Homosexuality And Sikhism

[paapiman]

Edited April 15, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

And according to you homosexuality is only if the couple have sex? OK. so if two 80 year old women, who love each other and can't have sex now due to their age want to get married. There is no problem if they get married in a Gudwara via Anand Karaj if they were Sikhs. They cant have sex so they are not homosexuals right?

Why would two people, who have no sexual desire in them towards each other want to marry? They can just stay as friends. Are there any real life examples of what you said? I am curious to find out.

Are you 100% sure that 80 year old women can't have sex?

Peace

[paapiman]

If marriage is not allowed for homosexuals who want to have sex (because they can't have kids) why is Anand Karaj allowed for couples that like having sex for pleasure, and use birth control because they don't want to change their lifestyles? Why are they allowed to go into a Gudwara and get married? As I understand there is no screening before the marriage?

Obviously, there is no screening before marriage. Those are personal matters. They will have sex and use birth control only after marriage as premarital sex is a sin in Sikhism. If they don't want to follow Gurmat, it is up to them. Why would a priest ask them such personal questions? How will a priest ever figure out, whether a couple will use birth control or have sex for pleasure? We will have to assume, that they will follow the Sikh lifestyle and marry them. Rest is up to them. Gurmat does not force anything on anyone.

Peace

Edited April 15, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

There are Sikh scholars who disagree with you Paapiman... and they explain the spiritual connection of marital sex. (As I have tried to explain... it's not purely physical) It actually mirrors the connection we are supposed to find to God. In a committed relationship, husband and wife literally become one soul in two bodies. Joining physically, they share spiritual energy and become ONE on the same path. The book excerpt I posted below does a better job of explaining it and he actually speaks AGAINST using sex purely for procreation and instead says it is for husband and wife in a deeply committed relationship to establish that spiritual connection:

Book: Sikhism By Arvind-Pal Singh Mandair

Do you know the background of this author? Which Taksaal (school) did he go to? What are his credentials? Has he done any sangat of any great gurmukh/mahapurakh? Did he have any personal experience, like you have had?

I don't think, any orthodox Sikh scholar will differ with me, on this topic. But every person is entitled to his/her opinion.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kaa Fateh

Edited April 15, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

Why would two people, who have no sexual desire in them towards each other want to marry? They can just stay as friends. Are there any real life examples of what you said? I am curious to find out.

Are you 100% sure that 80 year old women can't have sex?

Peace

But you said to him that Marriage can happen without sex (ie if someone can not conceive then they should not have sex with their spouse). He is just saying that since those people likely could not have sex, then they should be allowed to marry for the same reasons you quoted for the younger couple who for medical reasons can not conceive... the companionship, the support etc. because they too should not have sex (since you quoted sex is for procreation only). He is just using your own logic back on you.

I earlier made the statement exactly what you just said... that if sex is purely for procreation only, then why would two people even get married at all if they can not conceive due to medical reasons... they would have the label of spouse, but be living as brother and sister. No point.

However I found several references to the fact that even in Sikhi, (one I posted above and I think Sikh Missionary College to answer your question) that sex goes beyond only procreation. That there is a highly spiritual link in the act. The two essentially become one, sharing spiritual energy. This is not seen as a physical loss of energy as you keep stating by losing nutrients in a teaspoon of sperm... but BOTH partners SHARE their energy and truly become one soul in two bodies. It's allows husband and wife to unite spiritually and it mirrors the relationship of us with the divine. Soul bride to Husband Lord.

Spouses do not have intercourse just to get their jollies. They do it be close (closer than any sister / brother relationship ever could be), to express love and affection for one another, to truly attach together to become One soul in two bodies. This is why its against Sikhi to have sex outside of marriage... because of how powerful this connection is. I am pretty sure that every married couple who has sex, are not doing it purely for physical pleasure.

There is a difference between lust and sex. They are not the same thing. It's when sexual desire becomes ALL about the physical pleasure, that we are missing out. That is lust. And it's only ourselves we are hurting. Because we are missing that truly divine link and spiritual connection of love between husband and wife. Sex is not bad. Lust is. Showing love for your spouse and expressing that love, is not Lust. Having sex casually just so you can feel physical pleasure is Lust. Hopefully you can realize the difference.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[jaikaara]

The way this discussion is going reminds me of a islamic website http://www.askimam.org/ :D :D

Ending in ..and Allah knows the best...

But you said to him that Marriage can happen without sex (ie if someone can not conceive then they should not have sex with their spouse). He is just saying that since those people likely could not have sex, then they should be allowed to marry for the same reasons you quoted for the younger couple who for medical reasons can not conceive... the companionship, the support etc. because they too should not have sex (since you quoted sex is for procreation only). He is just using your own logic back on you.

I earlier made the statement exactly what you just said... that if sex is purely for procreation only, then why would two people even get married at all if they can not conceive due to medical reasons... they would have the label of spouse, but be living as brother and sister. No point.

However I found several references to the fact that even in Sikhi, (one I posted above and I think Sikh Missionary College to answer your question) that sex goes beyond only procreation. That there is a highly spiritual link in the act. The two essentially become one, sharing spiritual energy. This is not seen as a physical loss of energy as you keep stating by losing nutrients in a teaspoon of sperm... but BOTH partners SHARE their energy and truly become one soul in two bodies. It's allows husband and wife to unite spiritually and it mirrors the relationship of us with the divine. Soul bride to Husband Lord.

Spouses do not have intercourse just to get their jollies. They do it be close (closer than any sister / brother relationship ever could be), to express love and affection for one another, to truly attach together to become One soul in two bodies. This is why its against Sikhi to have sex outside of marriage... because of how powerful this connection is. I am pretty sure that every married couple who has sex, are not doing it purely for physical pleasure.

There is a difference between lust and sex. They are not the same thing. It's when sexual desire becomes ALL about the physical pleasure, that we are missing out. That is lust. And it's only ourselves we are hurting. Because we are missing that truly divine link and spiritual connection of love between husband and wife. Sex is not bad. Lust is. Showing love for your spouse and expressing that love, is not Lust. Having sex casually just so you can feel physical pleasure is Lust. Hopefully you can realize the difference.

Edited April 15, 2015 by jaikaara

[CdnSikhGirl]

This is my point! The self proclaimed 'Orthodox' Sikhs on here sound a lot like the "Khaliban"

The way this discussion is going reminds me of a islamic website http://www.askimam.org/ :D :D

Ending in ..and Allah knows the best...

[paapiman]

The thread is about homosexuality, what does Gurmat say about this. not individual interpretations that are subject to culture, education, geographical location etc.

It is already been proven that sex for pleasure is a sin. Please click on the link below for details.

In my opinion, most homosexuals, if they get married, do engage in sexual activity for pleasure. But, let's assume that there is a case of a homosexual couple, having no sexual feelings among them and they want to get married.

It will still, not be allowed in Sikhsim. The reason being that there are clear verses in Gurbani, that indicate that a marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

Firstly, in Lavan, the Gurbani read during Anand Karaj, it states:

ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭਿ ਠਾਕੁਰਿ ਕਾਜੁ ਰਚਾਇਆ ਧਨ ਹਿਰਦੈ ਨਾਮਿ ਵਿਗਾਸੀ ॥

The Lord God, my Lord and Master, blends with His bride, and her heart blossoms forth in the Naam.

Secondly, there is the following verse. Again, there is a mention of a husband and a wife.

ਧਨ ਪਿਰੁ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਨਿ ਬਹਨਿ ਇਕਠੇ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਏਕ ਜੋਤਿ ਦੁਇ ਮੂਰਤੀ ਧਨ ਪਿਰੁ ਕਹੀਐ ਸੋਇ ॥:

Dhan pir ayhi na aakheean bahan ikthay hoyi. Ek jot dui mooratee dhan pir kaheeai soyi:

Bride and groom are not they who pose as one whole; bride and groom are they who are two bodies with one soul (sggs 788). [1]

[1] - http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart278.htm

Furthermore, the below verses clearly indicate, even to a layman, that marriage is meant for a male and a female

ਤਾ ਸੋਹਾਗਣਿ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਲਾਗੀ ਜਾ ਸਹੁ ਧਰੇ ਪਿਆਰੋ ॥੧॥

Then, you shall be known as a devoted and committed bride, when you enshrine love for your Husband ||1||

ਇਆਣੀ ਬਾਲੀ ਕਿਆ ਕਰੇ ਜਾ ਧਨ ਕੰਤ ਨ ਭਾਵੈ ॥

What can the silly young bride do, if she is not pleasing to her Husband?

ਜਾਇ ਪੁਛਹੁ ਸੋਹਾਗਣੀ ਵਾਹੈ ਕਿਨੀ ਬਾਤੀ ਸਹੁ ਪਾਈਐ ॥

Go and ask the happy, pure soul-brides, how did they obtain their Husband?

According to my limited knowledge, there is no mention of Gay marriages in SGGS, even though homosexuality was present, during the times of Satguru jee. By reciting the above verses, Satguru jee has illustrated that a marriage is a spiritual union between a male and a female; thereby banning any other type of marriage. In the same way,there is no mention of pedophilia in SGGS. These unnatural acts have no place in Sikhism.

Having said the above, there is no discrimination against homosexuals in Sikhism. The doors of Lord Guru Nanak, are open to all.

Homosexuality is a disease and homosexuals need to be treated for their condition. If someone says, that there is no room for homosexuality in Sikhism, that would be like saying that there is no room for Asthma in Sikhism. Please click on the link below for details.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131211/news-current-affairs/article/homosexuality-disease-yoga-can-cure-it-ramdev

Therefore, in conclusion, verses have been provided to you, which prove that sex for pleasure is a sin in Sikhism, and gay marriages are not allowed in Sikhism.

Peace

Edited April 20, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

This is my point! The self proclaimed 'Orthodox' Sikhs on here sound a lot like the "Khaliban"

What do you mean by Khaliban? Never heard of that term before.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[paapiman]

I earlier made the statement exactly what you just said... that if sex is purely for procreation only, then why would two people even get married at all if they can not conceive due to medical reasons... they would have the label of spouse, but be living as brother and sister. No point.

Gurmat is perfect in every way. Satguru jee has also advised us, when to marry.

Life has been divided into 4 stages (Assuming, a person lives 100 years)

Brahamchari - first 25 years of life

Grahasti - next 25 years

Vanparasti - next 25 years

Sanyasi - last 25 years

According to this, the ideal age of a person to get married is about 25 years. Now, when we look at the best age for a woman to conceive, it is not a surprise, that it is mid 20's.

"As a healthy, fertile woman in your mid 20s, you have about a 33 percent chance of getting pregnant each cycle if you have sex a day or two before ovulation. At age 30, your chance is about 20 percent each cycle."[1]

[1] - http://www.babycenter.com/0_age-and-fertility-getting-pregnant-in-your-20s_1494692.bc

Once the person has passed that age, for example he/she is in 50's, I think, they should forget about marriage and focus on their spirituality. Gurmat does not stop them from getting married, but they have gone past the timing. Timing is very important in life.

There will be cases where, even a young woman cannot conceive, but those are exceptional circumstances. Modern science even has solutions to these problems such as IUI. Please click on the link below for more details.

http://www.babycenter.ca/a4092/fertility-treatment-intrauterine-insemination-iui

We cannot use exceptional circumstances to promote anti-Gurmat activities. Like for example, there are few people who have trouble keeping kesh (I personally know of two such cases in my life) or there could a person who needs medication, containing alcohol, to cure his disease. These exceptional cases cannot be used to justify cutting hair or consuming alcohol. Similarly, non-conception cases cannot be used to justify, sex for pleasure.

Another example would be that of a person, who cannot sit cross-legged in Langar. We cannot use that case, to allow tables and chairs in Langar hall.

In conclusion, we cannot use human weaknesses or exceptional circumstances, to promote anti-Gurmat activities.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 16, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

Not all Sikhs follow your line of thinking. Deriving pleasure with your spouse is allowed. Seeking sex for ONLY pleasure is not. There is a difference between using sex for purely physical reasons, and expressing love and emotion to your spouse. It was not purely for procreation only, or else humans would not have emotional bonding with their spouse. Your line of thinking is leading you to a very Islamic interpretation of Sikhi. Maybe even more restrictive than Islamic. You can believe it if you want. my last words on this are:

LUST is NOT the same as expressing Love through intimacy with your own spouse.

LUST is NOT ALL sexual desire... only sexual desire that is being misused purely for the physical aspect only.

Sex with your own spouse to bond and share spiritual connection is perfectly fine, even if you don't plan to conceive!

Seeking casual sex just to get jollies is not! There IS a difference.

Please don't say that YOUR viewpoint only is Gurmat! There are far more groups than the couple so called puratan groups you keep mentioning! If you want to follow this severely strict interpretation of Sikhi, then please do so... but don't mislead others into thinking that viewpoint is the majority because its not! I can assure you that EVERY Sikh married couple I know, has not stopped having sex because they have had the kids they want, or because they are in their 50's. I can almost guarantee it!

Also, you can keep restricting yourself more and more from things in life, but it wont get you to God. Only realization will... awakening. Those things don't cause that awakening. Opening your eyes does. We were put here in life.... to live! Not to try and live in a bubble so we won't accidentally commit 'kaam' etc. The real challenge is in living... having a spouse, having a healthy sexual relationship with your SPOUSE ONLY, experiencing that bonding with each other... not walling yourself up in some self made prison so you wont accidentally make any mistakes. Again, you are free to follow that line of thinking, but if that is what got anyone to God then the Yogi ascetics would have all already gotten there and we would have had no need for SIkhi.

Please dont mislead Truthseeker into thinking this severe strict form of Sikhi is what all Sikhs think... because its not!

[jaikaara]

Which is why we pouring in more !!! ..you know what suits you best ..if you discuss with people who dont agree with you can you blame them ?

This is my point! The self proclaimed 'Orthodox' Sikhs on here sound a lot like the "Khaliban"

Edited April 16, 2015 by jaikaara

[paapiman]

Not all Sikhs follow your line of thinking. Deriving pleasure with your spouse is allowed. Seeking sex for ONLY pleasure is not. There is a difference between using sex for purely physical reasons, and expressing love and emotion to your spouse. It was not purely for procreation only, or else humans would not have emotional bonding with their spouse. Your line of thinking is leading you to a very Islamic interpretation of Sikhi. Maybe even more restrictive than Islamic. You can believe it if you want. my last words on this are:

In fact, I believe that your way of thinking is similar to that of Muslims, as in Islam, one can have unlimited sex with one's spouse. On the other hand, Sikhism is different. It allows marriage, but with some strict conditions.

Please don't say that YOUR viewpoint only is Gurmat! There are far more groups than the couple so called puratan groups you keep mentioning! If you want to follow this severely strict interpretation of Sikhi, then please do so... but don't mislead others into thinking that viewpoint is the majority because its not! I can assure you that EVERY Sikh married couple I know, has not stopped having sex because they have had the kids they want, or because they are in their 50's. I can almost guarantee it!

Can you please name some of the groups which you mentioned above? There are more than enough purantan groups such as DDT, Nihangs, Nanaksar, Rara Sahib, Harkhowal, Udhasi, other Nirmalay, Sevapanthi, etc

Another point, majority is not always right. Today, majority of the Sikhs are not baptized, but it is mandatory for a Sikh to get baptized. In fact, a person cannot call himself a Sikh, without getting baptized. Even in countries like UK or Canada, majority of the Sikh youth are monay. That does not make, the heinous crime of cutting hair, as acceptable in the panth.

Please dont mislead Truthseeker into thinking this severe strict form of Sikhi is what all Sikhs think... because its not!

Gurmat does not force its views on anyone. Every one is entitled to his/her opinion.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 16, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

But majority was given the right to make decision of the panth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. You can't claim that just because you disagree with the majority, that it's wrong and ignore it. Since there are so many groups involved with differing opinions, some were bound to be upset. But the fact is that Sikhi was given ability to evolve through panthic decision. There will never be 100% in any decision. But majority does win out. Sometimes you are in the group who's views win, other times maybe not. But you have to respect that authority which was given.

Nowhere have I been told leading up to wedding soon that since I am close to 40 and have less chance to have children, that my spouse and I can not be intimate. In fact they made it a point to say that Sikhi stays out of the bedroom of properly married couples so to speak. What happens there is between them. To say its only for procreation means that emotional, bonding, love, and spiritual connection between spouses would only be allowed if a child were conceived which makes no sense. MArriage is between two partners and the chold comes later, but even after the child grows and leaves the home the marriage is between the couple and a healthy loving relationship is fine between them. They dont need to start living as a brother and sister after the kids move out and they can no longer have children. If you personally want to live like that and feel that will bring you closer to God then go ahead. But dont finger point at those who actually LIVE life in balance. (not rencouning things but also not indulging).

As for homosexuality it goes against nature. I very highly doubt that Sikhi will ever allow two men or two women to be married for the simple reason that Sikhs respect our bodies how they were meant to be. Homosexual sex is unnatural and goes against that because of well... Biology! Having said that I have nothing against LGBT but to be Amritdhari they would have to be celebite for simple reason they can't marry via Anand Karaj and amritdhari can not have sex outside marriage. And Anand Karaj is only recognized way of marriage in religious sense.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

But majority was given the right to make decision of the panth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. You can't claim that just because you disagree with the majority, that it's wrong and ignore it. Since there are so many groups involved with differing opinions, some were bound to be upset. But the fact is that Sikhi was given ability to evolve through panthic decision. There will never be 100% in any decision. But majority does win out. Sometimes you are in the group who's views win, other times maybe not. But you have to respect that authority which was given.

Where is it written, that majority was given right to make a decision? Can you please provide references? Are you referring to Sarbat Khalsa?

Maharaaj gave authority to five Gurmukhs to make decisions. Those five men, who have conquered the five demons (Lust, anger, etc) and are willing to sacrifice their lives at any point for a just cause; they are the ones who can take a decision.

For example, the original Panj Pyaray. This was stated by Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee Maharaaj, hundreds of years before the creation of Khalsa.

ਪੰਚ ਪਰਵਾਣ ਪੰਚ ਪਰਧਾਨੁ ॥

The five accepted ones will be the leaders.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 21, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

As for homosexuality it goes against nature. I very highly doubt that Sikhi will ever allow two men or two women to be married for the simple reason that Sikhs respect our bodies how they were meant to be. Homosexual sex is unnatural and goes against that because of well... Biology! Having said that I have nothing against LGBT but to be Amritdhari they would have to be celebite for simple reason they can't marry via Anand Karaj and amritdhari can not have sex outside marriage. And Anand Karaj is only recognized way of marriage in religious sense.

Good point.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[CdnSikhGirl]

You mean...

Maharaaj gave authority to five Gurmukhs to make decisions. Those five men SIKHS, who have conquered the five demons (Lust, anger, etc) and are willing to sacrifice their lives at any point for a just cause; they are the ones who can take a decision.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[paapiman]

You mean...

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Fair enough.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[andycandy997]

I am Sikh, and I am bisexual. I also recently attended a dear friend of mine's wedding -- he married another Sikh man. The ceremony took place in an American Sikh Gurdwara, and it was just beautiful. This couple is so loving and authentic. They embody all the Sikh values of unconditional love for others, oneness with God, and Seva, among many others. They play amazing Kirtan and read the Sri Guru Grant Sahib regularly.

It's so hard for me to imagine that such wonderful people can be considered "unnatural" and unwelcome in the Sikhi community. Conversely, I am friends with many Sikhs that are heterosexual, and though they may not partake in such "sins," they do not even hold a candle to this couple. They are not nearly as loving, spiritual, and selfless -- not to say that they are bad people, but in terms of spirituality and Sikhism, the homosexual couple is the most evolved I know.

And I do not think that they would be "better Sikhs" if they hid their true selves and conformed to what society would expect of them. I believe that their self-acceptance is part of what makes them such amazing Sikhs, and more importantly, amazing human beings. So, pardon me if I fail to understand how they could possibly be considered "unnatural sinners" and "not good or true Sikhs" because of whom they choose to love.

Edited April 19, 2015 by andycandy997

[paapiman]

I am Sikh, and I am bisexual. I also recently attended a dear friend of mine's wedding -- he married another Sikh man. The ceremony took place in an American Sikh Gurdwara, and it was just beautiful. This couple is so loving and authentic. They embody all the Sikh values of unconditional love for others, oneness with God, and Seva, among many others. They play amazing Kirtan and read the Sri Guru Grant Sahib regularly.

It's so hard for me to imagine that such wonderful people can be considered "unnatural" and unwelcome in the Sikhi community. Conversely, I am friends with many Sikhs that are heterosexual, and though they may not partake in such "sins," they do not even hold a candle to this couple. They are not nearly as loving, spiritual, and selfless -- not to say that they are bad people, but in terms of spirituality and Sikhism, the homosexual couple is the most evolved I know.

And I do not think that they would be "better Sikhs" if they hid their true selves and conformed to what society would expect of them. I believe that their self-acceptance is part of what makes them such amazing Sikhs, and more importantly, amazing human beings. So, pardon me if I fail to understand how they could possibly be considered "unnatural sinners" and "not good or true Sikhs" because of whom they choose to love.

Your points don't justify homosexuality. There are many people out there, who are alcoholics, meat eaters, smokers, adulterous, etc who might be better than me, a Baptized Sikh, but that does not justify consuming alcohol, weed, tobacco, eating meat and adultery.

Homosexuals are more than welcome, to follow Sikhism. There should be no discrimination against them in a Gurudwara, as there is no discrimination against disabled people. If a homosexual wishes to get baptized, then he will have to remain celibate in his life. If he cannot follow celibacy, he cannot get baptized but he can still follow Sikhism.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 20, 2015 by paapiman

[andycandy997]

I suppose that's fair enough. However, I do have many arguments that justify homosexuality. First of all, if two consenting adults love each other, why should their actions not be justified? The key word being consenting adults, meaning that pedophilia and bestiality can not be compared in any way to homosexuality, and to do so is heinous and wrong. I can only follow your argument if you think that heterosexual relations are just as bad as homosexual ones.

Another argument against homosexuality that is often heard is that it is unnatural. But what does that even mean? No, homosexuality doesn't produce children. But aren't there enough in the world that don't have homes? And by no stretch of the imagination will homosexuality take over the whole planet and result in the end of the human race. Also, it is a very common occurrence in nature. Lastly, human beings, Baptized Sikhs included, benefit from many things that are unnatural. Unless you are living as an ascetic, devoid of all manmade materials, then you are not living a "natural" life.

But I digress. I'm incredibly different from many of you; I'm not baptized, I don't follow many of the physical tenets of Sikhism, and I live in an incredibly liberal part of the US. I just support many philosophies and ideologies of Sikhism, (I was raised that way) and merge them with my own.

And I do find that your response is far more accepting than many others, so thank you for that.

[Lucky]

Sexual deviation or homosexuality shouldn't be mixed into sikhism because it is not about sikhi.

Sikhi is about following the guru and going from darkness to light. It's about taking that ascension into spirituality that makes way to the 'Transformation'.... the transforming of manmukh to gurmukh.

Black,white,brown,yellow,tall,thin fat,gay, obsessed with kaam, obsessed with lobh,..greed, sloth....whatever,..,we are all Human and we all have the One chance to Transform from manmukh to gurmukh.

What should we be more concerned about planting ?.....the seeds for procreation ?

ਕਰਮ ਭੂਮਿ ਮਹਿ ਬੋਅਹੁ ਨਾਮੁ ॥
Karam bẖūm mėh bo▫ahu nām.
In the field of karma, plant the seed of the Naam.

it's all a karam bhum-field of karma , because after so so many incarnations we get this one human life.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you were given the full deh/body to procreate or not, we all get what is destined as per our own karma, which is as per ego.

Gurbani says that after so so many incarnations we get this One chance.
The only seed to plant that really matters is the one of naam, not about procreating or not.

ਚਿਰੰਕਾਲ ਇਹ ਦੇਹ ਸੰਜਰੀਆ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Cẖirankāl ih ḏeh sanjarī▫ā. ||1|| rahā▫o.
After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you. ||1||Pause

ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਸੈਲ ਗਿਰਿ ਕਰਿਆ ॥
Ka▫ī janam sail gir kari▫ā. In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;

ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਗਰਭ ਹਿਰਿ ਖਰਿਆ ॥
Ka▫ī janam garabẖ hir kẖari▫ā.
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;

Many many incarnations where we may evolve into full blown men and women (Adam and Eve) or we may not !

Just a note on the pangti above about being the aborted incarnation,... I heard someone once mention that people who self rid their bodies or commit suicide, are then born again and again aborted through the womb.....their karmic debt becomes such that their soul longs and begs for the deh/tanh/body of human life. ...but the only way to pay the debt is by facing the karmic shortcomings every time.

This is because eh janam tumare lekhe as bhagat ravidas says

ਬਹੁਤ ਜਨਮ ਬਿਛੁਰੇ ਥੇ ਮਾਧਉ ਇਹੁ ਜਨਮੁ ਤੁਮ੍ਹ੍ਹਾਰੇ ਲੇਖੇ ॥
Bahuṯ janam bicẖẖure the māḏẖa▫o ih janam ṯumĥāre lekẖe.
For so many incarnations, I have been separated from You, Lord; I dedicate this life to You.
....it is our accounts, our deeds or our lekhe that are the root of separation.

We are all born as manukhs with this ONE chance to find and merge with the One Truth.

ਭਈ ਪਰਾਪਤਿ ਮਾਨੁਖ ਦੇਹੁਰੀਆ ॥
Bẖa▫ī parāpaṯ mānukẖ ḏehurī▫ā.
This human body has been given to you.

ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਮਿਲਣ ਕੀ ਇਹ ਤੇਰੀ ਬਰੀਆ ॥
Gobinḏ milaṇ kī ih ṯerī barī▫ā.
This is your chance to meet the Lord of the Universe.

This is the only thing that sikhi tells us to examine and look at because this(human life) is what we all have in common. The Transformation that sikhi is meant to make is for the human, doesn't matter if your a cannibal like kaudah raksh, a gay, a hetero pervert or a kuhsrah-hemaphrodite.........sill human....still have the mind...still have the chance to make the Transformation with the guidance of guru from darkness to light.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Lucky

[paapiman]

I suppose that's fair enough. However, I do have many arguments that justify homosexuality. First of all, if two consenting adults love each other, why should their actions not be justified? The key word being consenting adults, meaning that pedophilia and bestiality can not be compared in any way to homosexuality, and to do so is heinous and wrong. I can only follow your argument if you think that heterosexual relations are just as bad as homosexual ones.

That is a very good point.

Another argument against homosexuality that is often heard is that it is unnatural. But what does that even mean? No, homosexuality doesn't produce children. But aren't there enough in the world that don't have homes? And by no stretch of the imagination will homosexuality take over the whole planet and result in the end of the human race. Also, it is a very common occurrence in nature. Lastly, human beings, Baptized Sikhs included, benefit from many things that are unnatural. Unless you are living as an ascetic, devoid of all manmade materials, then you are not living a "natural" life.

It has already been proven in this topic that sex for pleasure is a sin in Gurmat. I don't think two males (or females) would want to get married, if they had no sexual feelings towards each other. The argument that homosexuality is unnatural is not that great.

One possible explanation for homosexuality is the effect of the previous lives. For example, a person could have been a female in his previous life. This results in him, still being sexually attracted to men, rather than women. Therefore, one cannot blame the person for that.

One can always do ardas to Satguru jee for treatment. Yoga also has a treatment for homosexuality.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131211/news-current-affairs/article/homosexuality-disease-yoga-can-cure-it-ramdev

A homosexual person should not get offended, if someone calls him abnormal or that he/she has a disease, as Gurbani states that most of us are rogi (diseased).

ਜੋ ਜੋ ਦੀਸੈ ਸੋ ਸੋ ਰੋਗੀ ॥

Whoever I see is diseased.

ਰੋਗ ਰਹਿਤ ਮੇਰਾ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਜੋਗੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Only my True Guru, the True Yogi, is free of disease. ||1||Pause||

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 21, 2015 by paapiman

[truthseeker546]

Sorry I was away from a few days,

just saw this comment and it made me laugh " One possible explanation for homosexuality is the effect of the previous lives. For example, a person could have been a female in his previous life. This results in him, still being sexually attracted to men, rather than women. Therefore, one cannot blame the person for that."

So the Welshman that likes to shag his sheep was probably a ram in his previous life?

Also,

"I don't think two males (or females) would want to get married, if they had no sexual feelings towards each other "- I don't think a male and female couple would want to get married if they didn't have sexual feelings for each other.

Common you have to admit most of these answers are all interpretation, nothing is actually mentioned in the SGGS directly about this.

For someone like AndyCandy who is bisexual or has gay friends, why should anyone's interpretations have an affect on his faith.

[paapiman]

"I don't think two males (or females) would want to get married, if they had no sexual feelings towards each other "- I don't think a male and female couple would want to get married if they didn't have sexual feelings for each other.

A male and female couple can get married, for procreation only. Two females or males cannot procreate naturally.

Common you have to admit most of these answers are all interpretation, nothing is actually mentioned in the SGGS directly about this.

Enough evidence has been provided from SGGS in this topic. You can repeat the same question, a thousand times, if you want. It is your choice.

Peace

Edited April 25, 2015 by paapiman