sexy_singh

challenge .. i wouldnt want to torment anyone by doing that dynamic nice one! *waits for beards to come back in fashion. it happened in the 70's right? *

i keep getting told that i have 'nice features' or soemthing and that ppl try to picture me without being so hairy. im getting annoyed. why do others have such a big problem getting over my dhari? i tell em i've never thought of shaving and stop just short of saying im offended that they could have suggested it. when i look in the mirror i see me, but i get the feeling when others look at me, thats almost all they see. anyway i dont think about it at all apart from when ppl say the above..

ok. nice set of posts there. so what about these bumper stickers, should ppl not put them up?

durin the weekend i was out with friends when a car drove past .. my friend who was sitting on the front seat exclaimed, "khalsa!" .. i thought he was referring to me or somethin because i was the only sikh amongst them and why else would he use a word he was unfamiliar with? but then he spoke out the rest of what he had read on the passing car, "raj karega khalsa". i was silent. im sure he understood what it meant, at least in the superficial sense of a rule, or kingdom. it suddenly had occured to me that our maxim, 'raj karega khalsa' would seem, quite easily, to an outsider, a very supercilious, even belligerent, assertion. khalsa will rule? can anyone explain me in a sensible reasonable manner why a non sikh should not be offended when we say 'raj karega khalsa'. I understand that the faithful would see no problem, because to them its blindingly obvious why it is true. But i think others might find it may seem patronising. do u like it, would u like it if a christian told u that christians would inherit the earth .. or if a muslim tells u that only muslims will be saved? I dunno, personally it doesnt bother me one bit because i've learnt that the biggest test of ones patience is listening to someone saying something that you dont like, or care for, about things like religion, morality and so on and convincing urself that no matter how much u disagree, its ok for them to think that because they truly believe it. so what should i have said to my friend - should i have stopped to explain to him that sikhs dont think they have a monopoly on the truth, and that our religion is not about conquering the world? If so, how would i reconcile the 'raj karega khalsa' slogan he had just read? in other words, should i have apologised? (aside, my friend might not know what khalsa means but he is aware, im sure, that it is a sikh construct of some kind as hes seen the word around by knowing me)

hmm the AKJ comes to mind

uh whats the point ... meditate so you can live longer to do what .. meditate? if thats the best reason they can some up with then no thanks

Sad. Because the 14th faught in that very battle that the ANZACs were remembering. Well said. We need to do something about this.

did you go to gallipoli.. is there a tribute to the 14th sikh regiment?

LOL. how does it crack? sukhi try to explain. Im curious..

that photo is amazing .. gives me shivers

that was confusing .. it went by too fast on the hardest bit :s

nah you arent paranoid .. well done ps. guv, there is no difference between republicans and democrats.. they are all part of the same kattir

HAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AT THIS THREAD! :D :D ESPECIAALLY THE COMMENT ABOUT THE GUYS FRIEND WHO USED A HAIR STRAIGHTENER ON HIS DHARI AND IT BECAME TOO STRAIGHT

ah what a peaceful way of wishing someone dead

To respond to your post, its good to see that we agree that homosexuals should not be entitled to any special rights. I read the section carefully and i still hold my view that the passage does not entitle gays to be "married". Iam not a lawyer, however i do know that law tends to be specific. You should read this passage as, "Every individual is equal" when it comes to "descrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin .. physical disability". You are reading the passage too generally if you think it applies to everything and anything. This is obvious. Imagine if someone was to say his rights to marry his sister were being denied. Would you then agree that this was a failure to apply the charter? Because according to you, everyone is entitled to get married. Incidentally im not sure how legal this is, but for arguments sake this is equivalent. The charter doesnt make reference to sexuality under its equality. Similarly it doesnt make a reference to allowing the dude to marry his sister. Since it does reference exactly what equalities it provides, it is unworkable to claim other equalities which arent explicitly mentioned, are allowed because they fall under the reading, "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination". Marriage is well understood and defined by society. If you were arguing that the notion of marriage in law should be replaced by something more open then i might agree with you as long as it was truly "equal". That is, if it was something to allow different types of families to exist, and providing for them the same sort of benefits and rights, financially and so on, then that'd be more acceptable, if you are truly arguing for equality in this sense. As long as you going down that road of equality, well why should people be descriminated because they dont have families? Surely then we should give them this equality too. But if your argument is moral and just and for the sake of equality then this needs to be considered carefully. When you talk about "gay" rights and marriage, then its hard to take you seriously when you mention equality. When i use the word 'you', i dont mean you sukhi .. but a so called rights activist in this context. If you say that a paedophile is wrong because he didnt have conscent and that why its wrong then you are putting those people who have sex without being of legal age, in the same bracket. I hope you realise that. If you are saying paedophilia is wrong because it leads to "psychologically damage(d)" kids then we should have laws against bad parents who have horribly abusive marriages and probably affecting their kids in the same way. We decide that its a bad idea, arbitrarily, for adults to have sex with minors because its socially unacceptable and we think it infringes on the rights of the kid. However, doesnt this also infringe on the rights of the paedophile? If we are to allow for the freedom of practising one sexuality willy nilly, then you should be prepared for the consequences of such a freedom. My suggestion is that, instead of trying to guarantee freedom of sexuality in order to allow two gay men to have a nice little home in the suburbs, raising little adopted timmy to get health care or social security through family benefits provided by the government- instead, of talking about the human rights of gay people to get married , an absurdity because marriage is something else, talk about changing references from marriage to family in the laws. I have more to say. but i suspect this post is already too long, so blah.. i'll leave it there.

Okay, there was a need for someone to clean up the discussion and summarise it. Lazily, I left it for you to do in your next post but it seems you've passed up the privillege =) So let me do that and we can go back to discussing homosexuality. Im tempted to reply to your post first, but i'll resist the urge! I dont think there are any human rights being denied to gays. Furthermore i dont think they should receive any special rights either. You think there are denials of rights. I asked for you to provide an example of these, and in reply, you asked me to provide an example of where homosexuals have been given special rights. No such example exists, rightly so. So to summarise again, they have no special rights, but you are claiming that they are being denied basic rights. To argue this you need to provide some examples of where this occurs. Since i dont think there are any rights being denied to gays, i am extremely perplexed when people talk about homosexuality and human rights being denied. It is quite common for this to occur, probably because its fashionable to do so. What is missing is where it is shown how and where these rights are denied. Since you seem to be taking an interest in "the fact that homosexual people's basic human rights ... are being infringed upon", it is up to you, in this discussion to show where this is happening. I think that should do as a summary.

Iam sorry .. i accept any criticism about my previous post. If the usual sikh propaganda is cliched, then my criticism is just as much cliche. I promise i wont repeat it here again! I find comfort in humanity more than i do in religion and i shouldnt hold that against religion itself. I think its time i left this board before i annoy you fine people with my negativity .. bye!

I look around me, at the sikhs and i see them preoccupied with their careers, with their families, with their purposefully blissful ignorance. They have no trouble living in a state of not taking serious things seriously. All of this is trivially dwarfed by the unwillingness of the modern sikh to DO anything. They simply wont get involved. Why should they, after all, when there are perfectly better things to do like building up wealth and making sure their kids succeed in school and life. The sikh pyche is completely impotent when it comes to taking action. Now, this unwillingness doesnt distinguish sikhs amongst others. It is the norm. So my above paragraph could easily apply to any other group of so called average people. However the impotency of the sikh only becomes painfully apparent when compared with the past sacrifices of the sikh tribe. I need not mention them here, im sure we all have a good idea of the kind of feats im referring. Our last misadventure was crushed, in part because of our willingness to enter into a conspiracy and the lacking capacity of telling fact from fiction. Our legions so diluted and uneven in character or faith. A growing obsession with peripheral notions of appearance and a decidedly pathetic lack of courage. The usual ruse of blaming culture, when it is that very culture that contained our best qualities. Is it not beautiful that multitudes of colours, religions and cultures found that one particular place to call home, the literature and the richness of diversity was once celebrated, and now the idea itself seems suspicious and loaded with agenda? Someone explain to me how the sikhs can have any sort of meaningful voice today. Why is it so cliched for us to hold on to our past, citing the achievements of our ancestors as some sort of proof of our valour, our valour? We havent done anything. What have we done recently? Nothing. What will we do tomorrow? Nothing again. Sikhi is dead, in the way we knew it - a force of action, of change. I dont think such a 'solution' exists. Its too little, too late. Sikhism is huge now. It has become a Religion, like other religions. We can only just ride the wave. To make things easier, perhaps we can be more honest when we claim what is, or isnt, acceptable by 'Sikhism'. But that would imply giving up some benefits of power - which isnt something anyone will do willingly. Anyway, enough for now, end post.

No, i never said they are getting special rights. I said they shouldnt have them. There is a difference! The thing you quoted, correct me if im wrong but i dont see any mention of sexuality. Equal benefit of the law? Lets assume this vague statement is even true. However, surely it only applies to the things it mentions, ie sex, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. Where would homosexuality come under? Also i'd prefer if you didnt use the term marriage in this context. Marriage already has rich semantics and its polite to use an alternative term when dealing with something different. Unless ofcourse your intent is confusion in which case this says plenty about the phenomenon itself.. You still havent answered my original questions about exactly what rights should be given to these trampled people. But then you go turn it around and say, "what are these rights you think they're getting?". Actually, it isnt true that paedophilia must be performed without conscent, whatever that means in this context. There is no reason which says a child never gives conscent when involved with a paedophile. If you are talking in legal terms, then fine, i see your point. It could still happen that there is conscent from the guardian, however i dont see how conscent is particularly relavent here. It is illegal. But this largely ignores that sex takes place all the time, even though illegal and probably not all that worrying to society. Also i fail to see why one sexual perversion is palatable to you (homosexuality) but another (paedophilia) isnt. If your argument is purely legal, then we are in tautology. For homosexuality is ok (legal) because its legal. And paedophilia isnt ok (illegal) because its illegal. My problem, ofcourse, is that the modern trend is to force the "issue" of homosexuality onto the table as a particularly pertinent example of human rights in peril, when it simply isnt. But most liberals are completely dishonest anyway so it doesnt really suprise me that their 'causes' are so empty and rhetorical. What suffers from all of this is the real abuse of human rights. Witness for example the human rights of the Iraqi bombed to death because of the Lefts preoccuption with absolutely meaningless issues of sexuality.

nice discussion guys. guv, its not just our gurus who become a perfect ideal .. but equally importantly, the sikhs who were around them, and the sikhs who came afterwards. I dont know about anyone else, but i feel pretty inferior compared to my ancestors. But when i look at the world around me, well maybe im not too bad compared to other religious folk. I dont mean for this to sound arrogant although no doubt it does.

That is interesting - but while our constitutions guarantee a basic right of free expression of religion .. do they do the same for sexuality?

Give me examples. I dont understand how this works. What rights? How does sexual preference affect rights in this context. Yeh, and i dont really understand how that works either. I dont think homosexuals should have rights taken away from them. Not basic human rights anyway. At the same time i dont think they should get any special rights either. I think i reserve the right to descriminate whomsoever i choose, however. If we are talking about the law, then we can discuss this further. Explain what you mean with examples please. It seems we are discussing different things. Im talking about my god given freedom not to give a damn about homosexuals and not have homosexuality forced upon every little issue as a litmus test for 'equality'. And you are talking about rights being infringed when i cant see any rights being infringed at all. This isnt a fair comparison. You cant compare race with sexual preference. They are completely different. You cant even use the lack of choice, similarity in argument. A better comparison would be between a paedophile or even *gasp* a heterosexual. You are implying that society sees homosexuals as a threat. Care to back this up? I suspect he'd have shrugged it off. I doubt he'd raise a voice to defend himself!

guv, that is an interesting thought. I really dont understand why progress MUST be measured in terms of special considerations made for homosexuals. I can understand other reforms like giving women or black people the ability to vote. I understand why its wrong that in the UAE non arabs cant own their own businesses. Why they cant own property. What i dont get is this obsession with homosexuals (people who have sex with someone) in determining how tolerant you are. Someone explain to me why the term 'same sex marriage' even exists - its not marriage, its something else. Why the deception? Call it a union or something. Its so wrong that someone actually coined this phrase and they were shwred and dishonest enough to do it. I think if two men choose to adopt a baby and live in the same house then they are a family and if they are a family they should have access to all the facilities and benefits and other things that are given to any other family. I dont care if the two men are gay or not. That should never be an issue. Im so tired of hearing about homosexuals. As far as im concerned they should be responsible and come to terms with their perversion instead of demanding everyone else around them to change.

I read something attributed to Nietzche which i'll attempt to paraphrase here from memory, our debt to our ancestors grows with time, the need for us to sacrifice for the sake of the tribe and the ancestors increases until the ancestors transform into god. In which case we can never repay the debt because their legend is of monstrously proportions. Forgive me, if i've missed important parts of the message or if i've misquoted. My question is this. Have our gurus become into gods? Has the debt of the countless sikhs who sacrificed and sacrificed through the years grown to a monstrous stature. Do we view our ancestors as super human - as heros who cannot be touched, and who make us appear weak and insignificant in comparison? Do we not revere our gurus and their sikhs as though they are fantastic immensely powerful overlooking figures. I think if you accept this hypothesis then it means our religion has basically expired. We can never come close to representing our historical brothers and sisters. We cant even imagine making an impact like they did, or even contemplate coming close to performing their feats and sacifices. Is sikhi dead because it leaves behind a beautiful, perfect footprint which can never be matched and thus us comtempory sikhs are resigned to a fate of insignificance? Sure that doesnt have to be that way. But i think, because we have the shadows of our ancestors watching us, we will pale into insignificance. Indeed, i think we have already. The sikh 'religion' might live on. But it will be just like all the other religions. It will be of hypocrisy, a tool for glueing societies the way the elite and powerful want them. Sikhi simply wont have the revolutionary social focus behind it. It wont be about spiritual things, it will be about religious things. I wonder.