Gupt Singh Posted June 22, 2003 Report Share Posted June 22, 2003 ACTUALLY scientific tests proved: naturally, asians are most intelligent/studious blacks are best atheletes, also instruments i believe whites are inbetween. im not being racist, but thats what they found. oh and yeh we shouldnt hate on gays, well not much anyway (joking) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted June 22, 2003 Report Share Posted June 22, 2003 Thank you Khalsa Soulja for (unknowingly) perfectly exemplifying my point about the crookedness of some supposed 'scientific proofs' and how gullible joe public can be!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission_Impossible Posted June 28, 2003 Report Share Posted June 28, 2003 You guys are missing the point, queerness is a medical condition caused by defective genes. The fact is that queers are born that way, its not their fault. Also, you guys are wrong about equality. Equality means that you treat a PERSON equally and with respect, not that you treat their filthy activites/perversion with respect! You can respect the person/sinner but not the sin... Queerness is WRONG! The reasons are many, such as it is UNNATURAL, it is disgusting and confuses some children, it is useless in evolutionary terms, it is not for procreation, and much more... Otherwise, why not let pedophiles go about their business? Why not let brother and sister get married? mother and son? I mean, they too can be consenting adults right!? Man and Woman (unrelated) were made for eachother, they are NATURAL and wholesome, heterosexuality is NORMAL, it is SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be the best arrangement. Sikhism should NEVER allow queers to get married in the Gurdwaras, this is against God! If one is queer, get a f*cking sex change operation and become NORMAL! Or, get some genetic operation in 20 years time that will make you straight again! Why are these idiots trying to make an ABBERATION/PERVERSION out to be something normal and natural, when it is clearly not! Also, I agree with KS, I too would rather convert to Islam then have Sikhism altered just to 'fit in' these stupid queers! Sikhism is the truth, let's keep it that way! Kind Regards, MI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jassa Posted June 28, 2003 Report Share Posted June 28, 2003 although i shud be the last to say this as my boli is too rude, but paaji, when writing something in front of sangat please try not swearing, even if it is censored...not a good image for guru gobind singh's singhs. p.s who really cares whos smarter between whites and asians....do more simran and you'll get more knowledge than u eva dreamed possible!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jassa Posted June 28, 2003 Report Share Posted June 28, 2003 also singhs....wat is this tat you'd convert if sikhi was 2 allow them... thats 2 of you... is that how committed you are.... stop being so immature about this....this is for constructive discussion...not for calling someone stupid or an idiot... and i dont agree with homosexuality either....but I would never abandon my sikhi....and if you would then you need 2 question your faith...alot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gupt Singh Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 Thank you Khalsa Soulja for (unknowingly) perfectly exemplifying my point about the crookedness of some supposed 'scientific proofs' and how gullible joe public can be!!! actually that wasnt a crooked scientific proof. generally u see that asians (esp indians) are v intelligent, esp in uk, maybe its because they work so hard (or their mom slaps them up with the chupple lol) or maybe its genetic.....and why are there so few PROPA intelligent black ppl as opposed to asian, and LOADS of black atheletes but virtually no asian atheletes? its not all environmental. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 Gurfateh You see KS, your starting to sound a little bit like Hitler now... To suggest that the fact that there are no 'PROPA intelligent black people' and that can't just be 'environmental' really equates to EXTREME racism by implying (as some Psychologists have historically, to great ridicule) that black people are GENETICALLY, hence naturally, less intelligent. And just what criteria do you set for 'PROPA intelligent black people'? Now, lets look at some other statictics relating to afro-carribeans in the UK, such as the fact that there is high rates of black youth who do not see education through to their GCSEs, that there are 4 times more black people diagnosed with a serious mental disorders than white people, etc. A racist would say that they are therefore intellectually inferior genetically. A social scientist will point out that educational achievement is very strongly linked to socio-economic status, housing issues, life-stress events, home environment, social attitudes, etc. You say it must be more than environmental? Well then explain the difference in results for Pakistani Punjabi educational achievement against Indian Punjabi educational achievement, as there will be very little genetic differences between punjabis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gupt Singh Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 lol......i aint racist or hitler-like. this is a fact......black people are better than white people at sports, esp running. yes? this is afact......the other way round, white people are worse than black people at sports, yep? is that racist? no. there is nothing racist in saying that. i never suggested there are no propa intelligent black people. i am just saying there are much less than there are propa intelligent asian people. just like most asian people are generally worse at running, etc. theres a fine line between racism and facts. u cant deny that black peeps are better at sports than others. infact they have traced the place in which a number of fast runners come from to a particular village. so why cant traits (eg speed) be in other areas aswell? sorry if ive offended anyone (esp any kalle here lol, but i doubt there are any) but its tru. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanti Singh Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 The thought that you are so convinced that Blacks are less superior than Asians or Whites in quite amusing at first then disappointing. You see the reason you are so convinced that Blacks are more athletic and Whites Brainier is because you are a victim of the media and Western Society where Whites are given more prominence and the Blacks and minorities alike are potrayed as less influential in areas other than sports and entertainment for that matter. I agree Blacks are more dominent in mainstream sports however it doesnt mean that they are naturally superior. Perhaps you should take a lesson from your own post and try not to emulate the "kalles" as much as you try to do with your ghetto slang. You may give the impression that you are mentaly deficient but athletically gifted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 Moderator's Note: Please stick to the topic or else it will be locked. Bring your arguments from sikh scripture either its against or not against gays and lesbians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 Gurfateh One last thing N30... KS, I know for a fact that a lot of Sikhs are/were very good at hockey...does that mean they are 'propa' at this sport and must therefore be 'slower' intellectually? The chinese are very good at table-tennis, therefore they mustn't be very good at thinking - tell that to confuscius. How many black table-tennis players have you met? Have you seen any black badminton players? How many black swimmers have you seen? How many black tennis players are there? How many internationally reknowned black golf players are there? How many famous black Formula One drivers are there? etc Your grossly stereotyped theory is flawed and is racist, whether intended or not. You are not stating 'facts' but huge stereotypes. Your assumption that being proficient in one area, means that an ENTIRE ethinic group must be insufficient in another area (e.g. brains) amounts to the kind of warped racist theories using eugenics the Nazis were spouting 70 years ago so that they could try to eliminate Jews and gypsies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gupt Singh Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 LOL u are misinterpriting what im saying completely. im not saying that if u are not as intelligent then u are automatically better at sports. but there is something GENETIC which makes black people put muscle on more than white/asian people. they are naturally better runners. most people acknowledge that, and science is proving that genetically asian people are more intelligent. that doesnt mean all black people are stoopid, or all asians are fat, it just means there is a trend in that direction. there is no hitler "my race is superior than yours" in what im saying. in the end our bodies will crumble in 50 yrs time anyway. there are alot of genetic traits. they are not racist or generalisations that all people are this way, theres a trend. i have a few yugoslavian ppl at my school and they are all naturally tonk. most the black peeps at my school are generally more muscley even though they dont do as much weights. notice i say MOST not all. its a trend. just calm down man, im not suggesting anyone is better than anyone else, im just saying there are traits inherant to different ethnic groups. i chatted to my friends about this and they were all cool about it. what are u trying to prove here? and shanti singh......who are u??? where am i emulating kalle? and i think it is a bit racist to say that ghetto slang is inherant to kalle only aswell LOL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 Gurfateh What am I trying to prove here, as you state? That it is dangerous, to say the least, to make statements such as 'why are there no PROPA intelligent black people?' and 'it all can't be environmental'. If you generally believe that black people are genetically less intelligent than others, then that is racism, that is not supported by research. You see the next thing to ask is just HOW are they measuring intelligence? Early research by the likes of Eysenck is notoriously flawed because of it's ethnocentrism. I recall friends saying they'd been to a lecture of his when the whole audience booed because of his dodgy assumptions about 'intelligence'. Psychologists like Howard Gardner goes further and points out that there are multiple types of intelligences, not just one thing. My point was that it is nigh impossible to come to a clear statement when it comes to psychology or genetics as it is one side of an argument, using one slant on research. If you study any of these subjects from A-level upwards you are introduced to the fact that there is huge scope for evaluating these things, and that what is taught is usually fairly questionnable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gupt Singh Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 That it is dangerous, to say the least, to make statements such as 'why are there no PROPA intelligent black people?' and 'it all can't be environmental'. have a look at what i wrote above. i said why are there SO FEW? If you generally believe that black people are genetically less intelligent than others, then that is racism, that is not supported by research. if i was a racist i wouldnt have black friends. is it racist to say that black are physically superior in build to whites and asians generally? but suddenly theres a hoo-haa when i say that asians are generally cleverer! You see the next thing to ask is just HOW are they measuring intelligence? Early research by the likes of Eysenck is notoriously flawed because of it's ethnocentrism. I recall friends saying they'd been to a lecture of his when the whole audience booed because of his dodgy assumptions about 'intelligence'. lol, when i say intelligence you know what i mean. Psychologists like Howard Gardner goes further and points out that there are multiple types of intelligences, not just one thing. My point was that it is nigh impossible to come to a clear statement when it comes to psychology or genetics as it is one side of an argument, using one slant on research. lol, if u want to write a thesis on it, dont do it here. im only 16. you are right, it is impossible (and generalising) to say "all black people are built and all asians are skinny or fat" or "all asian people are boffins and all black and white people are dumbasses". but just from looking at the world around u, u can see there is a definate TREND in some directions. noticed how indians came out on top with pre GCSE results, followed by bangladeshis and then chinese? its not because they were all rich and everyone else grew up in the ghetto or had family problems. lol, of the few bangaladeshis i know they all have huge family problems and get beats at home. If you study any of these subjects from A-level upwards you are introduced to the fact that there is huge scope for evaluating these things, and that what is taught is usually fairly questionnable. im doing a level next year 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sukhsingh Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 BOTTOM LINE! GAYS ARNT ALLOWED!!! GURU JI SAID IT, AND IT IS TRUE, SO LETS CLOSE THIS TOPIC NOW! :evil: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 Alright this topic is locked now!!!!!!!! If anyone find any quotes in sikh scriptures. Either its a rejection or acceptance of gays and lesbians. Please feel free to sent me a pm. I ll open it again up. Thanks for inputs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 Any gay/lesbian sikh on this forum?? Please feel proud to join your kinda company.. Here you go (81 Members Already) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/darshan-list/ Enjoy. I am locking this topic again. Please feel free to pm me if you happen to find any scriptures against these kinda groups?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 Ok guys its unlocked now..Desikudi ji has something to say... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherni-E-Punjab Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 This is in response to Sikhism and how it looks at gay/lesbian people. First and foremost, gay people have no control over their "gay" status, its like a disease that doesn't have a cure. We shouldn't judge or criticize them. Because, the only thing that we can say to that is that Guru Gobind Singh Ji proclaimed equality for all in his famous words "Manas ki Jat Sabhe Eke Pehchan Bo" (all human beings are equal and have one identity Ik Ongkar, Sat Nam - Everything stems from these two concepts. Ik Ongkar - There is but ONE Creation - even homosexuals, bisexuals and transexuals are part of that same One Creation set on this earth plane by the Infinite Paramatma. Sat Nam - Truth is Thy Name - the only way that we can actually say this every morning in our daily Japji Sahib Bani and for those of us that have any dealings or connections with the the 3HO Foundation or North American Sikhs; greet everyone in the communities around the world with this "Sat Nam" phrase, is if we are actually living up to OUR OWN TRUTH. By being Gay or Bi and being honest about this type of sexual orientation to the entire world around us, while living up to the spirituality of the Sikh faith and not the religious aspects, only then can we say to people Sat Nam and really mean it. Only then can we read our Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and repeatedly chant Sat Nam. Only then can we read our daily Banis as an "Amritdhari" and not be a hypocrite at the same time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinghMunda Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 As far as im concerned, maybe ppl can be homosexual, especially if this gay gene exists, but at the end of the day, theres no need for anyone to be boastful of their kaam whether they are homo/heterosexual, and i personally think the kaam is only supposed to be used for reproduction, so even if someone claims to be homosexual, it is their duty to bring up more Sikhs to spread their religion and to just forget what their sexuality is...not like that uk christian bishop guy (christianity) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 Gurfateh In Akal Ustati Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj qualifies Akal Purakh as the creator of : nar (men) nari (women) and napumsak (third gender). The third gender in Indian classical culture includes everything that is not clearly heterosexual : hijras, transexuals, travestites, gay and lesbians. They clearly not seen as the norm but rather an exception. They should nevertheless not be discriminated against. The issue here is that homosexuality in the West is different from homosexuality in India. In fact one should talk of homosexualities. A good read would be this: http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Female%20Homoeroticism%20and%20Women%20of%20a%20Third%20Nature%20in%20the%20South%20Asian%20Past.pdf Excellent article by a great Indologist scholar. Before discussing these issues one has to be aware of the situation of homosexuality in the Gurus times first and know the sources dealing with sexuality in genereal such as the Kamasutra of Vatsyayana, the Anandavarga and other calssical texts on erotology.And of course Charitropakhyan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugermach Singh Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 oh right, i didnt know that it came in akal ustat. Could you do me a favour and tell me where about? Is it in the translation given at www.dasamgranth.com cos im currently looking at the questions that guru gobind singh ji asks, starts from 'Ko atma sarrop hai'? just trying to work them out. thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 I think it's verse 50 if I'm not wrong but my memory is not fantastic today. it starts with nar nari napumsak 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugermach Singh Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 Got it, for those that want to see it go to http://www.gobindsadan.org/institute/dasam/pdf/v1_2.pdf page 20, top line. Do some reading. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamic_Banda Posted July 28, 2003 Report Share Posted July 28, 2003 Third gender.. :twisted: It was the same topic which caused so much fear and panic amongst the fusarpanthis within the BOSS (British Organisation of Sikh Students) that they closed down their forum. And also during a khalistani March held in hyde park (london UK) some idiot went around telling people that on the post regarding third genders as equals in the panth, Mai Bhago was called a TOYBOY !! (not a tomboy which would imply she is a very masculine female, but a toyboy which is a yound lover for older women). The inability for modern day fusarpanthi sikhs to accept all walks of life, and to accept people for what they truely are rather then turn them into this idiotic idolistic view of the supreme sikh (perfect human - similar to hitlers ideas) or refuse to acknowledge their existance as equal, is damn disappointing and disgraceful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.