Same-sex marriage debate follows PM to India

[SAadmin]

Same-sex marriage debate follows PM to India

Last Updated Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:14:08 EST

CBC News

source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...rtin-india.html

NEW DELHI - The debate over same-sex marriage followed Prime Minister Paul Martin on his overseas trip Tuesday, prompted by an edict two days earlier by the spiritual leader of Sikhism in India denouncing the practice.

Paul Martin talks with Indian PM Manmohan Singh, right. Included are Canadian parliamentarians Ruby Dhalla and Gurbax S. Malhi, top, in New Delhi, India, Tuesday. (AP photo)

Joginder Singh Vedanti, the holiest priest of the Sikh religion, ordered all practising Sikhs to oppose same-sex marriage, saying it is the product of sick minds and anti-human.

Vedanti criticized Canada's proposed legislation, saying he was concerned about the trend toward same-sex marriages in Western countries.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, when asked about Canada's proposed legislation after a meeting with Martin on Tuesday, said he wouldn't comment on internal Canadian affairs, but added: "Certainly, I think such a thing in our country would no have wide appreciation."

Martin responded by defending the legislation Tuesday saying that Canada is a "country of ethnic and religious minorities."

"And the purpose of the Charter of Rights is to protect minorities, to protect them against the oppression of the majority."

Martin tried to reassure Sikhs back home that the legislation would not compromise religious rights and that religious institutions would not have to marry same-sex couples.

The issue had become a focus of debate in the Indian press this month. One newspaper speculated that Martin had cancelled a planned visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar because of concerns over the controversy.

But Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, who accompanied Martin on the trip, said Martin's change of plans came about because of his decision to tour tsunami-affected areas in Thailand and Sri Lanka.

Dosanjh, who supports the same-sex bill, says Sikhs in Canada wouldn't be guided by any religious directive.

"It will absolutely not have any impact whatsoever."

[SAadmin]

I think before akal takth leaders ban same sex marriage... they should have gurmatta (calling up all the sampardha) regarding this. This is a complex issue.. one has to study the scriptures.. before making decesions like that... and media once again failed to show amritdhari sikh from canada- Navdeep Bains supported same-sex marriage..that will all sikh jagat are not anti-same sex marriage... but sikhs themselves are divided in this issue and having debates.

[Singh47]

N30, how are Sikh divided on this issue? I have not across a single Sikh out there who supports same sex marriage. What Navdip Singh Bains is doing is simply a matter of politics. He is an MP for the liberal party of Paul Martin which supports same sex marriage. Navdip being a loyal liberal party MP has no choice but to support what his leader decides if he wants to 'move up the ladder' (tarakki) within the party. Personally I don’t care just as long as they (gay community) don’t perform the Anand Karaj ceremony.

[palm_w1]

i think it is wrong str8 up. while i am not intolerant of homosexuals I do not think sikh marraige is really a thing that can happen between 2 mans. If people are gay fair enough, live together and enjoy life, but marraige between 2 mans doesn't really sound like grist jeevan to me.

[SAadmin]

N30, how are Sikh divided on this issue? I have not across a single Sikh out there who supports same sex marriage.

I have bro, whenever i go to the camp in toronto..this is always been a hot topic where people were pro same sex sikh marriages were higher compare to people who were anti... and i m not talkin about the singhs who don't have any gyan on our sikh ethik granths.. ..they are pretty knowledable...they fall into academics.

By the way, did u know sarmad fakir was gay (*Pilotely points at tsingh post)..lol..and i think his name is mentioned in Bhai Gurdas Ji Varan..if someone can post it.. that be wicked

[Sukhi]

what's with calling Joginder Singh Vedanti "the holiest priest of the Sikh religion"? i wasn't aware we had a priesthood.

[SAadmin]

what's with calling Joginder Singh Vedanti "the holiest priest of the Sikh religion"? i wasn't aware we had a priesthood.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&.../martin_india_1

Check this out, Mr Malhi comments:

"For the Sikhs, (Vedanti) is next to God. So I think whatever he says, the people have to follow the rules and regulations of the traditions."

What in the flipping hell? If akaal takth leader would be next to God or Guru... why there is massive division between the panth?? then who are bhramgyanis?? and then why he can't sort out "ram raie"s of the panth

[Guest]

I agree with Vedanti on this matter.

[Singh47]

and then why he can't sort out "ram raie"s of the panth

Maybe because we still have alot of close minded Dhir Malias within the Panth who have no respect for Guru, and Guru Ke Sikh by resorting to name calling and persecuting them.

[rk1]

i think the Jatehdar passed the Hukanama without any serious discussion with the panth like N30 said. I am 100% against changing the traditional definition of marriage. Although the party is saying that this is a civil issue and not a religious one, this paves the road for gays to have marriages in churches and gurdawaras 15 years from now. I think Nav Bains and Ruby Dhalla are both sell outs and just want to move up party ranks. No comment about Ujjal Dosanjh because he’s a bhamin washed ******that already got his ass kicked by Khalistani’s so I don’t expect him to listen to the akal thakth regardless.

[Singh47]

I agree with you. Ruby Dhalla is very white washed, so I don’t expect her to have a Sikhi based stand, but I am however disappointed at the stand Navdip Singh Bains took on this matter, considering the fact that he is an Amritdhari Gursikh.

Ujjal Dosonjh is just a sellout as far as I’m concerned. He was originally the head of the BC NDP. He was so horrible that not only did the NDP loose the BC elections, but he even lost his own seat! Realizing that the NDP was a sinking ship, he next decided to switch parties and join the liberals. What a turn coat! Even when the tables and chair fight was raging, he took the side of the westernized pro-tables/chairs group. I don’t know what Paul Martin was thinking when he extended a hand of friendship to an imbecile like Dosanjh.

[rk1]

Funny thing is that Ruby Dhalla was running her mouth on punjabi radio and TV saying shes "sikhya de Kurri" and how thats why we should help her. IF Sam Hundal won instead of her he would be against this same sex stuff forsure.

I'm not 100% sure about this but I think Ujjal Dosonjh was at the election office opening for Nav Bains. Thats surprising knowing that Nav Bains comes from a WSO familybackground which is very Pro-khalistani. And having a Hater like Dosanjh at the office opening is sad.

Malhi knows his political career is ending and even if he gets in trouble with the party he knows he'll be in favour of the sangat for taking this stance.

I would't bet my money on Nav Bains or Dhalla to hold on to their seat in the next election.

[SAadmin]

I don't understand what Ruby Dhalla did... she didnt even say she is pro or anti-same sex marriage... why you guys after her and navdeep bains... he is such a gurmukh banda...every one thinks differently... some sikhs are prop same sex marriage and some are anti... people need to live and let live.

Can someone post me where gurbani it says being gay or lesbian is wrong... i would personally love to see gay or even lesbian getting married in gurdwara... ! by the way this topic is not even about helding same sex marriages in churches, mosque, gurdwara..

Navdeep Bains made a perfect decesion... he supported same sex marriage he feel strongly about this and plus its not like navdeep bains is only mp for sikhs..why should he represent only and only sikh community?? Whatever he does in the office, his actions represent wider community than just sikh community.

[rk1]

N30 singh, I’ve been reading SA.com for sometime, but I’ve never posted or even registered until I saw this topic. My gurbani knowledge stops at japji sahib and ardass, so I will not comment on what gurbani has to say about this. But the fact that EVERY gurdawra in the GTA along with the akal thakth is against means there has to be something. I’m not testing your gurbani knowledge because I know your very intelligent in regards to this topic.

As far as Ruby Dhalla and Nav Bains, I think both of them won because of the HEAVY sikh volunteer support they got. Before they make a decision I think they should have consulted with their constituents or even ask for guidance from the same sangat they ask for help from. Nav Bains is a Gurmukh Sikh, and all the power to him for that. But keeping that point in mind, Nav Bains I think should consult his constituents as an MP and seek guidance from the sangat that worked day and night for him. I think he is making a selfish decision with this to benefit himself.

Ruby Dhalla has admitted she is for this in a Punjabi Newspaper, (I think Hamdard).

I don’t know why you would love to see a gay marriage in a Gurdawara because I think that is one of the most shameful things to present in front of the sangat or Guru Granth Sahib. Your Right its not about religious marriage now, but its sure paving the road 10-20 years from now.

And Nav Bains does not represent the sikh community at large, but he is out 1st amritdhari sikh in office. He does have to be accountable to his volunteers and voters because he did win with the largest margin of votes in the past election and that was because he had the sympathy of Sikhs and Punjabis at large. For him to take all the support and not consult his riding or constituents before such a major decision is wrong.

[shindasingh]

As per the Same Sex Issue in all honesty I could care less for it, in regards to it being a civil matter for the courts.

I am however totally against it in regards to it on the grounds of Gurmat and would protest against it ever taking a place in a Gurdwara Sahib or have an Anand Karaj with to males or two females.

I can see where Nav's coming from with his statement on, protecting the charter of rights and freedoms for all, but like rk1 mentioned if this goes through it only paves the way for later civil suites against religious institutions (gurdhware, church's, etc), and although he has his point with it being a civil matter, the fact that such a vote will have later ramifications is something the Liberal Party needs to take into account and address.

As per Malhi, loosing his seat any time soon, I would disagree. Firstly Malhi's become more of a folk hero and his name has grown bigger then the man himself, in these parts (Toronto). His views on sikhi are pretty much those equivalent to the general punjabi community. Being Keshdari he undoublty knows a little more then the average punjabi on Sikhi, but this still does not prevent him from trimming his dhari and at times treating his dasataar like nothing more then a topee.

As per Nav's association with Dosanjh, that is nothing more then moving on up. To move up ranks within any party one needs to kiss some a--. Undoubtly Nav and him have there differences on different issues, such as Khalistan, but I think as two MP's on the same team, they need to work together and support eachother. After all what good is a Sikh MP, if he isn't higher up in power. I would love to see him progress to a Ministerial position where we can see him make some greater changes.

His greatest challange is convincing his riding and constituents to keep faith in him, especially with elections right around the corner, and being an MP with a riding with a majority made up of minorities (who are undoubtly against a SSM vote), I think that will be his biggest obstacle...

[Guest]

You know like in movie "I-robot" that chief says “I think girls days are gone when human used to kill human" and same thing for marriages when there was a time when male used to marry a female.

[Guest]

100% in agreement:

Akal Takht diktat against same-sex marriages

Varinder Walia

Tribune News Service

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050117/punjab1.htm#1

Amritsar, January 16

Denouncing the practice of same-sex marriages, Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti, Jathedar of Akal Takht, has, in his directive, urged the Sikh sangat not to allow the holding of such ceremonies in any gurdwara of the world.

Taking serious view of the proposed move of the Government of Canada to introduce same-sex marriage bill in the House of Commons, he described it as ‘anti-Gurmat’ trend that had no place in Sikhism. The directive, the first of its kind, has been issued under the seal of Akal Takht.

The directive reads that the rising trend of same-sex marriages in western countries was a matter of concern. The move of certain countries to give legal accordance to such marriages had already initiated a worldwide debate. He said Sikh code of conduct did not allow such marriages.

A same-sex marriage in Amritsar had already hit the newspapers headlines.

Jathedar Vedanti said the idea of same-sex marriages originated from sick minds. The trend needed to be curbed, he said. He urged the Sikh sangat to seek guidance from Guru Granth Sahib and act as per the Sikh philosophy to stop such anti-human tendencies.

The issue of same-sex marriages has become a hot issue in Canada these days where a large number of Sikhs are settled. The cancellation of the visit of Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Paul Martin, to Amritsar for paying obeisance at the Golden Temple is being attributed to this controversy.

While, former Premier of British Columbia and Federal Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, who was to accompany Mr Paul Martin to Amritsar, had stated that the Canadian Government was committed to allowing same-sex marriages, Mr Gurmant Grewal, three-time member of Canadian Parliament, held that in 1998, the House of Commons had said that the traditional definition of marriage, meaning that it was between a man and a woman, should be retained.

There are six Sikh Members of Parliaments in Canada who had taken diametrically opposite stand on the issue. SGPC’s general secretary Sukhdev Singh Bhaur had already urged the Sikh MPs to rise above petty politics and take stand as per the Sikh maryada.

[Nectar]

Gay marriage is against nature...

and if we are against them ppl then we hurt them....

Donno

[CaNaDiAn_jAtTi]

I'm sorry, but i disagree with a lot of you. I'm not amritdhari, but i feel i'm travelling on that path, and as a fellow human being feel strongly that one cannot impede on the rights of others.

These people are a minority and if the majority has their will then basically what we're supporting is majority tyranny in society. And that opens up the way for other majorities to take a stand against any minority...isn't this what we were fighting against when france declared the banishment of religious wear! And yet most of the people here are like "this is against nature, shouldn't support it" "it's wrong!", excuse me but who are we to judge what God's created here, obviously it didn't just rise out of the blue here. Homosexuality has been studied in many ancient societies, it's just been finally given a spot light....

Just because these ppl have different views than us means that they're less human....

I support giving them the right to marriage and after that religious groups can decide whether or not they want to perform such rites....that has been left up to the Religious groups remember that...the gov't isn't forcing the Gurdhwaras to perform them if they don't want to....

So stop the nonsense ppl, because if we support majority tyranny today, something could very well be passed against us in the future (think of France)

[Sukhi]

it's not about the karmic consequences that we face for not defending those in need of support, it's also a reflection of our hypocrisy.

as of yet, there is nothing that fully supports the theory that homosexual people have such preferences because they choose to do so. in fact, there's probably more support pointing to their sexual preference as a direct expression of their genetic make up.

this is how they are. this is how nature made them.

now where do you all stand who call it unnatural for them to behave the way they do?

i support the rights of homosexual people. and i've done a bit of research on homosexual people. nothing i saw led me to believe that they should be denied the same privileges heterosexual people enjoy. they are after all human beings.

and didn't our own Gurus tell us that the human race is one? is equal? then why should they be discriminated against for being made the way they have been?

[Guest]

I'm sorry, but i disagree with a lot of you. I'm not amritdhari, but i feel i'm travelling on that path, and as a fellow human being feel strongly that one cannot impede on the rights of others.

Well, the decision by Akal Takht is not that people cant be a homosexual, just that gay marriages are forbidden to take place at a Gurdwara, since homosexuality has no place in Sikhism. This is perfectly acceptable and i am in complete agreement.

These people are a minority and if the majority has their will then basically what we're supporting is majority tyranny in society.

Forbidding gays to marry at a Gurdwara is tyranny? How? Homosexuals cannot be Sikhs. Either you take Sikhism as it is, or you dont at all. I think it is pretty clear from the Hukamnama that Sikhism does not recognize homosexuality as natural. It has no place among Sikhs or in any Sikh institution.

And that opens up the way for other majorities to take a stand against any minority...isn't this what we were fighting against when france declared the banishment of religious wear!

No. We're fighting for our right to wear religious symbols in a country that is supposed to be secular and democratic. Freedom of religious expression cannot be compared to gay marriages at institutions which have forbid these since the beginning.

And yet most of the people here are like "this is against nature, shouldn't support it" "it's wrong!", excuse me but who are we to judge what God's created here, obviously it didn't just rise out of the blue here. Homosexuality has been studied in many ancient societies, it's just been finally given a spot light....

Homosexuality can be thrown in with perversion and lust, that is what it is after all isnt it? Did not "God create" those also? So we are supposed to accept everything that is ill with the World because we cannot "judge" what "God created here" even though our religious masters had shown us what to acknowledge and what to abstain from?

Just because these ppl have different views than us means that they're less human....

That is true. But then why, do these gay people want to get married at places which do not recognize them as people of the faith? Why dont these people get married in some registry office? To call yourself a homosexual and a Sikh is a contradiction. Either you're one or the other. This is the message Akal Takht Sahib clearly has given.

I support giving them the right to marriage and after that religious groups can decide whether or not they want to perform such rites....that has been left up to the Religious groups remember that...the gov't isn't forcing the Gurdhwaras to perform them if they don't want to....

If Gurdwara's ever allow gay marriages Sikhism will be in grave danger of becoming void.

[Guest]

and didn't our own Gurus tell us that the human race is one? is equal? then why should they be discriminated against for being made the way they have been?

If people were "made gay" then dont you think Guru Nanak and all other Sikh Guru's would have had the wisdom to realize this and accept homosexuals as no different from rest of the World?

Clearly, this mumbo jumbo about a gay gene is an attempt by these people to try and bring some credibility and legitimacy to one of the ultimate stages of perversion. They will no doubt fail in the long run.

Ps, and its not just Sikhism but Judaism, Christianity and Islam dont accept homosexuals. Catholic Church in the modern World can try to reinvent itself all they like but fact is none of the religious scriptures in their original and authentic form accept this madness. I dont need to have read word for word these scriptures, religious and other literature by these faith groups is proof enough for me.

Edicts are another source to put a lid on this topic.

[Sukhi]

there was a day when no one accepted black people as homo sapiens sapiens. everyone thought they were primitive. god forbid we learn our lessons from history.

[Guest]

there was a day when no one accepted black people as homo sapiens sapiens. everyone thought they were primitive. god forbid we learn our lessons from history.

Now tell me, did any of these "people" who did not accept Blacks as homo sapiens include Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Nanak or any other number of Prophets, Saints, Guru's etc etc etc?

Dont think so.

So, how does this example have any relevance to homosexuality?

Answer: It doesnt.

Please answer my question, "If people were "made gay" then dont you think Guru Nanak and all other Sikh Guru's would have had the wisdom to realize this and accept homosexuals as no different from rest of the World?"

Why is it, that no religion accepts homosexuality but all accept the diversity of humankind (ie, races, colors)?

Perhaps you and other "modern people" have more knowledge and wisdom than any spiritual master had because you have gay friends or have proven the existence of a gay gene (oh yeah? what proof?) so of course, it must be natural and encouraged.

Regards,

[Sukhi]

actually Jahan, regardless of the fact that all the prophets and religious figures you name accepted people of all colour as human beings, their followers distorted their words to make it seem that coloured people were NOT homo sapien sapiens.

and this question DOES have relevance to homosexuality in the same sense that although there is no clear definitive view set on homosexuality, people continue to distort words to their benefit. it's done for many other controversial issus among homosexuality.

as for your question, i believe the answer lies in Gurbani and the teachings of the Gurus when they tell us to treat all as equals.

i don't believe religion doesn't accept homosexual people, but rather the followers of various world religions. come to think of it, many followers of a variet of world religions oftentimes have difficulties in accepting sexuality in itself. i digress, but you get my point.

no, i dont claim to have more knowledge of wisdom than any spiritual master for either of the reasons that you have said. but i do believe that the message of Gurbani applies to all.

perhaps i am lacking in knowledge as great as your own and you could clarify to me why i should treat others who are slightly different as inferiors. i'd be much obliged.