# Homosexuality Within Sikhism



## sunnygill19 (Feb 7, 2013)

Hello everybody! 

My name is Sunny and I am a third year student at university currently undertaking a degree in Religious Studies. As part of my course I have decided to look into the sensitive issue of homosexuality within Sikhism and was wondering if anybody could give me there views on such a topic within the Sikh faith and the Sikh panth. I have designed a survey which you can access here http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/T5VXHBV if you would like to remain anonymous but I would greatly appreciate all the help and support from the members of this forum. 

My aim is not to preach or enforce my opinions upon anybody but rather to just gather responses about attitudes towards homosexuality within Sikhism. All information will be treated with respect and if anybody has any questions or queries please do not hesitate to ask me


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 7, 2013)

sunny ji

Bravo for taking a big step and deciding to pursue religious studies. I cannot say how impressed I am.

As admin I just have a query or two. As a long time member I will offer a brief take on your question.

*To sunnygill19*
I need to know if you have human subjects research approval from you college/university to conduct this online survey. If your college/university does not require human subjects approval for projects that are class assignments, let me know. Maybe you could upload pdf  of your college/university policy --- nothing big. Or send me a pm with specifics.

*To SPN members*
I need to caution members that SPN assumes no legal responsibility for any risks associated with taking the survey. To yourself, your computer or your frame of mind.

Having been the author of studies that used online surveys, I can assure SPN members that these are anonymous tools. If you do not wish to be known by name then make sure that you do not identify yourself in any way. Don't, for example, sign off in a comment section with something like "contact me at xxxxx@gmail.com" or "call me at xxx -xxx -xxxx," or type in your name.

*Back to sunnygill19 ji*

 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the sacred canon of the Sikhs, does not forbid homosexuality nor even mention it. Unlike the Hebrew Bible, you won't find language that forbids it. The key to understanding the perspective is through understanding the toll that is taken by lust on the human psyche and our lives and the lives of people around us. As members tackle your question we all need to think about how the impact of lust on our lives shapes the way we think about homosexuality in Sikhi.

I also hope you checked other threads here at SPN on the issue.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 7, 2013)

Older threads on the subject It would be interesting to know if the spread of opinions will match the opinions that you gather on this thread.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-youth/32126-a-homosexual-and-amrit.html

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/586-sikhism-and-homosexuality.html

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/23735-two-questions-about-sikhism-place-raaj.html

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/14124-homosexuality.html


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 7, 2013)

Sunny ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have a better idea. Your post shows that you do have some kind of views regarding homosexuality.

Please share with us first your own views. This forum is based on conversation. Sikhi is open to all. There is nothing anonymous about it nor there is anything to hide.

Let's be open about it in an honest manner.

So, please start the conversation.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## sunnygill19 (Feb 7, 2013)

Hello everyone and thank you for the warm response and kind words. 

To the admin, I can get my university tutor to clarify that I do not need clarification as I have filled in an ethics form for the particular research that I am focusing on so that will not be a problem. 

You are correct Tejwant Singh, I do have my own views on homosexuality within Sikhism and I would greatly appreciate it if i wasn't condemned for my views because they perhaps do not seem to be in line with the general attitudes that I have encountered on the subject especially in regards to close friends and family. 

I do not see homosexuality to be seen as negative within Sikhism or rather, ideally I would like to believe that it would be accepted within Sikhism. My reason for such belief is that our Gurus taught about the equality of all human beings and that there is a divine light within each and everyone us and as we are the creation of Waheguru, it is by Waheguru's grace that we, as humans, are made the way that we are even in regards to sexual orientation. 

Marriage in Sikhism does not seem to be regarded as the conventional coming together of man and woman as it is in many other faiths but rather the union of one soul that resides in two bodies therefore, for me, personally I would see no issue with same sex relationships or marriage. I understand that there has been emphasis placed upon the Grihasti stage within one's life and the ideals of bringing together a family, producing children and fulfilling the role of a house holder. However, in the society that we live in today there is a huge rise in single parent families and families where two people are not married and the advancements in science means that children can be produce without the conventional methods that were once accepted. 

This is just my opinion and like I stated, it is not my aim to preach or enforce my own views  and I would very much like to hear others views on this topic


----------



## Harry Haller (Feb 7, 2013)

> You are correct Tejwant Singh, I do have my own views on homosexuality  within Sikhism and I would greatly appreciate it if i wasn't condemned  for my views because they perhaps do not seem to be in line with the  general attitudes that I have encountered on the subject especially in  regards to close friends and family.
> 
> I do not see homosexuality to be seen as negative within Sikhism or  rather, ideally I would like to believe that it would be accepted within  Sikhism. My reason for such belief is that our Gurus taught about the  equality of all human beings and that there is a divine light within  each and everyone us and as we are the creation of Waheguru, it is by  Waheguru's grace that we, as humans, are made the way that we are even  in regards to sexual orientation.



Welcome to the forum, there are quite a few  of us here that are able to have sensible, intelligent debates that we are unable to have with our families, or fellow Sikhs. 

In my opinion your views are fully compatible with Sikhism, and I share them too.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 7, 2013)

sunnygill19 ji thanks for your posts and your topic of research.  I wish you good luck indeed.

I agree with your post and spnadmin ji's post as to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji being a love for all teacher versus hater or marginalize others or some teacher.  I too have not come across any positive or negative comments specific to Homosexuality in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  Of course Akal Takhat Sahib has weighed in to state that it is a no-no for Sikhs to aim for or live as.  So Sikhism code of Ethics interpretation is that it is not consistent with Sikhism.

We do need to recognize that life is many faceted.  There is religion and there is culture to name two key aspects.  Punjabi culture mocks, ridicules and demeans Homosexuality.  For me it is perhaps a stronger part of how Homosexuality is perceived in real or practical living within Punjabi-Sikh environs.  In non-Punjabi Sikh situations or so called more liberal non-Punjab cultural settings, it may be quite different.  Your own views and your post probably expresses that.  I believe you need to take a note or follow up on this aspect in your research and studies.
I do believe there may be note you should take about "Homosexuality" and "Homosexual Marriage" as probably there will be differences of opinion there as well and likely a significant difference.  I cannot see a "Man" holding another"Man's Palla/cloth over the shoulder" while circling Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in prakash/in-service.  I know it will draw chuckles if not hostility from a large portion of the Sangat.

Good luck and Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Luckysingh (Feb 7, 2013)

> I do believe there may be note you should take about "Homosexuality" and "Homosexual Marriage" as probably there will be differences of opinion there as well and likely a significant difference. I cannot see a "Man" holding another"Man's Palla/cloth over the shoulder" while circling Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in prakash/in-service. I know it will draw chuckles if not hostility from a large portion of the Sangat.


 
That is the exact issue and real core of this matter !!
I think that we are many years away before this can happen.
Gay marriages have only recently been legalised across the west. 

Within sikhism, I'm sure it will eventually happen but not in my lifetime!
Saying that, we have to remember that Akaal Takht (the governing body) did issue a statement a few years ago that it would NOT allow gay marriages in sikhism.
The jathedar spoke against gays and homosexuality and claimed it had no place in sikhism.
This all happened just after India's controversial first 'gay marriage' that took place after some High court battles!!


We also have to remember that ALL the gurus spoke very hard about wiping out caste and not having any castes or groups of people that were classed as *'untouchables'*.

However, the way some of us 'oldies' speak, we are just in effect making _ALL gays_ the _'New Untouchables_ !!'
Therefore, this in my opinion is ''AGAINST" Gurmat pronciples, regardless of what the Jathedar claims !!


I do believe that it can and will happen in the future because the way the newer and younger generations think and accept gays, they treat it all as the norm.
To them it is no big deal and they are aware that you have both gays and non-gays in this world.

Whereas people from my generation had to be instructed and taught about the human rights, especially me as I was raised as a typical old school brit.
In fact, to call someone 'gay' or a 'pufter' was considered such a derogatory remark, that no one dare said or 'talked' about such issues!!
I remember that even in a tv programme called 'Grange Hill' that focused on all the issues that a kid could face in a british school like bullying, racism, sexism, drugs,sex before marriage, one night stands.....etc.. 
ALL of these issues were dealt with in episodes except for Homosexuality and gays.
There was always a fear and taboo factor that prevented anyone from addressing this issue.

To me and most of the one's in my generation, it doesn't come quite as a natural acceptance like it does to the younger generations.
I will be absolutely honest here, even though some may be offended. But I actually realise that it is the way I was raised that makes my way of thinking!!
For if my kid comes up and tells me they are gay, I would be like ''OK but are you really sure'' ?? (In the back of my mind I will need convincing but I will still be 'trying' to reassure that I'm here and listening!)
I would ask questions like ''Have you tried looking at men/women''....etc ???
It would be more like the questions you ask when someone thinks they are really ill or has some serious deficiency !
I would try very very hard not to make it an issue or problem, but I know that deep down, I would still be thinking 'why' or 'why can't they be like us-their parents?'

You see, I know that I have this weakness in this total acceptance issue since I have just adapted with the times and society, whereas the generation of my kids will have grown up knowing that figures like Ellen, Ricky Martin, Elton John,Jodie Foster ....etc...were ALL famous, successful and very nice people as well as being gay.
To them, it is more acceptable and a way of life.
They already know that you don't treat gays any differently in any way just through the way they are raised, whereas my age group had to be taught.


But I know that if my kids have children in the future who come up to them to tell them they are gay, then they would handle it in a completely more civil and no worrying manner unlike us elders!

The UK has only just in the last few days had MP's voting in majorities for legislation of gay marriages.
I know that this would have been impossible just over a decade ago.
People and the younger generations are moving forward towards a wider acceptance of all gay rights.
Hopefully, there will not be any of our own defined 'untouchables' in the future to come.


----------



## Brother Onam (Feb 7, 2013)

WJKK WJKF
Since it seems most everyone is coming down on more or less the same side of the issue, let me add a different voice please.
Speaking more broadly, I think there is a unconscious human tendency to believe that we are forever progressing. We are indeed ever moving, but whether that motion takes us forward or not is not as clear. It is human nature to lean towards a feeling that we are at the apex of evolution so far, and that whenever things are developed, it is 'progress'. Cars are improvements over horse drawn carriages; jetliners are improvements over prop airplanes and sailing vessels. Smartphones are improvements over letters...Also that societies are becoming more enlightened, accepting, tolerant, civilized. There is a certain jingoism and arrogance that supposes we are ever on the march towards betterment. 
I believe in the sight of the Most High, it may well be that what we regard as 'progress' is instead self-delusion. It's possible that in the scales of Truth, Delhi, Moscow or Pittsburgh, or Paris, were better as forests. That eating fruit from the tree was better than  20 aisles of exciting, colourful dried, canned or packaged groceries. That hearing a symphony of birds was better than a million people walking around absorbed in a cyber-reality brought to them through wires and a hand-held device.
In the West, the apparent arbiter of what is cool, desirable, enlightened and correct, in our rush towards progress, not only is embracing homosexuality the new 'correct', but if one even questions it now, that person is branded a rube, a bigot, a holdover from the dark ages, -some kind of savage.
So in this great spiraling ascent to our golden enlightened destiny, we gloat about how wonderful we've become. All the while, virtually everything we touch, like King Midas in reverse, becomes fouled. It may be argued that rather than enlightenment and glory, the indicators point towards dissolution and collapse. The sun, the universal life-giver, has now become toxic, and we are cautioned to stay out of its exposure without protective creams. The water, that universal life-giver, is poisoned, from streams, groundwater, to the very oceans. The air, without which nothing, including fish, can live, is now so toxic, we are given ozone warnings about when to best stay indoors. Out societies are rife with cussing, ultra-violent video games, one psychotic mass shooting after another; the beautiful clothes and traditions from all around the globe are fast giving way to the ubiquitous baseball cap and jeans. The art of conversation and writing are, in one generation, being reduced to ''lol, like, omg, I'm like, c ya!'.
And in the defining of all this progress, it may be considered that, just perhaps, the acceptance of homosexuality as the only enlightened stance, may also be another fragment of how things in fact are going to pieces, rather than another self-congratulatory stride towards wonderfulness.
By the way, in the continued effort of mental colonialism and 'calling the shots', America has taken it upon herself, now that she has evolved to this rarefied perch of enlightenment, to mock, pillory and berate countries in Africa that happen to view homosexuality as a deviancy or perversion. Visiting heads of state are scolded and pressure is brought to bear at various levels to communicate that Africans are backward and ignorant because of their hesitancy to get with the program. They have the temerity to look at anal intercourse as a deviation from natural sex.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 7, 2013)

Brother Onam ji

In several threads you have voiced the opinion, in one way or the other, that the US is a bastion of wickedness and political abuse. I can be more specific if you require. In the preceding post you characterize the US as "sitting on a perch" lecturing Africans. The policy of the US is: gay rights are human rights; human rights likewise are gay rights. The US is not alone sitting on a perch. Here is the United Nations stand based on a resolution put forward by South Africa. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/un-gay-rights-protection-resolution-passes-_n_879032.html



> Following tense negotiations, members of the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council narrowly voted in favor of the declaration put forward by South Africa, with 23 votes in favor and 19 against.
> 
> Backers included the U.S., the European Union, Brazil and other Latin American countries. Those against included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Pakistan. China, Burkina Faso and Zambia abstained, Kyrgyzstan didn't vote and Libya was suspended from the rights body earlier.
> 
> ...


 To me the result indicates that the US joins hands with South Africa. 

African countries would surely be immune to any lectures by anyone, including lectures by the UN Human Rights Committee or by the US,. This was the reaction of African and Muslim representatives. See this link http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/ozatp-un-gays-idAFJOE82702T20120308

You are free to express your opinions regarding the thread topic.  However, I would pray you be more balanced in your condemnation of the United States. Make room for other countries to share all this condemnation, including South Africa, if you see reason for condemnation.


----------



## Brother Onam (Feb 8, 2013)

I hear you, SPNadmin ji, 
I'll be conscious to spread my derision more evenly. Sincerely though, I appreciate the response and just want to say, as a Sikh, it is incumbent to always stand for Truth, especially in these times of almost universal frowardness and duplicity. In times such as these, anyone wanting to defend truth will necessarily step on a lot of toes and make a lot of waves. And, to be sure, viciousness and ignorance are by no means the exclusive property of the US. I find that as far back as human records reflect, we find evidence of atrocities.
Sacred Love Above All. Waheguru


----------



## sunnygill19 (Feb 12, 2013)

I would like to say a massive thank you to everybody that has contributed to this forum post that i started as the response has been more overwhelming than i had expected considering the sensitive topic which i am currently focusing upon. 

Thank you for sharing your views and ideas, it has been a great help and i am genuinely delighted to see that some of you agree with my opinions and views. 

I would further like to understand if, as a result of the legalization of gay marriage within this country, would that pose any infringement or negative undertones to Sikh understanding an teaches? If the legalization of gay marriage a positive or negative in regards to Sikhism and if so why would you think this would be case?

From the survey that I have posted on the internet which you are all still welcome to complete, I have asked if there is an issue with homosexuality within Sikhism and I have been receiving some very interesting ideas and answers! Is anybody aware of any issues of homosexuality within Sikhism or is it purely based on the basis of the Anand Karaj Act?

Many thanks, 

Sunny


----------



## findingmyway (Feb 12, 2013)

Sunny Gill ji,
This is a very interesting topic and one I am increasingly trying to speak to my parents generation about and trying to challenge them. I think a lot of Sikhi is mixed up in culture and it is important to tease the elements apart. A lot of modern day Sikhi attitudes stem from culture rather than Gurbani.

My personal view is that Gurbani talks about lust. Generalising and saying that 2 homosexual men or women in a committed monogamous relationship are being controlled by lust more than a heterosexual person who sleeps around makes no sense!!

I often here the argument that the union of man and woman is the only natural state despite much evidence against this stance. I feel we approach this whole issue from the wrong standpoint.  Rather than focussing on homosexuality we should be talking about lifestyles.

I know wikipedia is not a great source but just to demonstrate my point about it being natural
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


Here is some more food for thought:

Homosexuality:                   Nature or Nurture​ 
Ryan                   D. Johnson
April                   30, 2003​ 
In                   recent decades, many hotly debated topics have come under the                   scrutiny of sociobiologists, trying to determine their                   causation and origins.  One                   such topic is homosexuality.                    Originally thought by the American Psychological                   Association (hereafter referred to as APA) to be a mental                   disorder, research into its causes, origins, and development                   have consequently led to its removal by the APA from its list                   of diagnoses and disorders [1].                    Many different theories can be found regarding the root                   of homosexuality, as far back historically as Ancient Greece.

The current debate is whether or not homosexuality is a                   result of nature: a person's environment and surroundings, or                   of his biology and genetics.                    The debate endures because both sides have the ability                   to create a scientific environment to support their cause.                    For example, biological theorists may argue that a                   monkey and human child, reared in the same setting, will                   develop with vastly different outcomes, while social theorists                   may argue that monozygotic twins, one reared normally and the                   other raised in seclusion for 18 years, will also develop with                   vastly different results, but different even more from the                   first scenario [4].​ 
In                   debating sexual orientation, much is unknown; according to                   Charles Darwin, "...we do not even in the least know the                   final cause of sexuality.                    The whole subject is hidden in darkness." [2].                    Although the APA currently states that sexual                   orientation is not a choice, rather that "...it emerges                   from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual                   experience"[1], social theorists argue that an                   individual's upbringing can directly influence this [sexual                   orientation].  Also                   tied in with many of these debates is the morality of                   homosexuality.  But                   the purpose of this examination is not to prove whether or not                   homosexuality is right or wrong,but rather to establish a                   thorough understanding of the biological and social theories                   surrounding the cause of homosexuality.
​ 
Let                   us first look at the biological debate.                    Biological theorists have found substantial instances                   of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support                   their argument.  Experiments                   in biological research date back as far as the late 1930's,                   beginning with the pioneering research of Alfred Kinsey (for                   the University of Indiana) on human sexuality.                    Kinsey had two goals for his tests: 1) to find out how                   many adult males engaged in homosexual behavior, and 2) to                   suggest theories about it came to be [9].                    When asked if they had engaged in homosexual sexual                   relations, a large percent of the population tested answered                   "no", however when asked if they had engaged in                   same-sex sexual relations, the percentage answering                   "yes" nearly doubled.                    The experiment yielded that 30% of males had                   experienced at least orgasm in a homosexual act.                    The results of this research became the widely                   popularized Kinsey Scale of Sexuality.                    This scale rates all individuals on a spectrum of                   sexuality, ranging from 100% heterosexual to 100% homosexual,                   and everything in between [7].                    While establishing that as many as 10% of adult males                   reported having sexual relations with a same-sex partner, this                   research did little more than to put the word homosexual into                   common language.​ 
Karen                   Hooker executed the first psychological test done to test for                   biological determinism in 1957, on a grant from the National                   Institute of Mental Health [2].                    The study was meant to explore the relationship between                   homosexuality and psychological development and illness.                    Hooker studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals.                    Both groups were matched for age, intelligence quotient                   (IQ) and education level, and were then subjected to three                   psychological tests.  These                   three tests, the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)                   and the Make-A-Picture-Story Test (MAPS), were then analyzed                   by psychologists, and the results were tabulated.                    The results of Hooker's experiment yielded no                   significant differences in answers on any of the three tests.                    Because both groups' answers scored very similarly, she                   concluded a zero correlation between social determinism of                   sexuality.​ 
As                   a result of Hooker's finding, the APA removed homosexuality                   from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological                   Disorders in 1973.  In                   1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality                   was not a mental disorder.                    In 1994, two decades later, the APA finally stated,                   "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral                   depravity.  It is                   the way a portion of the population expresses human love and                   sexuality" [2].​ 
D.F.                   Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990.  This experiment became the first to document a physiological                   difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain.                    Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of                   homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of                   the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual                   brain.  The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly                   related to sexual drive and function.                    In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of                   the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN),                   was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart                   [2].​ 
At                   the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a                   similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well.                    She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the                   hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual                   subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2].                    Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing                   ground for the biological argument on homosexuality.                    The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved                   in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely                   that the size differences results from differences in sexual                   behavior.

Rather the size differences came prenatally during                   sexual differentiation.  The                   size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically                   and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any                   kind.​ 
Simon                   LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus                   of the human brain in 1991.                    LeVay, like Swaab and Allen also did a post-mortem                   examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations                   on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses.  He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of                   38.2, 16 presumed heterosexual men, with a mean age of 42.8,                   and 6 presumed heterosexual women, with a mean age of 41.2                   [3].  LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third                   interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was                   two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in                   heterosexual men.  The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon.                    LeVay concluded the "homosexual and heterosexual                   men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control                   sexual behavior", and like Allen and Swaab,agreed that                   this difference in anatomy was no product of upbringing or                   environment, but rather prenatal cerebral development and                   structural differentiation [2].​ 
Another                   line of testing done to support the biological perspective are                   neuroendocrine studies.  The                   neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual                   orientation is determined by the early levels (probably                   prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures [7].                     If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will                   become masculinized, or attracted to females.                    This research was conducted on rats at Stanford.                    The adult female rats that received male-typical levels                   of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male                   symptoms of attraction.  The                   same was true in the reverse when applied to the male                   subjects. 

The                   female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high                   levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females,                   eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of                   reproduction.  In                   the males, the subject who received deficient levels of                   androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and                   reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the                   other male rat [7].​ 
A                   popular route of experimentation in general psychology also                   did not elude the biological argument.                    Twin studies have become a highly debated area of                   experimentation.  Ernest                   Kallman conducted the earliest twin study.                    He found a 100% concordance between monozygotic (or                   identical) twins (MZ), and only a 12% concordance for                   dizygotic (or fraternal) twins (DZ).                    Although discredited with methodological problems, the                   early experiment paved the way for a much-publicized team to                   conduct their twin studies.​ 
J.                   Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness                   between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers.                    They examined how many of the sample population                   examined were gay and how many were straight.                    They found that 52% of MZ twins were both                   self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only                   5% of non-related adopted brothers were so.  This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time,                   showed to the biological camp that the more closely                   genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to                   exhibit gay or straight tendencies.                    Later experimenters found similar evidence in females.                    One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the                   possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait.                    He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and                   thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his                   theory of X-linkage.  He                   took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically                   examined them.  He                   found that there was a 'remarkable concordance' for 5 genetic                   markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28 [2].​ 
Hamer                              hypothesized upon examining the family trees of the                              same men that on each subject's mother's side, there                              were markedly larger numbers of homosexual men, all                              stemming through the maternal lineages.                               This observation, along with his startling                              discovery on Xq28, led his findings to be dubbed the                              "gay gene study".                               The statistical probability of the 5 genetic                              markers on Xq28 to have matched randomly was calculated                              to be 1/100,000 [2], lending even more support to                              his findings.​ 
This                   finding of a possible 'gay gene' prompts a look into two                   evolutionary concepts, and how they are affected.  The Superior Heterozygote Theory states the phenotypic                   (actual) expression of homosexuality is the result of                   homozygosity for recessive (non-expressed but present) genes                   [11].  In                   simplification, if the person's genetic code is heterozygotic                   (one homosexual gene and one heterosexual gene), if the                   homosexual allele (half of the genetic code) is the allele                   passed on to the next generation, it will become the                   phenotype.  Heterozygotes                   are only capable of being passed through to the next                   generation by mothers (as the Y-chromosome is incapable of                   heterozygosity), this again links homosexuality to                   X-linkage.​ 
While                   all of this scientific experimentation and conclusion seems                   evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced.  This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is                   the result of environmental factors, not biological ones.  Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest                   contributing factors to homosexuality.                    Often they examine childhood play patterns, early peer                   interactions and relations, differences in parental behavior                   toward male and female children, and the role of gender                   constancy in the household [9].​ 
The                   social argument for homosexuality dates back to the ancient                   Greeks. Aristophanes, in his Symposium investigates                   homosexuality, although not termed as such, as a desire by men                   to share a long-term fulfillment of the soul.                    He believed that two souls are longing to be together,                   and the sexual desire alone is not strong enough to create                   homosexuality, but that the cultural environment allows or                   forbids the relationship to occur [10].                    In Greece is it well known that many men engaged in                   same-sex relationships, however, these were not equal                   relationships, they were older men to young boys going through                   the transition to adulthood.                    Two instances where the culture is a causative agent of                   homosexual expression are in New Guinea and Crete.                    In some tribes in New Guinea, young boys ages 8-15 are                   inseminated daily by the young male warriors of the tribe.                    In Crete, every adolescent boy undertook a homosexual                   relationship as a rite of passage into manhood [10].                    In these two instances, the homosexuality is accepted;                   however, it can be argued that it is also forced, not a                   natural expression.​ 
Most                   psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental                   and family dynamics, not the society as a whole.  Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender                   identification differences result from roles imposed by family                   and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the                   feminine stereotypes.  Problems                   with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to                   support that homosexual children were raised differently than                   were the heterosexual children.                    Also, with reinforcement of gender identification                   norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the                   stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome                   [7].​ 
While                   it is agreed that an element of gender ID is based on the                   decision made by parents on how to raise the child, the other                   element is formed with the development of language skills,                   naming of sexual behaviors and the naming process related to                   these behaviors [9].  Gender                   ID is learned over time, and other contributions include the                   frequency of parental interactions, tolerance of aggression                   levels, and the vigor of play during childhood. In this,                   another theory is acknowledged, the Parental Manipulation                   Theory.  This                   theory is that one or both parents are able to neuter and                   control offspring to promote their (the parent's) evolutionary                   fitness, ensuring the passage of genes into the next                   generation.  By                   selecting only heterosexual practices as acceptable, the                   parents are attempting to promote their passage of genes [5].                    However the Kin-Selection Theory contrasts this.                    This theory states that it doesn't matter how the genes                   are passed to the next generation, so long as they are passed                   along.  For                   example, regardless of a homosexual outcome, the very similar                   genetic makeup of siblings will still allow for the passage of                   the family genetics along to the next generation [9].​ 
Two                   predominant social theorists on homosexuality are David                   Halperin and Jean Foucault.                    Although both social theorists, both have largely                   contrasting ideas on the environmental contributions to the                   formation of an individual's homosexuality.                    Halperin believed in Planophysical theory.                    This theory believes that homosexuality is a freak of                   nature, an error.  His                   theory follows in the tradition of psychological theory on                   this subject.  Halperin                   was a Freudian psychologist, and places stock in Freud's idea                   that homosexuality is derived from a failure to resolve                   Oedipal issues [10].  Although                   Halperin has a large following from interest groups such as                   Christian coalitions, his theory is                   largely disrespected by the psychological community at large,                   as it provides only a result, not a cause.                    He fails to produce any scientific evidence.                    He does, however, provide examples.                    He postulates that a weak father and strong mother,                   with an unresolved Oedipus complex will lead to a weak, and                   then homosexual, son, because the mother has too strong of an                   image, compared to the weak state of the father.                    Psychologists argue that this same arrangement would                   also possibly lead to a stronger son, striving for                   compensation of his father's weakness.​ 
Jean                   Foucault argues, "...homosexuality became because we made                   it so" [11].  Foucault                   says that the category of homosexuality itself was only                   created a mere one hundred years ago, after a German neologism                   coined some twenty years later.                    Foucault gives root to the social derivation of                   homosexuality believing that homosexuality appeared as one of                   the forms of sexuality, only "after it was transposed                   from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny,                   a hermaphrodism of the soul" [10].                    The theorists believe that the homosexual had been an                   aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself                   with a new word.​ 
Although                   both theorists represent the major ideas of the                   socioenviromental belief, there are three differences in the                   two theories.  The                   first is based on the depth of desire.                    Foucault believed that the depth of desire is only                   sexual preference, that it is nothing more than superficial                   tastes and preferences.  Halperin                   contrasts this with saying that homosexuality does go deeper                   than superficial tastes, and that homosexuality is a                   psychological condition, with much deeper roots than mere                   sexual preference.  The second major difference is that Foucault did not divide                   people into categories.  Halperin                   acknowledged that there are three general categories of people                   in respect to sexuality: heterosexual, gay men, and lesbians. 

Foucault groups gay men and lesbians into the all-inclusive                   term of homosexual.  The                   third difference is that Halperin see homosexuality as a                   symmetrical and equal relationship, Foucault believes that                   historically, as far back as the Greeks, before the term was                   coined, homosexuality has always been unequal, differences in                   race, age, education and social status influencing the                   'superficial' tastes and preferences of the men                   influenced.​ 
We                   have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding                   pages, both biological and social.  And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or                   experiment leads to a definitive answer.                    Some believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the                   Holy Grail of homosexuality research, the elusive 'gay gene'.  Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and                   Halperin.  Perhaps                   Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to                   understanding the difference in sexual orientation.                    Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual                   orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay,                   straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex                   interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical                   factors, shaping the individual at an early age.​             <center>                   <hr color="#7071AB" size="1">             </center>                   WORKS                   CITED


[1]                   APA Online.  “Answers                   to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and                   Homosexuality”.  Online.                    11 April 2003.  Available                   http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html.​ 
[2]                   “Biological Basis for Homosexuality.” Online. 8 April                   2003. Available​ 
http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html​ 
[3]                   Bull, James J. and Pease, Craig M. “Biological Correlates of                   Being Gay” Online. 11 April 2003. Available http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Gay/Text.html.​ 
[4]                   Fujita, Frank.  “The                   Nature-Nurture Controversy.” Online.                    8 April 2003. Available http://www.iusb.edu/~ffujita/Documents/nn.html​ 
[5]                   Hoback, Wyatt.  “Lecture                   21. Sociality.”  Online.                   11 April 2003. Available http://www.unk.edu/acad/biology/hoback/2002bio470/470lecture21.htm.​ 
[6]                   Moberly, Elizabeth R.  Homosexuality:                   A New Christian Ethic.                    James Clarke and Co.; Cambridge, MA,                    1983.​ 
[7]                   Pillard, Richard. “NPR Letters on the Biological Basis of                   Homosexuality.” Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/ npr_letters_on_the_biological_ba.htm​ 
[8]                   Sullivan, Andrew.  Virtually                   Normal: an Argument about Homosexuality.                    Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY, 1995.​ 
[9]                   Thompson and Devine.  “Homosexuality:                   Biologically or Environmentally Constructed?”                    Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/                   HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html​ 
[10]                   Thorp, John. “The Social Construction of Homosexuality.”                   Online.  8 April                   2003. Available http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html​ 

[11]                   Taylor, Tim.  “Current                   Theories on the Genesis of Homosexuality.”                    Online.  11                   April 2003.  Available http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/                   papers/twin_studies/theories.html.​
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Additionally I have seen research looking at homosexuality as a result of conditions in the womb. Poor baby being discriminated for something they have no control over!! Homosexuality has been in existence, its just that is was hidden for most of history due to culture.


----------



## sunnygill19 (Feb 16, 2013)

Thank you for your response, it really means a lot!!! As a Sikh this whole debate on nature versus nurture becomes reductionist for me as surely by Waheguru's we are all here and it is by Waheguru's natural grace that we, as individuals, are who we are. If feel as though homosexuality within Sikhism is an issue that needs to be tackled in this day and age and hopefully my research enables others to stand up and speak about such a topic within our community as, at the end of the day, we are all human beings. If we cannot treat individuals who are homosexual within our own community with the respect that they deserve as human beings surely we are not following the ideal teachings of equality which our religion purports to advocate. 

I am really interested in seeing as to why people in our community view homosexuality as wrong. Would you say it is from a purely cultural perspective or are there any other factors as to why it vehemently accepted as no among the Sikh community? By the generosity of a member on this forum is was given a link to an organisation in Vancouver which is accessible here http://www.shervancouver.com/index.html that offers support to homosexuals and transgenders among the South Asian community. I feel this is such a fantastic website and organisation that is addressing the issues that I am researching and I fully support such groups. What are your views on this? 

My other area that I have been looking at is the Grihasti stage within Sikhism and the idea of becoming a house holder, getting married and having children. However, should this stage be constrained to heterosexual couples only? Is there any problem with two males or females getting marries (especially now as the result of legalization of gay marriage) and having children (albeit not naturally)?


----------



## Brother Onam (Feb 16, 2013)

WJKK WJKF,
"I'm really interested in seeing as to why people in our community view homosexuality as wrong".
The evidence of this Creation is that there is a divine order in place. If you observe the honeycomb, the changing of seasons, the orbits of planets and moons, the formation of crystals, the scattering of seeds, the flight of hummingbirds, the journey of salmons, the cycles of evaporation, purification and rainfall; it is all played out in awesome order.
Please consider:
Sparrows; they emerge in the spring, males find females, mate, follow an ancient, unwritten science of creating a nest. They lay eggs, incubate them, young emerge, learn to fly... and the cycle repeats.
Groundhogs; they form intricate social communities and dig elaborate underground networks. Male and female reproduce, the young are nurtured underground in nesting areas until they strike out on their own.
Tigers; they follow precise social interactions, male and female fulfill their various roles, pair off and reproduce, giving birth to tiger cubs, which, after weening, learn to hunt, and the cycle continues.
Whales, roam across the vast realm of ocean, communicate in a mysterious language they percieve even across great distances. The male whale will find a female and impregnate her with his seed and they proceed to raise and protect the young whale calf until it can manage the underwater world on its own.
You get the picture. Now please consider the homosexual. They grow up as children, eating the prescribed diet of humans, male pairs off with another male. They create a 'nest', a bed, where they engage in sex, deposit their seed in the colon. Nothing comes of it except a stinking (imagine!) mess, they then reproduce by going to adoption agencies to rear offspring.
All I'm saying, my sister, is can we agree this is an aberration, a deviance from a prescribed order? Can we acknowledge that in a world of such divine, intricate sense, this is a perversion of the Divine Way? I am not saying it's evil, that homosexuals ought to be beaten, incarcerated or pilloried. I am simply saying, in this current spirit of embracing and celebrating and parading homosexuality as 'beautiful and natural', is it wrong to view it as rather a violation of the divine way?


----------



## Ishna (Feb 16, 2013)

Homosexual behaviour in animals has been documented.

Evolution can explain the pheonmena your have described, Brother Onam ji.

I find myself offended by your description of gay sex.  Not all Sikhs view homosexuality as an abhoration. But I'm sure this argument has been made on other threads previously cited.


----------



## sunnygill19 (Feb 16, 2013)

Onamji, thank you for your response  

You say that we should question that homosexuality, whilst not evil, could be seen as a deviance or violation of the Divine way and that everything is ordered. Whilst I certainly understand your perspective and how things should be seen in an ordered way why would homosexuality be seen as a deviation from that path? Surely if Waheguru set everything into motion to be ordered then homosexuality surely fits that mold as if we say homosexuality is a deviation from that path then we are crossing into issues of Sikh Theology and questioning the power of Waheguru and issues of free will/ pre destination. 

My point is that homosexuality, in my opinion, is just a natural part of the greater plan and grace of Waheguru. In Gurbani humanity is described as the bride longing to be reunited with the groom (Waheguru) therefore when humanity as a whole is mentioned as female (males alike) surely there should be no issue with homosexuality within Sikhi as Sikhism promotes the equality of all human beings regardless of sexuality. You mention the issue of adoption when dealing with homosexuality and those individuals rearing offspring through those alternatives but surely it is just the same as a heterosexual Sikh couple who cannot have children naturally.


----------



## sunnygill19 (Feb 16, 2013)

Ishna thank you for you post!! 

I wholeheartedly agree with your point, homosexuality should not be seen as abhorrent within Sikhism, especially when at its heart lies the equality of all human beings. Do you think that homosexuality will ever be accepted within Sikhism? If we look past the stigmatization that culture has undoubtedly impeded upon our communities ability to look past such issues where else is there any evidence from Gurbani to state that we should be against homosexuality?


----------



## Ishna (Feb 16, 2013)

> Do you think that homosexuality will ever be accepted within Sikhism?


 
Well 'technically' it was never not accepted.

But, like anything, communities rarely agree to a consensus on any matter.  Communities are but loose groups of people who share a common interest.  Beyond that, there is a myraid of different opinions on most things.


----------



## sunnygill19 (Feb 16, 2013)

Do you believe that someone like me, who is so vehemently researching homosexuality within Sikhism can ever make a difference and change the tide of the 'norm'? I think that unless people start to challenge the accepted norms within our society issues such as homosexuality will never become properly addressed. Like you have stated homosexuality has never not been not accepted but to me as someone who carries out research in the community it seems as though is has become accepted as wrong.


----------



## Ishna (Feb 16, 2013)

I'm not sure, I don't know much about how societies and communities change, sorry!  But it sounds like you've got the right idea.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Feb 16, 2013)

When we try and make Gurmatt (Sikhism - *Gurmatt is* *NOT a ISM*..but who cares what Gurmatt is..the WEST attached the ISM..like in Buddhism..Hinduism.  Communism....and the label sticks)....WEAR a cloth cut in the WESTERN RELIGIOUS TRADITION...*.how could we succeed*.???? ...Gurmatt being forcibly dressed in a RELIGIOUS CONCEPT lifted RIGHT out of the RELIGIOUS BOOKS of JudaISM..Christianity/Islam...looks so RIDICULOUS as those Judges wearing those long ARTIFICIAL HAIR LOCKS which seem to signify a JUDGE !!

IS there even a SINGLE TUK in Gurbani that is in relation to this ?? SGGS is about the CREATOR and US...what the SGGS so Clearly and UNEQUIVOCALLY declares is that the ONLY MALE/MASTER is THE CREATOR..and WE all are HIS SOUL BRIDES....is this concept not 360 Degrees different form the religious books of judaism, christianity and Islam. HOMO-SEXUALITY, BESTIALITY/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY...INCEST..etc etc are discussed AD NAUSEUM in those religious Books and their "god" is very much INTERESTED and deeply entrenched in those "acts" of Humans among themselves and with their SHEEP/COWS/CAMELS etc etc...he thunders and he sends down thunderbolts floods plagues and volcanoes erupt in his fury....when his followers indulge in those so called "SINS"....
Well we are not saying those books are wrong..their god is wrong/right..whatever..*BUT all this is certainly NOT GURMATT....not by  a thousand MILES !!!*
Why do we INSIST..that the GURMATT dastaar is not right and must be replaced by the artificial hair wig...or it doesnt "look right"...???? GURMATT is GURMATT. PERIOD.
We wear a DASTAAR..others wear wigs and hijaab and crosses and hajj caps and skull caps etc...GURMATT has to be discussed in the LIGHT of SGGS....and SGGS ONLY.

Who is to say its accepted..not accepted...IF there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever form SGGS ?? What research can be carried out on a subject thats alien to SGGS and Gurmatt. Homosexuality is a NATURAL PHENOMENON of the Human BODY..it has no religious significance whatsoever as far as the SGGS is concerned. The GURU is totally SILENT on this matter as its TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to ones SPIRITUAL HEALTH and ability to suceed as HIS BRIDE or MERGE with HIM via GURPARSAAD. We should stop dragging in ALIEN CONCEPTS and try and find them in GURMATT.

SGGS says that PROCREATION needs a FATHER and MOTHER..the meaninga nd method of ANAND KARAJ is for family building (procreation)...and therefore the ANAND KARAJ is of necessity between MAN and WOMAN. But IF tomorrow SCIENCE succeeds in finding an alternative solution to this and  a Man + Man  ( Female + Female) can PROCREATE and raise a Family..then that situation doesnt find SGGS at VARIANCE LUST is well covered by SGGS..and this LUST is a HINDRANCE..and LUST can take many forms...and SGGS takes "LUST"  to TASK...and NOT...homosexuals..lesbians. bestials or incestous relationships  because ALL of them ACCRUE from LUST and LUST can equally occur in male female relationships as well...

Our GURU is much WISER...He tackles the ROOT CAUSES..not the SYMPTOMS...while symptoms are easier to tackle than root causes.....and thats why GURMATT is the HIGHWAY to HIM....no need to get lost along the wayside tracks...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 16, 2013)

Gyani ji,

Guru Fateh.

Well said, as usual.Guru ji talks about nature from different aspects and gives us the tools to nurture goodness within irrespective  of our hue, sexual preferences, creed or faith because the former two are parts of the nature and the latter of nurture. As you aptly put it that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru, does not mention anything about homosexuality because it does not challenge the nature nor does it claim about our Gurus having super natural powers to change  it as most  of the *isms* and their *deities* do. This is one more reason there are *no prophets* in Sikhi even if some so called "educated Sikhs" claim that. I am sure you remember about the thread that we all discussed regarding prophecies and prophets- a mud wrestling between the charlatans- the snake oil salesmen- and the nature. In the end, the latter keeps on winning against all the fears spewed by _*the deities*_ of *the isms*.

The fact  which most people ignore is that "Religious Marriage" is optional. It is not a prerequisite. The  only legal marriage all around the world is the court registered marriage in order to get any benefits one is allowed.

Although gay marriage has been legal for many years in the UK, the new rules give the option to the religions to adopt it which is a big step and I hope that our macho honchos will open their minds in order for Gurmat to sink in, so they can understand the true message of Gurbani.

Gyani ji, I am sure you are aware of the fact that a few years ago, the honchos of Akaal Takhat passed a Hukumnaama to forbid Sikhs in Canada to vote in favour of Gay Marriage which was approved by the  majority overwhelmingly. 

These uneducated choga wearing so called Sikhs who brandish their power from Akaal Takhat to SGPC like the worst of the worst dictators have no idea what Gurbani teaches. They have no inkling that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru gives us all the tools  to become better human beings and embrace nature in all aspects, whether it is to save our Earth or to protect others who get succumbed under the feet of tyranny and injustice which include gays and many others. 

These same money stealing charlatans would not let women do seva,  be Jathedarnis of the Akaal Takhats,  be Granthis of Darbar Sahib,  do Keertan in the Sanctum Sanctorum but would shamelessly issue Hukumnaamas to interfere in the democratic elections in the far far lands.

The Salok that we recite many times a day- Paven Guru Pani Pita Mata dharat Mahat.......- includes ALL, no exception.

Let's remind ourselves as often as possible that Sikhi is *the true 2nd Amendment* of *the USA constitution*, which is to fight against tyranny and injustice. 

Lastly,I would like to add that let's not talk about Gurbani as a third person but as a first person because Shabad Guru resides in all of us, hence it is not that Gurbani talks about *EQUALITY*. *IT * rather teaches us how we the people can fight to create the perfect environment, so everyone *IS* *equal *under any circumstances which includes *LGBT*.

Our Gurus demand that from us on every single page of the 1429 pages of The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Thanks for the eye-opening post.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## findingmyway (Feb 16, 2013)

Sunny ji,
Your comments about Grihasti jeevan have ignited some questions in my mind and I am going to start a new thread in a moment.

I think a strong part of the rejection of homosexuality is cultural and the fear of being different. I think both these reasons are crazy as our Gurus & Sikhi rose against both concepts. I personally don't feel the nature discussion is reductionist. It complements Gurbani by using science to show homosexuality is natural, part of the normal order of the world and part of hukam. Those with cultural shackles need to know it is not an aberration but normal! I also think that of the attitudes stem from an incorrect understanding of Grihast jeevan but I will talk about that more in the other thread.


----------



## Ishna (Feb 17, 2013)

So has homosexuality always been a negative thing in Punjabi culture?  I read somewhere that it's always been there (of course) and has been quietly accepted but not outwardly accepted or condemned.  Is it becoming more negative nowadays?  Or have I come across dodgy info?


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 17, 2013)

Ishna ji

I don't know if your information was dodgy. I believe the differences are between the word "accept" and "condone."  Unlike western cultures where homosexuality has been condemned and even persecuted (this still goes on), most eastern cultures are more likely to "accept" the inevitability of homosexuality, but don't "condone" it. Accept and condone give different outlooks on the issue. Punjab culture essentially managed homosexuality over centuries by allowing for highly restricted ways for homosexuals to have a place, but only on the margins of society. Certainly they had to be sure not to go beyond the accepted limits. They might be musicians or actors in folk theatre and likely to perform on the outskirts of villages or at fairs on important holidays. No place for them in the center stage of village life. Whispering, winking and side-ways looks that we all adopt when social norms are crossed was real. An interesting description of what I am talking about is in _East of Indus: My Memories of Old Punjab_ by Gurnam Singh Sidhu Brard


----------



## sunnygill19 (Feb 17, 2013)

Spnadmin thank you for the interesting piece of information about homosexuality, that is something that I will definitely follow up on and thank you for the name of the book. You have stated that you believe eastern cultures are more likely to "accept" the inevitability of homosexuality - could you just clarify why you believe this to be the case?

I do feel that culture has a huge impact in some of the Sikh community not wanting to accept homosexuality or even talk about it openly. I sat down with my family not long back and asked them what their views were as part of a face to face interview and their responses were very much that homosexuality was not accepted and it is not right even though there was no teachings about it. My uncle specifically referred to Grihasti and stated that it is a Sikhs role to get married (man and woman) and to procreate naturally in order to be in line with the Divine path and that Grihasti is the 'teaching' on homosexuality because without natural procreation how can we as Sikhs progress. He likened it to the feeling of anger - he stated that when one is angry he needs to show that anger because it is a natural feeling and we wouldnt understand what anger was without its expression just like we will not understand the Divine order without man and woman marriage and natural procreation. 

I have used his testimony as example here because it is not something that I agree with and wondered what everybody else thought.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 17, 2013)

sunnygill19 said:


> Spnadmin thank you for the interesting piece of information about homosexuality, that is something that I will definitely follow up on and thank you for the name of the book. You have stated that you believe eastern cultures are more likely to "accept" the inevitability of homosexuality - could you just clarify why you believe this to be the case?



sunnygill19 ji You assume too much!   Do I really know what "accept" means in practical terms? Let me at least try to explain. Eastern civilizations are much older than those in the west. Common sense suggests that _eastern cultures have had a longer time to come to terms with the fact that the mainstream may not like behaviors... that are not going to go away._ So, over time traditional societies find practical solutions. Social arrangements that promote survival.

 The pragmatism of the east remains difficult for many westerners to grasp. I am not restricting my opinion here to Punjab. Let's take a look at some other ways in which homosexuality is culturally managed. For one thing, homosexual relationships among young men are _no more inevitable_ statistically in the east versus west. The difference lies how everyone reacts.  A gay man may be viewed as "going through a stage" or maybe as having an unfortunate preference. But either way he is married off and does his duty of fathering children. He might still have men on the side. The important thing is that the male not be flagrant (we call that staying in the closet), and fulfill his role as someone who begets children to further the family's survival. 

Why is this arrangement practical and satisfactory? Family in traditional societies is that great embrace which makes it possible for individuals to survive, especially under economically harsh conditions. Could it be the family trumps the individual? Or that as long as the individual honors his obligations, the family is willing to allow some individual aberration in silence? I call that practical because needs all around are met and the costs of making scenes and threats of banishment are kept to a minimum. The family prevails. The individual survives.

Likewise earlier I mentioned examples of managing social roles. In traditional societies social roles sum up to  individual identities. With roles come corresponding obligations,  and these can be rigidly defined. An advantage is that everyone knows what he/she is supposed to do. Having a role to play is fulfilling; having no role is to be invisible.  It is an efficient way of living life.  The practicality here lies in the ability of local cultures to keep "anti-social" behavior within limits by creating a role for homosexuals. The need to be a "rebel" is strongly reduced if one has a role to play. Then one can find a place, even a small place, and still remain part of familiar surroundings.  

None of what I am saying makes sense if one believes that any individual can be whatever he wants to be, and do whatever he wants to do, and should be supported by society in the doing. It only makes sense when the inter-dependence between individual and family, family and village, village and pind is essential for individual and cultural survival. My own cultural background overlaps a bit with the way of life in a traditional world, and helps me understand how this works. And all I am saying is that the worlds of the east have had much more experience figuring these things out. There is much less of a fuss. 

When the matter of gay marriage comes to the fore, there is more of a fuss. A great big fuss! Why? Because things that have worked for centuries don't apply, and the call for new solutions threatens tried and true traditions. Traditional worlds are disappearing. Expect more fuss.


----------



## sunnygill19 (Feb 20, 2013)

spnadmin, thank you very much for your post. Very interesting ideas that you have put forward, it is greatly appreciated. 


I just wanted to direct everyone's attention to this interesting article that was published not long after the ideas of legalising homosexual marriage was ripe within the media. http://www.sewauk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/sikh-view-about-homosexuality-same-sex.html - this article stresses that gay marriage is a no no withing Sikhism as  "It is the religious and traditional Sikh view that only the heterosexual family-unit can provide all the basic needs of growing up children." I disagree with such a statement as I believe that any homosexual couple could also provide all the basic needs of children as they mature - family units are not defined by the word heterosexual. The article further goes on to explain that "it would be against the spirit of Sikh religion to discriminate against anyone for having homosexual bias, by barring him or her from the Gurdwara". The last statement is something that I agree with but I have found it displeasing to find, through my interviews with people, that whilst they acknowledge the equality of all human beings within Sikhism somehow that does not apply to homosexuals because it is seen as wrong. 

There have been points made on this forum which have been about lust and the need to control lust and sexual desire, not only for homosexuals but also heterosexuals. However, my research has been stating that homosexuality within itself barring the sexual acts of homosexuals is intrinsically wrong (something which clearly goes against the teachings of equality which our religion promotes). I interviewed my brother a while back who stated that he had no issues with homosexuality within Sikhism but that if his son was a homosexual he would severely disappointed because he would feel as if he had done something wrong!! Are we as Sikhs only accepting of homosexuality within our religion as long as it does not affect us personally?


----------



## findingmyway (Feb 20, 2013)

sunnygill19 said:


> spnadmin, thank you very much for your post. Very interesting ideas that you have put forward, it is greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> I just wanted to direct everyone's attention to this interesting article that was published not long after the ideas of legalising homosexual marriage was ripe within the media. http://www.sewauk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/sikh-view-about-homosexuality-same-sex.html - this article stresses that gay marriage is a no no withing Sikhism as  "It is the religious and traditional Sikh view that only the heterosexual family-unit can provide all the basic needs of growing up children." I disagree with such a statement as I believe that any homosexual couple could also provide all the basic needs of children as they mature - family units are not defined by the word heterosexual. The article further goes on to explain that "it would be against the spirit of Sikh religion to discriminate against anyone for having homosexual bias, by barring him or her from the Gurdwara". The last statement is something that I agree with but I have found it displeasing to find, through my interviews with people, that whilst they acknowledge the equality of all human beings within Sikhism somehow that does not apply to homosexuals because it is seen as wrong.
> ...



Sunnygill ji, I feel like we are covering the same ground again and again! Have you read all the posts including the links posted by spnadmin ji early in the thread to help you interpret other points of view? Have you looked at the Gurbani tuks referred to yourself? The bias your brother shows seems to be cultural. It might be worth questionning him further about his reasons why. I have looked at the website you posted and my comments are below:

The primary argument used by the website is the lust argument. This has been covered in detail several times on SPN. The shabads relating to lust often use heterosexual imagery but are interpreted for all homosexuals. I feel this is double standards and has strong cultural bias. Sex outside of marital relations is forbidden. This is why gay marriage is so important.

The metaphors used in Gurbani represent a man and a woman as that is what most people can identify with. Gurbani was always written using examples that could speak to average Jo. It doesn't necessarily make this union holy. All humans are equated to the wife regardless of gender and sexual orientation. 

How the website equates gay marriage to polygamy and sexual abuse I have no idea! The whole purpose of marriage is to reduce immorality so I'm confused.

I won't talk about modern day family environments but will refer to history. What would happen if the husband died or left when children were young? In that case the environment discussed above is no longer possible yet children could still be raised successfully. The woman would have 2 options-to remarry and risk the stepfather mistreating the children or form a support network with other women and raise the children without a male. Having a father figure who wasn't part of the family was not an option due to cultural taboos. The same is true of the reverse. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to raise a family without a mother of father and having people of the other gender on the fringes of family life. Therefore, this argument does not hold either and is strongly skewed by culture.

Sex outside matrimony is prohibited which is why gay marriage is so important. Sexual relations serve a bigger purpose than procreation in several species, including humans. There is a mountain of psychology research on this subject. Gurbani only talks about lust. It is upto each couple to decide what part of their marriage is lust and what is normal bonding. This applies whether heterosexual or homosexual.

With any argument presented, question how much is culture and how much of the attitude is related to Gurbani.

I think the most productive way to move forward would be to post shabads you think are related to the topic in hand and your interpretation. Asking opinions will only inform you of people's bias. To understand the Sikhi viewpoint you must refer back to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 23, 2013)

Filled this in for you. I personally have no problem with same sex relationships or same sex marriage.

In Sikhism marriage is a Union of souls. The soul has no gender.

Unfortunately *....* there are backward thinking monkeys running the show.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 23, 2013)

Randip ji and respected forum members all ji

Call it cowardice on my part. Or call it wisdom. One small change to my great colleague's recent post just occurred. India has a "hurting religious sentiments" clause in its constitution. Almost anyone can be hauled before a court of law or have business shut down pending a long, painful process of judicial review. If a strong epithet were launched against leaders in Brussels it would be a different story. A small deletion was needed imho. Maybe on review it can be restored.


----------



## Harry Haller (Feb 23, 2013)

> Unfortunately *....* there are backward thinking monkeys running the show.



As an animal lover, I would like to protest on behalf of the backward thinking monkeys association.


----------



## Original (Jun 14, 2015)

Brother Onam said:


> WJKK WJKF,
> "I'm really interested in seeing as to why people in our community view homosexuality as wrong".
> The evidence of this Creation is that there is a divine order in place. If you observe the honeycomb, the changing of seasons, the orbits of planets and moons, the formation of crystals, the scattering of seeds, the flight of hummingbirds, the journey of salmons, the cycles of evaporation, purification and rainfall; it is all played out in awesome order.
> Please consider:
> ...



Onam Ji

Very well thought through and succinctly written piece of literature.

As regards subject-matter, being gay is biologically determined, rather than a lifestyle choice. However, your argument is well founded, which, if spun, has the hallmarks of redefining "homosexuality" as a biological abnormality. In which case there is a case to answer.

Much obliged !


----------

