings of resentment in the wife, because she is put in a subordinate role... nobody wants to be in the subordinate role.  Isn't marriage a team of two equal partners?  A husband does not deserve more respect simply because he is male.  Whoever said that dictating roles where the husband gets his way and the wife has to obey is the best for our psyche? They are wrong!  It's good for the husband... he never has to answer to his wife for anything and he always gets his way in decisions (if she just 'obeys') so he is happy and she has to sacrifice, and though she might be happy in seeing him happy, inside she won't be happy herself because her needs are not being met and she is being treated like a child / subordinate / inferior.  Christianity has this thing too called male headship... I don't buy into it.  It's simply subjugating women and claiming that's how God wanted it.  In reality, thats how the men wanted it.
Since I already see all humans as equals... I can not change my perspective to a lower way of thinking where males control females... simply because of their gender.  Gurbani does not say so... and that tuk you quoted (or rather misquoted) is actually taken out of context of the shabad. It's original meaning is for all humans to see God as your husband-Lord.  The shabad has nothing to do with physical wives seeing their physical husbands as God (and I never meant in the literal sense - I meant in a control / authority sense)  
Men are not in authority over adult women... who are not minors, and posses their own desires, needs and perspectives on things.  Why should the guy always get his way?  That is not fair in any sense of the word... you are already saying women should be homely and domestic... so she is already drew the short straw in that sense... so on top of that she has to 'obey' every time he orders her around? 
To me, the more Sikh perspective on it - and keeping with rest of Gurbani - is that BOTH spouses should take each others needs into consideration and work through issues and decisions together.  Sometimes one will compromise and sometimes the other will. One person should not always get their way.  Husband and wife are two halves of one whole... neither half is above the other.  
Because how then can someone ever appreciate what the needs of the other is, if they always just get their own way? Love is give and take and so is respect. The ONLY ONE who deserves completely selfless love and devotion is Waheguru... which is the essence of that shabad.  It's not telling physical wives to see their physical husband as God. It's telling ALL humans as soul-brides to see God as their true husband.
So in keeping with Gurbani, BOTH should obey each other and neither should be in authority of the other.  They are side by side... as equals. 

LOOL

Does Gyani Thakur Singh drink milk? Or use dairy products?  What does he think happens to the baby cows? 

I find it a bit hypocritical if someone is staunchly vegetarian and says even eggs are not allowed, but then is ok with dairy - where they are essentially turning a blind eye to the fact that the calves are killed within the first week of their life, so that the milk originally meant for them, can be used for humans.  One common misconception is that cows produce enough milk for the calves and us.  They are horribly wrong.  Cows only produce milk if they are pregnant and have a calf.  If these people think that all the baby calves are kept and allowed to grow to maturity and live full lives, they are seriously mistaken.  So if it's about the killing, then dairy should be prohibited as well and one should be vegan. Because I would think there would be bad karma in killing baby cows just so you can drink the milk meant for them.  
I actually feel better about eating eggs than I do about dairy... eggs are never fertilized so nothing is being killed, unlike with dairy. Though I do eat both.  I don't eat meat though... personal choice.  

You have asked them? How do you know? Why would they want a defective body incapable of creating life (without a female) and being ruled by a hormone (testosterone) that causes obstacles to salvation like anger, lust, rage, violence etc. ?? Female body is the one which is more closely tuned to spirituality. 

Animals live through instinct, so it's very difficult for them to have ego, when they do not possess self-awareness like we do.  They are more tuned to a species consciousness (google the monkey experiment on the island where they learned how to wash potatoes and you will have a real life example of it).  So no... animals do not have Ego like we do.  Everything they do is for survival and instinct driven.  

You have to look at the whole thing. The woman is "ardhangani" - half of something. She is the half of a marriage. That means the man can only be half as well.
Ardhangani was a term that Bhagwan Shiv Ji used to describe Mata Parbati when one of the Sapt Rishis wanted to worship only Bhagwan Ji. Bhagwan told the Rishi that I cannot be worshipped alone. Parbati is my Ardhangani, she is half of me.

Oh shut up!

Mate you should do some stand up comedy. I think you got everyone laughing here.

Such racists views. Are you a rss bhakt trolling here with some agenda?

All I can say is that my mother and sister have never felt left out when it comes to doing Sewa of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. They do it whenever they want, no restriction. Issues of 'masik dharam' never came up. My grandmother/Naani ran the gurudwara by herself, after she moved from Pakistan. My female elders and relatives have never felt any discrimination when practising Sikhi. No one tells them what to do and what not to do. They do as their heart desires.
So when I hear about unequality and discrimination of SIkh women,  the idea feels very foreign to me. 
 

One Rehet Maryada will never happen anyway.... Sikh Rehet Maryada was best attempt we had, which took over 13 years and over hundred of most prominent Sikhs of that time participating, and still there are cry babies who won't accept it - some to the point of continually even using degrading language like 'so-called' whenever they refer to it... which is sickening because whether or not they follow SRM themselves, it IS the only RM accepted by Akal Takht.
 

Here is one of the shots I took from Gurdwara Pathar Sahib... not as clear due to having a less capable camera last year... The one I have now has a wicked lens (Leica), which takes crisp shots!

Here is the history behind this particular Bir which dates to seventeenth century: