# Are We Guided Towards Monogamy In Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji!



## Ambarsaria (Jan 8, 2014)

Just curious as cases of divorce, extra-marital affairs, homosexuality and lesbianism, etc., are as much part of Sikh families as any other community.  Rather than throw the book at people perhaps a dialog would help in understanding provided by our Guru in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Let us define and I have gone to Wiki for it:



> *Monogamy* (pron. /məˈnɒɡəmi/, mə-NOG-ə-mee) is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner during their lifetime or at any one time (serial monogamy), as compared to *polygamy* or polyamory.


  I have tried to search for marriage in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and found few results for *marriage/ਵੀਆਹੁ.

*Similarly, I have  I found it difficult to get direct reference to *monogamy or to polygamy*.  

Most references are to the following:



good union or relationship *(ਸੋਹਾਗਣੀ / sohāgaṇī)*  with the creator (as bridegroom)
--->  blessed/accepted or fortunate bride
 
lack of or bad *(ਦੁਹਾਗਨਿ / ḏuhāgan)* relationship with the creator
--->  discarded or unfortunate bride
 



> *ਪੰਨਾ 473, ਸਤਰ 8*
> ਭੰਡਿਜੰਮੀਐਭੰਡਿਨਿੰਮੀਐਭੰਡਿਮੰਗਣੁਵੀਆਹੁ॥
> भंडिजमीऐभंडिनिमीऐभंडिमंगणुवीआहु॥
> Bẖand jammī▫ai bẖand nimmī▫ai bẖand mangaṇ vī▫āhu.
> ...


  So the question is how can we find prime guidance about monogamy/polygamy/homosexuality/lesbianism/unmarried or even common-law through Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as well as about cross faith marriages.

  Let us also do a poll to find clues, as to why we are the way we are,*1.      I am guided by Sikh Reht Maryada in these matters.
  2.     I am socially or parentally following clues or direction.
  3.     It is of my free will.
  4.     I wish Sikhism evolves towards free will in these matters.
5.  To each their own.*
​Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 8, 2014)

Ambarsaria ji

This comment is my personal reply. The poll does not capture my thoughts on this matter. The question of marriage and relationships is extremely complicated. I have the greatest difficulty responding when the subject comes up as a new thread in which a member is describing a deep personal problem.

There are too many issues to consider. You will see why I cannot reply to the poll.


My individual inclination is to follow the Sikh Rehat Maryada. At the same time I recognize that in the area of marriage and relationships the SRM can be unhelpful in modern times. 

Then there is the issue of the law to consider. Bigamy is illegal in most parts of the world (save for Muslim theocracies like Saudi Arabia). Therefore, even if the rehat permitted it, how could it be an option to take seriously? 

Caste is not supposed to be considered according to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and the SRM. Yet, there are extremely strong social  and cultural marriage traditions based on caste. So much so that I feel I must always advise someone else to think carefully before flying in the face of them. It is ethically irresponsible to lecture a person that caste has no place in Sikhi, knowing full well it is wiser to think before taking action.

   3.a There is a version of the "no true Scotsman logical fallacy" in many of these relationship discussions that goes like this. "No true Sikh would make marriage decisions based on caste." The fact is Sikhs do in vast numbers. Not only are marriage choices guided by caste, but other things are as well. This is very serious.

Some traditions fly in the face of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and the SRM because culture is so entrenched in our minds. Honor killing still happens, in the west and in the east. Therefore, how can anyone 'encourage' another person to follow their will in an inter-caste, or an inter-religious marriage situation, or simply where parental wishes are being defied. We know full well that the consequences could be disastrous. Short of honor killing, being shunned by one's family is not a small tragedy either. 

Homosexuality is not mentioned in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Homosexual marriage is not forbidden in SRM; however, it is fairly clear it is not an option either. This is an example where the SRM has not kept pace with modern life. Homosexual relationships existed in the Punjab from the times of the Gurus. It was kept private and hushed up. There were socially acceptable ways to engage in it and avoid social punishments. Today nothing is private; everything is open to review. People object to hypocrisy. 

No one has unconditional free will; no one ever will. That is a simplistic consideration.

So here is my answer. I am personally guided in my own decisions by Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and the Sikh Rehat Maryada. I find nothing to limit me as one person there. However, I want to be clear that many, many issues need to be weighed when making marriage and relationship decisions. Finally, it is not my place to judge the decisions of anyone in this regard; nor can I condone violent actions when someone makes a decision that _ appears _to veer away from Sikhi. Many have a hard time separating Punjab culture and history from Sikhi. That makes the conversation most difficult.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 8, 2014)

as a post-script

Many species of birds are biologically hard-wired to be monogamous and do not even take a new mate if the first one dies. 

Separate thought. In SGGS too we have so many verses of the chatrik and the pea{censored} pining for her husband lord, making the image you have selected most appropriate.


----------



## namritanevaeh (Jan 10, 2014)

spnadmin said:


> [*]Some traditions fly in the face of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and the SRM because culture is so entrenched in our minds. Honor killing still happens, in the west and in the east. Therefore, how can anyone 'encourage' another person to follow their will in an inter-caste, or an inter-religious marriage situation, or simply where parental wishes are being defied. We know full well that the consequences could be disastrous. Short of honor killing, being shunned by one's family is not a small tragedy either.



SPNadmin ji, I find this SOOOOOO very sad that this happens.  Wrong on so many levels.  And while I love a lot of the Punjabi culture and Sikhi I am learning slowly, this stands out to me at times.  It's as if they want to say "we accept everyone who comes to gurdwara, feed them all...but then shun them if they want to marry one of 'ours'."

I was brought up in a non-discriminatory household and I don't care if someone is Sikh or anything else.  If they are a decent human being and I get along with them they can be my friend...or perhaps even more than that.  In MY eyes...

Having been told that someone's family would be ****** at me being with him because I'm white, however, sucked.  Big time.  And he was born in Canada, doesn't even keep kesh or wear a kara.  It goes to show how far those roots reach sometimes.  :'(


----------



## aristotle (Jan 10, 2014)

The first option says 





> _I am guided by Sikh Reht Maryada in these matters and marriage to be as monogamy, heterosexual and to be between Sikhs only._



Well of course I'm guided by the _Sikh Rehat Maryada_, but I don't think the SRM explicitly prohibits homosexual marriage, I'm saying this at the cost of getting a lot of heat but even if the Jathedar Akal Takht has issued a Hukamnama, it does not constitute the main corpus of SRM until and unless there is a _Sarbat Khalsa_ to permanently validate it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Since I disagree with this part of the first option my natural second choice was the last option, which to me reflects my own views about relationship and marriage.


----------



## aristotle (Jan 10, 2014)

namritanevaeh said:


> Having been told that someone's family would be ****** at me being with him because I'm white, however, sucked.  Big time.  And he was born in Canada, doesn't even keep kesh or wear a kara.  It goes to show how far those roots reach sometimes.  :'(



Well, I think the Punjabis of diaspora are a bit more insistent on their children marrying ethnic Punjabis, or atleast ethnic Indians, perhaps out of their insecurity regarding the preservation of the Punjabi culture in a foreign land. But again, as always, it is not a constant thing. One of my cousins in the USA has married an African American girl, and both are practising Sikhs now; and there wasn't much problem with their families accepting each other as well.


----------



## Ishna (Jan 10, 2014)

I went with the 'hopes Sikhi evolves towards free will' option, however I'd like it to be 'informed free will', with Sikhi (via SRM, etc.) providing some equal, real, evidence-based (as far as possible) guidance on marriage.

I note with curiosity that although the SRM doesn't explicitly prohibit homosexual marriage, it also doesn't explicitly prohibit bigamy. Indeed, it *explicitly* makes it clear that yes, bigamy is OK, not preferred, but definitely not prohibited.

Speaking more broadly about marriage... Why do we need marriage? Do different people need or want marriage for different reasons? Why do we have to have just one kind of marriage?


----------



## aristotle (Jan 10, 2014)

Ishna said:


> I note with curiosity that although the SRM doesn't explicitly prohibit homosexual marriage, it also doesn't explicitly prohibit bigamy. Indeed, it *explicitly* makes it clear that yes, bigamy is OK, not preferred, but definitely not prohibited.



I would rather say bigamy is strongly discouraged if not explicitly prohibited in the Sikh Rehat Maryada. It says,



> Generally, no Sikh should marry a second wife if the first wife is alive.
> _Sikh Rehat Maryada, Article XVIII p_


----------



## Ishna (Jan 10, 2014)

It says 'generally'. Therefore, there can be exceptions, and the limitations are not defined. It it were explicitly prohibited it would drop the 'generally'. But you're right, I should have *explicitly* checked the paragraph before posting, as you're correct that the statement is 'discouraging'... but not prohibitive, and does allow bigamy by way of that sneaky 'generally'.

But perhaps there are some good reasons somewhere in the world to have more than one wife, and the SRM was conceeding to that?

And I'm not passing judgement either way - I'm sure some people live just fine in a well-defined multi-spouse relationship.


----------



## SaintSoldier1699 (Jan 10, 2014)

I found I could not go with the first option as things become very limited, our SRM however good it is, parts are unfortunately well out of date.

If Gurbani is the everlasting truth, it will apply to all of civilization. There are many cultures/religions in the world which endorse or denounce certain relationship lifestyles, but ultimately it comes down to the intention, is your choice driven by lust, ego, greed, attachment, anger?

Gurbani combats these and enables you to have an enriched relationship be that with whomever.

To me the meaning of marriage means a pledge to one another, whether that be done in private or openly, ceremony or not, its all about the genuineness of that pledge and will to see it through.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 10, 2014)

Wonderful points raised by the fellow spners.  If I may raise a more fundamental point that is along the lines,



> If Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the real teacher for us, why we need to be dictating rather than encouraging and sharing growth and genuine learning and let people thereof decide?
> 
> Are we setting rules as we presuppose that majority are dumb and have no time for these matters and need to be told what to do and what not to do?  Are we putting expediency ahead of hard path of learning and sharing of wisdom one iota at a time with all and sundry!


Guru ji and other contributors in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji have provided clear and persuasive teachings to many matters and practices of the day that were spiritually destroying people from inside out and enslaving them to the exploiters in Hinduism, Islam and others of the times.​ 
The fundamental question is that both *monogamy and polygamy* was clearly practiced by the populations of the times.  Since the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji simply does not highlight this subject explicitly one way or another, what could be the reason?  Are we to assume that once one enriches oneself with all the teachings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that the answer will be self-evident?  

Perhaps our great Guru teachers believed that this really was of no consequence as long as it was not driven by the so called five baddies of Kaam, Karodh, Lobh, Moh and Hankar!  I doubt thi sbecause Guru ji believed in living and practicallity that proceeds through one's life from the beginning to the end and the perfection of all rising above all these baddies may never be achieved by most of us.  If such is the case then this argument about *monogamy and polygamy* may hold little water.  So how can it be perfectly balanced?

I believe from my understanding that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji may treat this as small stuff and teach us:



> *Do not sweat the small stuff and rise above it!*


Would the Sikhs spiritually, socially and culturally take this to level of enriched thought as enabled by Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji or stay caught in the weeds, only time will tell.

My position is that if one does not have an understanding, a willingness to explain and take the time, throwing rules and regulations on people only minimizes such rules and regulations.

Let me hazard a guess,



What percentage of Sikhs have read or have the Sikh Rehat Maryada explained and justified to them in whole or in part?
*My guess will be less than 2%*
_Of course this number is totally unscientifically stated but a hunch_
 
 
What percentage of Sikhs has one or more hymns or teachings explained to them from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji?
*My guess will be about 100%*
 
I believe a better balance between conduct of a Sikh, our community at large and spirituality of Sikhism needs to be continuously encouraged and promoted.  Wishing all well and not to offend.
Sat Sri Akal.*
PS:  *I have responded in part to some of the points in various posts below and given my thoughts.

*namritanevaeh ji*



> And while I love a lot of the Punjabi culture and Sikhi I am learning slowly, this stands out to me at times. It's as if they want to say "we accept everyone who comes to gurdwara, feed them all..._but then shun them if they want to marry one of 'ours'_."
> 
> _Very valid question(s) raised.__  I believe the shunners need to answer.  Is it that inspite of what they say or show, they have not fully understood the essence of Sikhism or don't practice so.  Guru ji never shunned anyone from what we can gather.  They spoke against actions, beliefs and such attributes._ _Sikhism in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is inclusive of all but exclusive of attributes that will let people be enslaved, exploited, led astray, etc._
> _
> ...


Aristotle ji



> Well of course I'm guided by the Sikh Rehat Maryada,.....
> 
> I would rather say bigamy is strongly discouraged if not explicitly prohibited in the Sikh Rehat Maryada.....
> _
> ...


Ishna ji



> But perhaps there are some good reasons somewhere in the world to have more than one wife, and the SRM was conceeding to that?
> 
> And I'm not passing judgement either way - I'm sure some people live just fine in a well-defined multi-spouse relationship.
> 
> _Ishna ji I truly believe that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not dictate but lets people rise spiritually, live practically and let it be._


SaintSoldier1699



> If Gurbani is the everlasting truth, it will apply to all of civilization. There are many cultures/religions in the world which endorse or denounce certain relationship lifestyles, but ultimately it comes down to the intention, is your choice driven by lust, ego, greed, attachment, anger?
> 
> _I gnerally agree with SaintSoldier1699's assertion except that I do not believe that anyone is damned if they don't 100% control or overcome the five baddies.  I have previously also asserted that the five baddies cannot be elimintaed or reduced to 0% by anyone.  The balance of the positive and negative balance is much more important.  I do not believe that somehow monogamy truthfully lifts one away in this regard.  The point is not that you show or practice living in monogamy ways but whether internally it has reasoned out or you simply posturing with imbalances of internals with externals.
> 
> ...


Sikh is 100% when what they express shows unison of internal and external.  There however is no requirement on Sikhs to prove it to be so defensively.  Just be consistent in interactions to practice and propose/preach the same and ultimately believe in the same while standing naked in the court of our souls.​


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 10, 2014)

Ishna said:


> It says 'generally'. Therefore, there can be exceptions, and the limitations are not defined. It it were explicitly prohibited it would drop the 'generally'. But you're right, I should have *explicitly* checked the paragraph before posting, as you're correct that the statement is 'discouraging'... but not prohibitive, and does allow bigamy by way of that sneaky 'generally'.
> 
> But perhaps there are some good reasons somewhere in the world to have more than one wife, and the SRM was conceeding to that?
> 
> And I'm not passing judgement either way - I'm sure some people live just fine in a well-defined multi-spouse relationship.



I think no religion can strictly prohibit polygamy or polyandry .These days in India you will hear stories that in villages 2-3 brother marry single woman.

the main reasons are

1) Shortage of women

2) land holdings becoming very small

if 2 brother marry a single woman they don't know who is the real father of the children and they raise them equally and till the land  .dividing land further between  brothers  means land become's economically unviable and both become jobless .Similarly when Khalsa was born it was beneficial for sikhs to have more than one wife . With male population dying fast in wars it was benefit for Sikhs to have more than one wife and produce more children so that panth will survive

I think need of time will decide which model to follow  Polygamy , Polyandry or  monogamy


----------



## Ishna (Jan 10, 2014)

Thanks KDS ji, I agree with you.

But just personally:  more than one _husband_???  :shock:  :crazy: *falls over* haha


----------



## angrisha (Jan 18, 2014)

I havent really thought much of this topic from the point of scripture, mostly because I feel like everything is happening as it should. So however one chooses to behave is their personal decision, the only reason we believe it should or shouldnt be one way is because of societal norms.

Grand thought is, no matter what it is isnt all apart of Hukam any how? So who are we really to judge? (It also doesn't mean you have to partake in anything you dont feel right)


----------



## namritanevaeh (Jan 18, 2014)

aristotle said:


> Well, I think the Punjabis of diaspora are a bit more insistent on their children marrying ethnic Punjabis, or atleast ethnic Indians, perhaps out of their insecurity regarding the preservation of the Punjabi culture in a foreign land. But again, as always, it is not a constant thing. One of my cousins in the USA has married an African American girl, and both are practising Sikhs now; and there wasn't much problem with their families accepting each other as well.



I know it HAPPENS.  It just seems few and far between.  It seems every time I have a new (guy) friend, even if all we are is FRIENDS, if I make mention of meeting family...all of a sudden we're no longer friends.  Haven't found the right one, obviously but still.  It sucks.


----------



## namritanevaeh (Jan 18, 2014)

kds1980 said:


> Polygamy , Polyandry or  monogamy



I think it's polygynie (sp?) for more than 1 woman??


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Jan 18, 2014)

This was so hard for me to vote in.  I wish there had been a "worm-out-of-it" answer like "other."  I really think that marriage between any two consenting adults should be recognised as valid.  I think monogamy is worth preserving.  I would personally not object to polygamy if it applied to both sexes, but I see it in the world today to be merely a way to subjugate women.

I follow the SRM in my own life, and I think it needs revision.  After all, it is a human document and open to amendment.  Until and unless it is revised, I believe Sikhs should abide by it as it is, for the good of the Panth.  We have enough divisions and disunities as it is.  I know this is asking a sacrifice of lesbian and gay couples, but is it any more of a sacrifice than has been asked of countless other Sikhs?


----------



## namritanevaeh (Jan 18, 2014)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> I follow the SRM in my own life, and I think it needs revision.  After all, it is a human document and open to amendment.  Until and unless it is revised, I believe Sikhs should abide by it as it is, for the good of the Panth.  We have enough divisions and disunities as it is.  I know this is asking a sacrifice of lesbian and gay couples, but is it any more of a sacrifice than has been asked of countless other Sikhs?




Hey, I'll amend it!  ;-)  Is that all it takes?  ;-)


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 18, 2014)

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>   <o:AllowPNG/>  </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]-->  Inderjeet Kaur ji some comments on your post.




> This was so hard for me to vote in.
> _I am very happy that it was so but not happy that one will find it hard to vote so anonymously!_


In terms of our need to be always renewing Sikhism and sustain an evergreen path,


> I wish there had been a "worm-out-of-it" answer like "other."
> _Perhaps there has been a “worm-out-of it” solution for the last 70+ years and we have stopped evolving and keep piling on the issues!_


I believe in terms of taking a step by step approach,


> I really think that marriage between any two consenting adults should be recognized as valid. I think monogamy is worth preserving.
> _Sanctioning association between people into officially recognized marriage, etc., is a separate item.  Let us first vet the concepts of monogamy, polygamy, etc., heterosexual, same sex and asexual, platonic, etc._


In terms of most basic of equalities in the process of humanity and relationships,





> I would personally not object to polygamy if it applied to both sexes, but I see it in the world today to be merely a way to subjugate women.
> _Even though there are remnants of differential treatment of sexes, I believe it is less of an issue at least based on Sikh Rehat Maryada even though it may need to be reviewed by appropriate authorities, people in the know, the wise, etc._


What will sustain us the obedience or challenge, renewal, etc.,


> …... Until and unless it is revised, I believe _Sikhs should abide by it as it is, for the good of the Panth_. We have enough divisions and disunities as it is. I know this is asking a sacrifice of lesbian and gay couples, but is it any more of a sacrifice than has been asked of countless other Sikhs?
> _Inderjeet Kaur ji one famous Prime Minister in Canada at one time stated something like,  ….  State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.  Sikh Rehat Maryada is no less than the force of a state for Sikhs in terms of code of conduct.  Whereas obedience to “what is” is important we should never let it become an obstacle to evolution of ourselves and growth of the community in times to come.  Let the Sikh Rehat Maryada stay as current and fresh as the evergreen and supreme source of guidance, education, enrichment as the SGGS for all Sikhs.  Tempting or expedient as it may be, we should never let ourselves second guess or subjugate SGGS with rules or other items so derived as not so guided in SGGS._
> 
> 
> ...


I stand corrected and I don't mean to tell people or support this or that.  I believe the greatest gift of Sikhism through SGGS is the enabling of Sikhs to be the free souls with wings that sustain us in all kinds of weather and times.

Sat Sri Akal.
  <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <w:TrackMoves/>   <w:TrackFormatting/>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <woNotPromoteQF/>   <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>   <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>   <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>    <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>    <wontFlipMirrorIndents/>    <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>   </w:Compatibility>   <m:mathPr>    <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>    <m:brkBin m:val="before"/>    <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>    <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>    <m:dispDef/>    <m:lMargin m:val="0"/>    <m:rMargin m:val="0"/>    <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>    <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>    <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>    <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>   </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"   DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"   LatentStyleCount="267">   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable 	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; 	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; 	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; 	mso-style-noshow:yes; 	mso-style-priority:99; 	mso-style-parent:""; 	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; 	mso-para-margin-top:0in; 	mso-para-margin-right:0in; 	mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; 	mso-para-margin-left:0in; 	line-height:115%; 	mso-pagination:widow-orphan; 	font-size:11.0pt; 	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; 	mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; 	mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; 	mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; 	mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 19, 2014)

*How you believe Sikhs should find answers about marriage and relationships?*
 <label for="rb_optionnumber_1"><input name="optionnumber" value="1" id="rb_optionnumber_1" type="radio">I am guided by Sikh Reht Maryada in these matters and marriage to be as monogamy, heterosexual and to be between Sikhs only.</label>

I am not guided by the SRM in any way, my only guide is the truth contained in the SGGS

<label for="rb_optionnumber_2"><input name="optionnumber" value="2" id="rb_optionnumber_2" type="radio">I am socially or parentally following clues or direction.</label>

I would rather boil my own head, socially, you have to be kidding, 

<label for="rb_optionnumber_3"><input name="optionnumber" value="3" id="rb_optionnumber_3" type="radio">It is of my free will and no one else's business.</label>

UHm no I am trying to break my free will and align with the truth

<label for="rb_optionnumber_4"><input name="optionnumber" value="4" id="rb_optionnumber_4" type="radio">I wish Sikhism evolves towards free will in these matters.</label>

If Sikhism evolves towards free will rather than the truth, then it isnt Sikhism anymore


 To each their own, I accept other people's decisions about their own lives and living.

:kaurkhalsaflagblue:


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 19, 2014)

Harry Haller ji thanks for your post.  Your write up actually gives us another nugget.

A true Sikh becomes when,



> *The free will (actions thereof) and the truth of the creator are perfectly aligned*



Other analogies,



> *When the soul and actions are perfectly aligned*



or



> *When the inside speak is the same as the outside speak*


Sat Sri Akal.

*PS:*  In terms of your strong statement regarding monogamy having little to do with parental/societal guidance/pressure I wish to differ.  I believe it is strongly affected by such norms which may be related to the truths in creation, etc., genetic, so on but its visual is societal/parental/family.  Anyway not a biggy :winkingmunda:


----------



## anon (Jan 19, 2014)

Did Guru Gobind Singh Ji not have three wives, and children with two of them? also did guru Harogobind Ji not have three wives and not have children with all three? According to the family tree drawn in Khushwant Singh's A History of the Sikhs volume 1 they did... i dont know if he did this because he had an agenda (some people have said that Khushwant Singh's work is inaccurate) but to me t doesnt seem likely that he did because throughout most of the book he speaks in favor of the Sikhs and negatively of most of the Mughal Emperors.

Many Sikhs are supporters of monogamy and I know there is a lot of historical dispute with regards to the wives of the Gurus. I was wondering if anyone could explain how these historical inaccuracies occurred and weather or not Sikhs should pay them any heed when discussing issues surrounding polygamy and monogamy...


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 19, 2014)

anon ji

Please check the threads in this forum that have already discussed the wives of Guru Gobind Singh and Guru Hargobind to death. No, they did not have multiple wives; only one at a time. Mythology on this point tends to be spread periodically on the Internet by Muslims, and also by Hindu nationalists who have an agenda of undermining Sikhism politically by undermining history.


General caution to everyone: Further discussion of the Gurus' wives will be considered on a tangent and deleted. Thanks


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 19, 2014)

Sherdil ji

1. Guru Gobind Singh did not have 2 wives at the same time. The first one died.

2. The story of the nobleman's daughter has been overwrought. She was never his wife. If we are thinking of the same person, this is the 'mother of the khalsa," Mata Sahib Kaur ji. And Guru ji told her that the khalsa would be her lineage.

3. The wives and concubines of Ranjit Singh make for interesting historical dialog. That dialog is not connected to this thread. Why did he have a harem? Why did some wives go to sati when he died? Who today is guided by Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 100 percent? Let us not therefore use Maharaja ji as either an example or an exception. 

4. I said that further discussion of this matter in this thread was off-topic and comments would be deleted. Forgive me.


----------



## SaintSoldier1699 (Jan 23, 2014)

Ambarsaria ji, thank you for your feedback and input.

When I referred to the decision based on lust, greed etc I meant in the very basic ways, i.e. just going for looks in a partner, or looking for a rich partner.  Basically the intention is not based on finding a connection grounded on something deeper than those outside material wants.

Cause we are always going to be effected by the 5 vices, but they are there to be controlled and used in the correct ways which is difficult to master I agree!


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 27, 2014)

> Cause we are always going to be effected by the 5 vices, but they are  there to be controlled and used in the correct ways which is difficult  to master I agree!



very enlightened (in my opinion) , rather than the normal 'kill, destroy, vanquish'....

look up platos chariot, it speaks in a similar vein


----------



## Sherdil (Jan 27, 2014)

spnadmin said:


> Sherdil ji
> 
> 1. Guru Gobind Singh did not have 2 wives at the same time. The first one died.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I was writing my reply when you posted that message. I only saw it after I clicked "post reply". 

Guru ji's first wife, Mata Jito, was the mother of the of the 4 Sahibzaade. She passed away. Then Guru ji married Mata Sahib Kaur, but didn't have any marital relations with her out of respect for the deceased Mata Jito. Instead he made her mother of the Khalsa.

My point about Maharaja Ranjit Singh, was to show that Sikhs did have multiple wives in the past. The Akal Takht didn't say anything, until he married a Muslim courtesan. Therefore, I don't think Gurbani speaks much on the subject.

However, I think current rehat maryada endorses a monogamous relationship, which I agree with. 

Bhul chuk maaf. No offense intended. I am simply clarifying my points.


----------



## Sherdil (Jan 27, 2014)

In most religions, intercourse is seen as a means to bear children. That can be accomplished by monogamy. Having more than one wife, in my opinion, is overkill and can be seen more along the lines of a status symbol or for one's own amusement. I don't think it is befitting of a spiritual person. 

In this regard, homosexuality is a tricky topic for religious thinkers. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring, therefore they have intercourse for purely kaami reasons. How do religious institutions condone this? We shall see in the decades to come.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 27, 2014)

Sherdil said:


> Sorry, I was writing my reply when you posted that message. I only saw it after I clicked "post reply".
> 
> Guru ji's first wife, Mata Jito, was the mother of the of the 4 Sahibzaade. She passed away. Then Guru ji married Mata Sahib Kaur, but didn't have any marital relations with her out of respect for the deceased Mata Jito. Instead he made her mother of the Khalsa.
> 
> M




JIo This is incorrect.


----------



## Ishna (Jan 27, 2014)

Sherdil ji



> In most religions, intercourse is seen as a means to bear children. That can be accomplished by monogamy. Having more than one wife, in my opinion, is overkill and can be seen more along the lines of a status symbol or for one's own amusement. I don't think it is befitting of a spiritual person.



Having more than one wife is handy if it's important to grow your family and the population in general as quickly as possible. One man can father many children at once but a woman can only bear one (usually) child at a time. Therefore, when children are very useful for working the land, herding your livestock, building, guarding, fighting, protecting, and bearing more children, then I can see the benefit of this kind of relationship.



> In this regard, homosexuality is a tricky topic for religious thinkers. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring, therefore they have intercourse for purely kaami reasons. How do religious institutions condone this? We shall see in the decades to come.



What about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, or who can't have children? Should they abstain from intimate relations?

Intimate relations are not only about kaam and procreation. They can be part of loving human relationships. IMHO.


----------



## Sherdil (Jan 27, 2014)

spnadmin said:


> JIo This is incorrect.



Sorry. I will not discuss this anymore.


----------



## Sherdil (Jan 27, 2014)

Ishna said:


> Sherdil ji
> 
> What about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, or who can't have children? Should they abstain from intimate relations?
> 
> Intimate relations are not only about kaam and procreation. They can be part of loving human relationships. IMHO.



I agree with you, intercourse can be an expression of love. Gurbani shows us what true love is when it discusses the soul-bride yearning for its husband-lord. However, love-making usually became baby-making because there were no contraceptives back in the day.  

Sikhi says that we cannot have intimate relations outside of marriage. Marriage is a religious construct. That's why people get married in a Gurdwara, Church, Mosque, etc. 

"First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage." :whislingmunda:

This construct is a means towards procreation, from a religious standpoint. It is meant to ensure fidelity, otherwise people would be having children out of wedlock. No telling who the father is (before DNA testing  ).

This is why religious institutions (even our own Akal Takht) are struggling with the concept of gay marriage. They cannot produce children, so the institution of marriage serves no purpose for them. 

Homosexuals don't need to get married to prove their love for each other. However, in the United States, there are legal and financial benefits awarded to one's spouse, such as serving as next of kin, or making sure your spouse's wishes are upheld in case they are medically incapacitated. 

Therefore, I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry in a civil union, done by the state. Anand Karaj would serve no purpose for them. 

It gets tricky when dealing with infertile couples. Chances are that the infertile partner didn't know they were infertile when they got married. So Anand Karaj will have already been done.

Couples who choose not to have children are okay too, from a Sikhi view point. They always have the potential to have kids if they want too. 

This is why gurbani is mum on the subject. Akal is without gender, so if we are to merge with the One, then our gender becomes meaningless. Thus, marriage falls into the realm of temporal authority.


----------



## angrisha (Jan 28, 2014)

Sherdil said:


> In most religions, intercourse is seen as a means to bear children. That can be accomplished by monogamy. Having more than one wife, in my opinion, is overkill and can be seen more along the lines of a status symbol or for one's own amusement. I don't think it is befitting of a spiritual person.
> 
> In this regard, homosexuality is a tricky topic for religious thinkers. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring, therefore they have intercourse for purely kaami reasons. How do religious institutions condone this? We shall see in the decades to come.


==g

Its actually well documented that homosexuality exists in other mammal species as well not just humans. Dolphins for example are known to engage in sex for pleasure reasons just like humans. So the idea of sex just for offspring doesn't entirely hold up in the animal world.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Jan 28, 2014)

I think it is short-sighted and a bit shallow to say that the sexual act has only two purposes:  procreation and satisfying kaam.  That is simply not true.

It can be a way of expressing love, a means of comforting the spouse, even just a spot of fun between spouses.  In many, many cases, it is the glue that holds a marriage together.  We are a sexual species and we ignore this at our own risk.

I hope this is not too far off-topic.  After all, we are supposed to do this only with our wedded spouse.  :winkingmunda:


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 28, 2014)

> Sikhi says that we cannot have intimate relations outside of marriage.


where does it say that?

I am not legally married, and I have sex (sometimes) 



> It gets tricky when dealing with infertile couples. Chances are that the  infertile partner didn't know they were infertile when they got  married. So Anand Karaj will have already been done.


as for only having sex for babies, she has just gone through the menapause, so does that mean we cannot have sex ever again?
are you also saying women who have gone through the menapause cannot have Anand Karaj? I mean I know I should not eat eggs, but never having sex again is a bit rich, which Jatha have you obtained this information from?


----------



## Ishna (Jan 28, 2014)

I don't get the impression that anand karaj is a committment to have children, and that's that.  Anand Karaj is about making a committment to live in Sikhi as a couple, and to accompany each other on the journey to realising nearness to Ik Onkar.


----------



## SaintSoldier1699 (Jan 28, 2014)

In reality isn't the lava just Gurbani showing a yearning for the truth and union with the ultimate truth.  I thought the panth decided to create a formal Sikh wedding ceremony to obtain rights as an ethnic minority in India? (I may stand corrected :blushh: ).

So, in reality the ceremony of marriage is just that a ceremony a formal procedure, a pledge, a promise.  As far as Gurbani goes it seems to me that two people who feel as one are a true union regardless of any ceremonies?

Also, in regards to the sex, it is a survival mechanism which ensures all species dependent on it to reproduce are programmed to do so.  Whether they choose to or not, whether its meaningful or not is up to the individual.  But it is a basic necessity for survival.  Yet in a so called religious environment a taboo not to be spoken about or certain rules approving people from taking part in it or not.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 28, 2014)

> As far as Gurbani goes it seems to me that two people who feel as one are a true union regardless of any ceremonies?



I think the idea is that Anand Karaj combines the journey of two people to live by the truth, so it becomes a union of three, man, wife and Creator. I do not see why two women, or two men cannot subscribe to this, but in that subscription, the need to find and live by the truth should be paramount, respected Ambersariaji once stated that Sikhism had no interest in what went on in the bedroom, I happen to agree with that.It is truthful living that counts, not hitting yourself on the head so you do not enjoy an orgasm.


----------



## Sherdil (Jan 28, 2014)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> I think it is short-sighted and a bit shallow to say that the sexual act has only two purposes:  procreation and satisfying kaam.  That is simply not true.
> 
> It can be a way of expressing love, a means of comforting the spouse, even just a spot of fun between spouses.  In many, many cases, it is the glue that holds a marriage together.  We are a sexual species and we ignore this at our own risk.
> 
> I hope this is not too far off-topic.  After all, we are supposed to do this only with our wedded spouse.  :winkingmunda:



Yes, it can be an act of love. But this act of love has consequences. You can end up with a baby. This was true in Guru ji's time, as there was no contraception. 

I am not saying that you shouldn't have sex with your spouse to show love. I was discussing the institution of marriage as a means of procreation.


----------



## Sherdil (Jan 28, 2014)

harry haller said:


> where does it say that?
> 
> I am not legally married, and I have sex (sometimes)
> 
> ...



We are meant to live the householder's life. SRM also prohibits extra-marital relations.

ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਗੁਣ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਨਿਤ ਸਾਚੇ ਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਸਬਦਿ ਸੁਹਾਇਆ ॥੧॥ अनदिनु गुण गावहि नित साचे गुर कै सबदि सुहाइआ ॥१॥ An▫ḏin guṇ gāvahi niṯ sācẖe gur kai sabaḏ suhā▫i▫ā. ||1|| Night and day, they continually sing the Glorious Praises of the True Lord; they are adorned with the Word of the Guru's Shabad. ||1||
ਮੇਰੇ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਹਮ ਬਾਰਿਕ ਸਰਣਿ ਤੁਮਾਰੀ ॥ मेरे ठाकुर हम बारिक सरणि तुमारी ॥ Mere ṯẖākur ham bārik saraṇ ṯumārī. O my Lord and Master, I am Your child; I seek Your Sanctuary.
ਏਕੋ ਸਚਾ ਸਚੁ ਤੂ ਕੇਵਲੁ ਆਪਿ ਮੁਰਾਰੀ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ एको सचा सचु तू केवलु आपि मुरारी ॥ रहाउ ॥ Ėko sacẖā sacẖ ṯū keval āp murārī. Rahā▫o. You are the One and Only Lord, the Truest of the True; You Yourself are the Destroyer of ego. ||Pause||
ਜਾਗਤ ਰਹੇ ਤਿਨੀ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਸਬਦੇ ਹਉਮੈ ਮਾਰੀ ॥ जागत रहे तिनी प्रभु पाइआ सबदे हउमै मारी ॥ Jāgaṯ rahe ṯinī parabẖ pā▫i▫ā sabḏe ha▫umai mārī. Those who remain wakeful obtain God; through the Word of the Shabad, they conquer their ego.
ਗਿਰਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਸਦਾ ਹਰਿ ਜਨ ਉਦਾਸੀ ਗਿਆਨ ਤਤ ਬੀਚਾਰੀ ॥ गिरही महि सदा हरि जन उदासी गिआन तत बीचारी ॥ Girhī mėh saḏā har jan uḏāsī gi▫ān ṯaṯ bīcẖārī. <B>Immersed in family life, the Lord's humble servant ever remains detached; he reflects upon the essence of spiritual wisdom. </B>
ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸੇਵਿ ਸਦਾ ਸੁਖੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਹਰਿ ਰਾਖਿਆ ਉਰ ਧਾਰੀ ॥੨॥ सतिगुरु सेवि सदा सुखु पाइआ हरि राखिआ उर धारी ॥२॥ Saṯgur sev saḏā sukẖ pā▫i▫ā har rākẖi▫ā ur ḏẖārī. ||2|| Serving the True Guru, he finds eternal peace, and he keeps the Lord enshrined in his heart. ||2||

GGS, ang 599


----------



## Sherdil (Jan 28, 2014)

angrisha said:


> ==g
> 
> Its actually well documented that homosexuality exists in other mammal species as well not just humans. Dolphins for example are known to engage in sex for pleasure reasons just like humans. So the idea of sex just for offspring doesn't entirely hold up in the animal world.



When animals decide who to mate with, they pick partners that are attractive. Attractive mates have good genes, which will be passed on to offspring. Or they have social status that will allow the offspring to be protected. 

I am not saying that you should only have sex to have children. I am saying that sex is to make children. Before contraception, people had a lot of kids. A sign that they loved each other a lot :winkingmunda:


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 28, 2014)

SaintSolider ji

One little point to add to your remarks. The Lavaan were actually composed by Guru Ram Das ji to celebrate his own marriage to Bibi Bhani. They are intended to remind us all that man and woman are united when both become brides of Waheguru. 

We are reminded we did not find a 'soulmate' in another human being, a mere mortal. We are reminded that we have an opportunity to  find our true identities in meeting with the Husband Lord. 

Many times members ask what do the Lavaan say. This link will take you there. 

http://sikhism.about.com/od/sikhweddinghymns/a/Lavan.htm


----------



## SaintSoldier1699 (Jan 28, 2014)

Thanks for clarifying spnadmin Ji!  I stand corrected :noticemunda:


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 28, 2014)

> We are meant to live the householder's life. SRM also prohibits extra-marital relations.



so what about people that cohabit?


----------



## Sherdil (Jan 28, 2014)

harry haller said:


> so what about people that cohabit?



Well, if you are living together and having sex, then why don't you get married? 

Forgive me if it is personal, but can you elaborate?

Cohabitation has gained popularity with the availability of contraception. No such thing as cohabitation back in the day.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 28, 2014)

Sherdil said:


> Well, if you are living together and having sex, then why don't you get married?
> 
> Forgive me if it is personal, but can you elaborate?
> 
> Cohabitation has gained popularity with the availability of contraception. No such thing as cohabitation back in the day.



how many people get married for themselves? My partner is on orphan with just the only son, I only have parents and a brother, we have no friends or associates, so other than waiting until we can be ready for Anand Karaj, and without the social need, why make a mockery of the whole ceremony until it can be understood, fulfilled and adhered to, and that is not the physical adherence, it is the penetration of the truth to the heart, and thus the start of another journey.


----------



## Ishna (Jan 28, 2014)

These days people get married for lots of different reasons.

Firstly it's to publicly affirm their relationship as a show of love for each other, and announcement of their committment to each other.

Secondary effects are to discourage extra-marital relations, and fortify the committment between the two in raising children.

Underpinning all of this is the bond between the two people to grow together as people.

Living in the world, yet separate from it, is what Sikhi teaches us.  Like the lotus with roots in the mud of the householder's life, but the petal-mind unblemished towards the sky of Truth.

I don't believe Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji says anything about how we should structure our physical marital relations, but it does however say that we should be monogamous in our relationship with Creator.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Jan 28, 2014)

> Quote:
> Sikhi says that we cannot have intimate relations outside of marriage.
> 
> 
> ...



Right here




> Sikh Reht Maryada
> Section Six
> Article XXIV
> The undermentioned four  transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided
> ...



But it pertains only to the Khalsa.l


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 28, 2014)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> Right here
> 
> 
> 
> ...




sisji,

apologies for the confusion, I was more interested in sex outside of marriage if both parties were single, rather than adultery


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 31, 2014)

Thank you all for providing contributions in this thread and sharing your thoughts.  I feel like revisiting for myself and providing some comments.

There are three possible approaches to seeing or seeking wisdom through Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

*1. * We learn from those who may have understood and do little study ourselves.  This perhaps is the dominant style in Sikhism out of sheer convenience and the easiest to passively participate in.  We love to have things provided to us on a platter.  Is it all wrong?  Of course not but we need to be careful and watchful as to understand the difference as to person we believe understands versus those who pretend they understand and they want you to close your eyes and follow them.
*
2.*  We seek answers out of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji versus trying to understand Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  This is again a fast and convenient approach where we may believe that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a book of answers versus a teacher.  A book of answers is limited to the number of questions answered and is rarely a good teacher.  For me Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is way beyond a book of answers but a supreme teacher.  Some subjects if so thought by Guru ji's and others may have been addressed head on but not all is possibly addresses in questions and answers format.  I believe the subject of this thread falls into that category as I did search a bit to find specific questions and answers dialog but was  not successful though I stand corrected.

*3.  *The essence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is as a teacher for me.  What a great teacher allows a student (Sikh) to do is determine answers through understanding.  This is the most difficult of approaches but one that liberates us through understanding where we do not follow shortcuts and have lesser chance to fall prey to misguidance.

So from the perspective of this thread I believe we may say that the following fall into Category 1 where we believe in wisdom of those who brought us the Sikh Reht Maryada or those of our family and others that we chose to follow,



> I am guided by Sikh Reht Maryada in these matters and marriage to be as monogamy, heterosexual and to be between Sikhs only.
> 
> I am socially or parentally following clues or direction.


Some have tried to quote from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji but I believe it has not been convincing.

The question of free will is a paramount principle in Sikhism.  However free will is not unencumbered.  It is associated with knowledge, understanding, truths, and so on with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as a marvelous teacher enabling us so.  In true spirit of Sikhism the following three are expressions of the free will and understanding tenets.



> It is of my free will and no one else's business.
> 
> I wish Sikhism evolves towards free will in these matters.
> 
> To each their own, I accept other people's decisions about their own lives and living.


Just some thoughts as we converse and share.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 31, 2014)

Ambarsaria ji


> 2. We seek answers out of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji versus trying to understand Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. This is again a fast and convenient approach where we may believe that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a book of answers versus a teacher. A book of answers is limited to the number of questions answered and is rarely a good teacher. For me Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is way beyond a book of answers but a supreme teacher. Some subjects if so thought by Guru ji's and others may have been addressed head on but not all is possibly addresses in questions and answers format. I believe the subject of this thread falls into that category as I did search a bit to find specific questions and answers dialog but was not successful though I stand corrected.



Thanks for capturing this very deep truth in 1 paragraph, and in so clear a way.


----------



## Brother Onam (Feb 2, 2014)

angrisha said:


> ==g
> 
> Its actually well documented that homosexuality exists in other mammal species as well not just humans. Dolphins for example are known to engage in sex for pleasure reasons just like humans. So the idea of sex just for offspring doesn't entirely hold up in the animal world.



Angrisha ji,
It sounds like you are conflating two different points. On one hand you say "homosexuality exists in other mammals", then: animals engage in "sex for pleasure reasons".
I'm pretty sure animals have been observed exhibiting casual sexual activity, even among the same sex; yet I'd be very surprised if someone documented an individual male animal living as 'female'; behaving as -and dwelling among- females, and seeking sexual partnership only from other males, which would constitute 'homosexual' behaviour to me.


----------



## Harry Haller (Feb 2, 2014)

Brother Onam said:


> Angrisha ji,
> It sounds like you are conflating two different points. On one hand you say "homosexuality exists in other mammals", then: animals engage in "sex for pleasure reasons".
> I'm pretty sure animals have been observed exhibiting casual sexual activity, even among the same sex; yet I'd be very surprised if someone documented an individual male animal living as 'female'; behaving as -and dwelling among- females, and seeking sexual partnership only from other males, which would constitute 'homosexual' behaviour to me.




I had a gerbil once I had my suspicions about


----------



## angrisha (Jan 22, 2016)

Brother Onam said:


> Angrisha ji,
> It sounds like you are conflating two different points. On one hand you say "homosexuality exists in other mammals", then: animals engage in "sex for pleasure reasons".
> I'm pretty sure animals have been observed exhibiting casual sexual activity, even among the same sex; yet I'd be very surprised if someone documented an individual male animal living as 'female'; behaving as -and dwelling among- females, and seeking sexual partnership only from other males, which would constitute 'homosexual' behaviour to me.



Couple things, the point was to say that there are other reasons for sex than simply procreation. 

Secondly, Im not sure I follow the idea of homosexual behavior (some clarification would be nice)
Because to me thats describing something/someone being transgendered. Which is a different concept, of being identified with a different gender than the one your born with.  What you suggest may not be possible to observe or maybe animals might not be capable of it because the concept of gender is a subjective thing given to us by the society we are apart of.

Homosexual simply means sex with something that is the same as you? Which as I mentioned has been observed?


----------



## swarn bains (Jan 23, 2016)

Sggs is a spiritual book. it only deals with you your guru and God. it guides how to become divine. it is not a management book of human code of conduct. this kind of  questions are illogical shameful and disheartening. there are scriptures but of some other religions which do deal with administration. may be put that question there and hide your skull afterwards.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 23, 2016)

swarn bains said:


> Sggs is a spiritual book. it only deals with you your guru and God. it guides how to become divine. it is not a management book of human code of conduct. this kind of  questions are illogical shameful and disheartening. there are scriptures but of some other religions which do deal with administration. may be put that question there and hide your skull afterwards.


Swarn Bains ji how is the following question; illogical shameful and disheartening;

*How you believe Sikhs should find answers about marriage and relationships?*

I don't understand your statement.Of course one may say it is personal choice; or you can check it with their parents, their future partner or within themselves. Or we may simply say that the answers are self realization based on many aspects, etc.

No disrespect simply wanting you to elaborate in the context of the thread title the following;

illogical 
shameful; and
disheartening
Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 24, 2016)

sorry I don't mean to be pedantic, but should we hide our skulls so that our jawbones do not get stolen?


----------

