homosexuality in sikhism

[sexy_singh]

guv i understand that it seems out of place in this thread - but this thread only exists because its the trendy test of the day, how much can one absorb without flinching, without expressing any discomfort, at any cost. To what extend can you sacrifice independence for the sake of correctness? issue smishue ...

"we're indian and we're gay.. " "this is wrong. indian men should not be gay"

- Russel Peters

[Sukhi]

ah sexy, how i miss the days of our arguments in the cheating thread you made. methinks you has almost made my time here worthwhile. (shameless flattery, i assure you. )

thank you for admiring my open-mindedness. i hope i can expect you to be patient with me as i go through your post and pose questions from it.

first of all, i've never felt forced to defend anyone who's different. but i do feel resistant to the idea that someone should be allowed to be discriminated against because of that difference.

when i speak of equality in the context of this thread, i'm discussing the fact that homosexual people's basic human rights as defined by the respective charter of rights in their countries are being infringed upon. that's the equality i speak of.

and if you ask me, this isn't a dishonest or false struggle.

i have no issues with the fact that people have issues with homosexuality. but i don't think that having issues with homosexual people gives you the right to take away their basic rights and discriminate against them. and i say this not based on an external notion of correctness but from my own personal morality and rationality. it doesn't make sense to me to say that because someone likes something different from me, that they shouldn't be allowed to have it or have equal rights as i do.

i agree with you that socially responsible acts involve a sense of genuine concern. and i really am genuinely concerned with the fact that if we don't make an attempt to ensure that people have the RIGHT TO BE DIFFERENT from us and live a life of freedom regardless of that difference, that we could have other discriminatory and prejudices accepted as proper.

i've never implied that we need to embrace this difference and hold hands and be happy. not everyone is going to be happy with homosexuals. but that doesn't mean that homosexual people don't have the right to be different.

heck, not everyone in the world is happy with coloured people. but these individuals are allowed to have their difference of opinion and get to take advantage of all their rights.

i disagree with your definition of equality as being characterized by uniformity and homogeneity. for me equality is recognizing the differences that exist between people while maintaining that they have a right to be different. equality isn't about us all being the same, but rather us all treating each other the same: as human beings, with intellectual, emotional and spiritual faculties.

in your example of sexy, i'd like you to consider something:

nobody sees sexy as a threat. nobody has threatened to take away his right to be a monosexual.

but if someone had done that, would sexy have sat by idly and allowed it to happen or would he have raised a voice in order to defend himself and fight for his right to be a monosexual?

[Beast]

what is it with u ppl and long posts. :evil:

Can anyone summarise all the above in a couple of easy to read words?

ta.

[doaba]

yeah i agree. just right i'm right and ur wrong so i' sure ppl will start to understand each other beta

[Beast]

especially when they figure out the difference between right and write.

[doaba]

ahhh doggy u r very smart. didn't expect u to pick up on that lol.

[guv]

Can anyone summarise all the above in a couple of easy to read words?

i'll try...

sexy: hi sukhi. who gives a f*ck bout gays. what about w*nkers?

guv: sharrap

sexy: hi sukhi. being gay is trendy.

sukhi: i miss u. i give a f*ck bout gays... nobody stops w*nkers.

hope that clears things up.

[Beast]

eskellent.

[doaba]

oie u . i'm the only person with bad spelling in this neighbour.

plz understand no ebonics or porn language on this site. plz speak english.

oh btw the admins forced me to write that to u doggy dearest. HAHAHAH joke joke don't get ur lil kachis in a twist again. and u naked admins don't get u....in a twist lol

[guv]

i was thinking about this topic in relation to another today.

after reading a review of a film called 'the woodsman' about the problems a paedophile faces trying to rejoin society, i began to think about what drives someone down that path. now what if, just as most argue homosexuality is, paedophilia is also something that one cannot help... what if it is a genetic predisposition. if it is, then are we not discriminating against someone's inherent sexual preferences?

i can think of no solution to this problem. i can in no way see any form of paedophilia being condoned... yet that means u must discriminate against a group of ppl. hmmmm.... :?

[sexy_singh]

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.

[sexy_singh]

when i speak of equality ... homosexual people's basic human rights as defined by the respective charter of rights in their countries are being infringed upon. that's the equality...

Give me examples. I dont understand how this works. What rights? How does sexual preference affect rights in this context.

i have no issues with the fact that people have issues with homosexuality. but i don't think that having issues with homosexual people gives you the right to take away their basic rights and discriminate against them.

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.

i've never implied that we need to embrace this difference and hold hands and be happy. not everyone is going to be happy with homosexuals. but that doesn't mean that homosexual people don't have the right to be different.

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.

heck, not everyone in the world is happy with coloured people. but these individuals are allowed to have their difference of opinion and get to take advantage of all their rights.

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.

nobody sees sexy as a threat. nobody has threatened to take away his right to be a monosexual.

You are implying that society sees homosexuals as a threat. Care to back this up?

but if someone had done that, would sexy have sat by idly and allowed it to happen or would he have raised a voice in order to defend himself and fight for his right to be a monosexual?

I suspect he'd have shrugged it off. I doubt he'd raise a voice to defend himself!

[Infernal Monk]

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 don't know Sexy, a lot of people have said similar things about changing themselves to Sikhs, ie the Helmet issue...

just some food for thought.

[sexy_singh]

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

[Sukhi]

guvducky, if you act on your paedophilic intentions, you'll be causing harm to an UNCONSENTING child.

when two homosexuals get together, they're consenting to it and they aren't causing harm to another (unless someone is raping someone else).

so i think tha's the difference that lies between the two.

sexysingh, i'm using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/).

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) 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 and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

so if everyone has the right to equal benefit of the law without discrimination, why are homosexual people not being allowed to marry?

in Ontario, i know for a fact that homosexual people are allowed to be married legally, but this isn't so in other places.

i believe that the American government also has a similar bill/charter, and that they've got a similar section.

NOW... what i've figured from reading your post are 2 things:

1. you think homosexual people are getting special rights that the rest of us arent. what are these rights you think they're getting?

2. you assume that people are gonna label you as an uncaring bastard because you don't care about what happens with homosexual people.

first of all, i can't comment on #1, till you can tell me what sorta special treatment they're asking for.

secondly, no one is telling you that you HAVE to care about what happens with the gay community. if you don't care, you don't care. simple as that. but i asked you if you had a reason for hating homosexual people. that wasn't a challenge on your "right" to not care.

[sexy_singh]

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.

so if everyone has the right to equal benefit of the law without discrimination, why are homosexual people not being allowed to marry?

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.

secondly, no one is telling you that you HAVE to care about what happens with the gay community. if you don't care, you don't care.

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.

[Sukhi]

No' date=' 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. [/quote']

no one is saying that they should have them. and that's not what we're talking about in here at all.

[sexy_singh]

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.

[sexy_singh]

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".

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) 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 and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

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.

[Sukhi]

sexy, it's 3:05 a.m. where i am. i am physically incapable of writing up an intelligent reply at this moment and will do so tomorrow... or rather today... evening... my time... lol...hold your breath til then, aigh.

[sexy_singh]

ah what a peaceful way of wishing someone dead

[Sukhi]

lol... i didn't mean it literally... hahahaaa.. though it'd be funny if you did... i meant wait til i do come back seriously.

[Sukhi]

what are the rights of heterosexual individuals? why are heterosexual individuals allowed to legally be married? why isn't this extended to homosexual individuals IF indeed 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?

as for marriage and how it's understood and defined by society, let's take a look at it a lil closer. gimme some time to find marriage laws or whatever (i've got exams in a week or so, so i'm a lil hard-pressed for time). we'll look at that and figure out whether i even have a case.

you lost me with the family dialogue. wanna explain again please?

we already have laws against abusive and neglectful parents... or have you not heard of something called "social services"?

and yeah, parents in abusive marriages have been known to have their children separated from them as a result of the negative effects of their relationship on the child. it doesn't happen as often because people suffer in silence, but if you're gonna tell me that we allow it, i'm telling you right now that you're wrong. it's not allowed.

i don't understand how you can talk about infringing upon the rights of a paedophile when a paedophile's sexuality is based purely on infringing upon a child's safety. :shock:

my suggestion to you: if you really don't care, why are you arguing about it so much with me? (don't you dare stop arguing. i still wanna hear what you have to say.)