Talk:Homosexuality and Sikhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

	Sikhism Portal This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article Homosexuality and Sikhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I am removing the link to the sikh forum. I don't think it's appropriate.Thinker2006 23:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes by User:195.82.106.244

I've slightly altered recent changes by this user:

"Their beliefs are no longer concurrent with Sihkism." - unsourced and inherently POV

Also, the final paragraph changes need citation. I have issue with this statement:

"...intended people to live as man and wife, or to be celibate, with no deviation from this design."

I have no problem with the man and wife bit, but my understanding is that celibacy is specifically discouraged. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

* Citations please then! Otherwise the article just becomes a soapbox debate.

I suggest a compromise between " Secular liberals " and " some ", that being " some liberals ". Obviously both both secular and liberal Sikhs on one hand and hard line fanatics on the other both stray from median point, whilst both would probably claim to represent Sikhism. Both would question the other's right to represent Sikh. It is easier to agree on what the traditional point of view is whether one agree with it or not.

What sources or authorities can you prove to support this POV? The Wiki all comes down to citable sources not original work - which in itself can limit or pervert a topic.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 15:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly we need to establish that homosexuality and Sikhism is a point that has not been discussed extensively in literature and it may be difficult to source opinions on the matter (especially considering the Guru Granth Sahib is mute on the subject, and as with other religions, there isn't a unified view). However no doubt there is literature of some description - it just requires us to look around. Secondly, I haven't added much to this article in terms of content (check the history), I've merely toned down some of the comments from other users. I know I'm guilty of using filler words such as 'some' :)

In reference to my issue with celibacy (which is not encouraged), I have the following citations:

• Satawanta Kaura Raita, Sikh Women in England: Religious, Social and Cultural Beliefs, ISBN 1858563534, p. 22. "Renunciation or celibacy is discarded in favour of family life in the Sikh religion."
• [1] - "Sikhism does not believe in asceticism, celibacy or living alone at mountains or in caves or in forests in the search of Truth and God."
• [2] - "Normal family life is encouraged. Celibacy or renunciation of the world is not necessary to achieve salvation."

There are countless more on Google. Indeed, search the SGGS [3] for the term 'celibate'.

In your message on my talk page, you ask "Are secular indidividuals from a Sikh background Sikh any more?". Well I think yes, it's perfectly possible to be both. The general definition of a Sikh is one who believes in one god, the teachings of ten gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib, and professes no other religion. Secularism talks about separation of church and state - this is something that does not contradict the broad definition of what a Sikh is. So yes, I believe you can be a secular Sikh and the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

I think the phrase "...from a Sikh background who are supportive of homosexuality believe that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality and that it is perfectly normal for a minority of adults." is redundant because it almost goes without saying that Sikhs who are supportive of homosexuality are likely to think it was normal (unless there is another common reason for supporting it?). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and interestingly, you seem more than happy to add your own point of view without providing references. Nothing in this article is referenced, and neither are your additions.

Also, care must be made to distinguish between homosexuality and lust. My interpretation is (this is my POV) that homosexuality per-se is no more unacceptable or acceptable than hetrosexuality (the soul afterall is without gender). However, the "sinfulness" occurs when performing sexual acts outside of marriage or having lustful thoughts. Being that according to the Reht Maryada, Anand Karaj is for a male and female [4] it would not be acceptable for a gay couple to get married. In my opinion, it is only in this regard that homosexuality is considered "unacceptable". Anyway, this is my take on things, but I'm not an academic so I could be way off base :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's have an edit war over it until one of us gives up or an Guru comes along to rescue us because you have discredited yourself by removing that which preceding " ... from a Sikh background " from both the article and your contemplation of it. Obviously what went before it, " liberals " etc., entirely makes or changes the context for what follows. " Some " means nothing. I would question whether that undefined " some " are actually Sikhs at all. If you write, " ex-Sikhs " then fine.

It strikes me what you are looking to do is write some politically correct whitewash of a difficult topic into what you wish the answer would be according to your personal values or the values of those around you. Beware, truth is often difficult and very politically incorrect!

And as on Homosexuality and lust, so basically you are confining individuals that are homosexual to be celibate as they are not able to express their lustful desires unless they are able to find a member opposite sex to take them on? We are back at the beginning of the circle.

195.82.106.244 22:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fathom how I discredited myself by removing "Liberals" from the sentence on either this talk page or the article page. Please do explain the reasoning behind such an assertion. I personally don't think you're in any position to decide whether a "liberal Sikh" is an actual Sikh at all. Liberal is such a loaded word that it's difficult to ascertain what beliefs go with it. Anyway, I'm not too bothered with whether the word liberal is kept or not (I'm willing to accept it in the article).

I have a greater issue with the statement "secular view that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality and that it is normal for a minority of adults." By calling it a secular view, you are suggesting that Sikhism for some reason believes that homosexuality in unnatural, and that viewing homosexuality as natural is contrary to Sikh teachings. I find no evidence whatsoever in Sikh teachings that homosexuality (i.e. an attraction to someone of the same sex) is any more unnatural than heterosexuality. If you have such evidence, please do present it.

I also have issue with the statement "even if these beliefs are not compatible with traditional Sikhism". Please explain to me this simple question: In what way does 'traditional Sikhism' teach that homosexuality is unnatural and not normal for a minority of adults? I'm not talking about sex acts, I'm talking about how an attraction to the member of the same sex is considered anyway more unnatural than an attraction to someone of the opposite sex? If you have an answer to this, I'm more than willing to re-evaluate my opinion on the matter.

In regards to "Homosexuality and lust" - I'm not confining individuals to do anything. It was merely my interpretation of Sikh teachings and the Rehat Maryada. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we know that there is no where in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib that states " that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality and that it is normal for a minority of adults ". We are lucky in that the Granth is a fair new, well documented and fixed doctrine as far as religions go and so it must stand as the traditional view or definition of what is Sikh. The citations as to what the point of view of very high or highest Sikh authorities that I have given seem to indubiously back this up.

So where does this view come from? It is certainly not from any traditional religion I know of. Right or wrong, most condemn Homosexuality. So therefore it must be a secular view. Of course, we know that the normalisation of Homosexuality is a secular view, actually quite a recent secular view and part of the liberal agenda. We say liberal because, of course, it is not part of the reactionary nor conservative view.

Ultimately Homosexuality has to be defined in sexual activity ; anal, oral and manual but not procreative. Otherwise you find yourself slipping back into the only other option being celibacy which we agree is clearly not a Sikh position. The bottomline, if you excuse the pun, is that you seem to wanting to push your own sexual politics or ideal of acceptibility down the throat of the Wiki rather than accept citable source and authorities that do not match those views. I cannot help that, the Wiki is not the place to start to change a religion. The Truth may be unacceptable by today's standards, that is just the way it is..

A youngster may be attracted to a sportsman; that is not homosexual love. A masseur may touch the bodies of many other men; that is not homosexuality. A devout seeker might be attracted to a saint; again that is not homosexuality. It is only when buggery, or the intention towards buggery and the likes starts to creep in [male] that you might say it was homosexual and at that point it is certainly already Kaam.

मः १ ॥

mehlaa 1.

First Mehl:

छिवै कामु न पुछै जाति ॥

chhivai kaam na puchhai jaat.

sixth, in his sexual desire, he does not respect social customs ...

नानक मनमुखि अंधु पिआरु ॥

naanak manmukh anDh pi-aar.

O Nanak, the self-willed manmukhs love the darkness.

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I first should make clear that you have not cited a single source in any of your contributions to this article. Please don't make it sound as if you have. I don't disagree with what you have written about Vedanti, but that certainly wasn't a citation. In addition, you will know as well as I do that Vedanti may be a Sikh figure head (and he certainly is not an equivalent to the 'Sikh pope' as some news sources claim), but he has no say in matters of spirtual authority. I certainly do not consider the matter of homosexuality being within (or outside) the bounds of Sikh teachings as a temporal issue. However, this being said, he is a high enough figure for his view to be prevalent in this article and I have no issue with you including it.

"So where does this view come from? It is certainly not from any traditional religion I know of. Right or wrong, most condemn Homosexuality."

What other religions believe about a particular subject is of absolutely no relevance to Sikhism. Whether other religions (traditional or not) condemn homosexuality is not relevant to this article at all.

"So therefore it must be a secular view. "

I find this a completely flawed argument. Your reasoning is that because other 'traditional' religions have condemned homosexuality, it must be a secular issue? I don't disagree that homosexuality has been increasingly accepted in a secular environment, but that has nothing to do with your suggestion that it's a secular view only, as suggested by your changes to the article.

"Of course, we know that the normalisation of Homosexuality is a secular view, actually quite a recent secular view and part of the liberal agenda."

I agree that the view of homosexuality as an all or nothing orientation is a recent view. However, your issue is less with the 'love' side of such an orientation, but more with the actionable side (buggery :P). I think you should read up about pre-British India in terms of acceptance of such 'acts'. Arguably, it was considerbly more tolerant than todays secular views.

"The bottomline, if you excuse the pun, is that you seem to wanting to push your own sexual politics or ideal of acceptibility down the throat of the Wiki rather than accept citable source and authorities that do not match those views."

This is amusing because if you look at the history of the article, you will see that I have barely contributed any of the content written down. Indeed, it appears you are doing exactly what you're accusing me of!

"A youngster may be attracted to a sportsman; that is not homosexual love. A masseur may touch the bodies of many other men; that is not homosexuality. A devout seeker might be attracted to a saint; again that is not homosexuality. It is only when buggery, or the intention towards buggery and the likes starts to creep in [male] that you might say it was homosexual and at that point it is certainly already Kaam."

This is an incredibly odd way to look at it, because in ancient India this would have been exactly what would have been described as homosexuality. The actual act of buggery was performed (and probably is to this day) by what society considered heterosexual men.

Your quote (see [5] for the full context) has again no relevance to this discussion because it's not clear what social customs it is referring to. If you have further insight to this quote, please do expand on your interpretation of what it means.

I have no disagreement with you that homosexual acts are not condoned by Sikhism for the reasons I have specified above. However, this article talks about homosexuality in general which is more than buggery. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions and prose

This article is contradictory, awkwardly written and confusing. Can an expert please, please fix it up? I can work on grammar and awkward wording, but in sentences like the first one, which completely contradicts itself, I don't know how to begin because I don't know what's fact and what's extraneous. Singlewordedpoem 06:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to do some cleaning up. Please take a look. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your changes! I just did some research and tried to make some points clear. I also fixed up the awkward grammar and syntax, added the allegation about Maharaja Ranjit Singh, which I thought was note-worthy, and put the information about Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti into a new section. I also deleted part of that opening summary, because I was still very confused. Why is homosexuality more controversial in countries that are more tolerant? If someone can clarify that point, it could be re-integrated into the article. Thanks for your help. Let me know what you think of my changes. Singlewordedpoem 04:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)