Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sikh Ruling on Gay Marriage Contradicts Ideas

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 9:30:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I doubt that this thread will gain much attention, but I want to post it anyways. The Akal Takht, the seat of authority in Sikhism, ruled in 2009 that same sex marriage is against Sikh principles and opted to ban it in Gurdwaras. Their reason was that same sex marriage does not promote procreation, and that other religious leaders have spoken out against it worldwide.

This ruling, however, contradicts basic Sikh philosophy. Instead of opting to think rationally about the issue, the Akal Takht ignored basic teachings and adopted their ruling based on Punjabi culture.

First, the purpose of marriage in Sikhism is not procreation. It's actually to bind two individuals in a commitment to strive together to attain salvation. Sikhs are encouraged to maintain a family life, but this is only to help make them more responsible individuals, and this does not require heterosexual marriage since homosexual couples can easily adopt.

This is evidenced by the fact that the hymns sung in the Anand Karaj ceremony (marriage ceremony) do not even discuss the marriage between the two individuals. Instead, they discuss a marriage (commitment) between the soul and God. Couples don't take oaths to each other in Sikhism. The oath they take (they don't literally make oaths like this; the oath is implied through the participation in the process. I encourage you to watch the ceremony on Youtube) in the marriage ceremony is to follow God's path and strive to achieve salvation.

Now, some would claim that God condemns homosexuality. I challenge those individuals to find a single passage in the Guru Granth Sahib (Sikh scriptures) that condemns homosexuality and also to find a single passage the promotes heterosexuality. You'll find nothing because it doesn't exist.

Some say that the Anand Karaj ceremony discusses the marriage of a female soul to a male soul (God).

I have three responses to this. First, the ceremony in no way implies that marriage is to be heterosexual. In fact, the hymns are not even discussing marriage between two humans. Second, the idea of "male" and "female" in the hymns does not exist in the traditional Punjabi scriptures. In fact, God is genderless in Sikhism. Adoption of "He" to describe God is a result of transliteration and Anglicization. It's nothing more than an influence that Christianity has had on Sikh translators. Third, even if it does mention gender, note that the marriage is occurring between two souls of the same gender. If all human souls are female and God is male, then is not the union between the two souls that we solemnize in Sikhism a same sex union?

This leads me to my next point. The ruling contradicts basic Sikh philosophy. Sikhism centers around the idea that much of this world is an illusion insofar as the things we enjoy distract us from God. This includes our physical bodies, since we have souls and lust is included in the "five evils". If souls are genderless/have the same gender and our physical genders are an illusion that distract us from God, what is wrong with same sex marriage?

Some people claim that heterosexual couples need to marry to procreate and that homosexual couples cannot procreate. I agree, but note that they can still have a family life through adoption. Usually people claim that they do not need to be married to adopt. I think at this point, we refer back to point one; procreation is not the goal of marriage. Rather, living a responsible family life with a partner and striving with that individual to attain salvation is, and there is no reason that this cannot be done with an individual of the same gender.

The final claim that people have is that is against the Rehit Maryada (code of conduct). That's true, but the Rehit Maryada was compiled by a group of individuals hundreds of years after the Gurus died; they did not create the code of conduct. Any ban on same sex marriage in that book is not based on Gurmat but rather on Punjabi culture. The book also bans interfaith marriages between Sikh females and males of other faiths, but that is not a teaching that was introduced by the Gurus or is in the Guru Granth Sahib. That is, again, nonsense that was injected by the panth at a later point.

I am thinking about writing a letter to the Akal Takht outlining my case. What do you guys think?
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 10:06:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't know enough about Sikhism to say for sure, but your case seems airtight.

Of course, that's easy to say as I've only seen one side of the issue.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 10:44:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting...I agree with your thesis, but, perhaps you should include one of the basic dogma's of Sikhism, equality. In order to be truly equal, within Sikhism, you must allow the option of homosexual union, or else, they truly are not equal. A man and a woman are held higher (for lack of a better word) then two men or two woman. Why should a heterosexual couple have this right (so to speak) when a homosexual couple does not?

On another note, I have always thought that Sikhism was perhaps one of the most tolerant religion out there (I think Jainism wins out in that regard).
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 11:54:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 10:44:07 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
Interesting...I agree with your thesis, but, perhaps you should include one of the basic dogma's of Sikhism, equality. In order to be truly equal, within Sikhism, you must allow the option of homosexual union, or else, they truly are not equal. A man and a woman are held higher (for lack of a better word) then two men or two woman. Why should a heterosexual couple have this right (so to speak) when a homosexual couple does not?

On another note, I have always thought that Sikhism was perhaps one of the most tolerant religion out there (I think Jainism wins out in that regard).

That would create inequality.
All couples are equal if all couples are hetero.

The moments couples diverge there is no longer equality.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 2:30:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 11:54:39 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/8/2012 10:44:07 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
Interesting...I agree with your thesis, but, perhaps you should include one of the basic dogma's of Sikhism, equality. In order to be truly equal, within Sikhism, you must allow the option of homosexual union, or else, they truly are not equal. A man and a woman are held higher (for lack of a better word) then two men or two woman. Why should a heterosexual couple have this right (so to speak) when a homosexual couple does not?

On another note, I have always thought that Sikhism was perhaps one of the most tolerant religion out there (I think Jainism wins out in that regard).

That would create inequality.
All couples are equal if all couples are hetero.

The moments couples diverge there is no longer equality.

How the heck does what you said make sense? If everyone is equal, everyone should have the right to marry whether they are hetero or homosexual. Simple logic...every person is equal in Sikhism whether homo or heterosexual....

Also, we are talking about Sikh morality not Christian, two completely different religions...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 2:48:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 11:54:39 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/8/2012 10:44:07 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
Interesting...I agree with your thesis, but, perhaps you should include one of the basic dogma's of Sikhism, equality. In order to be truly equal, within Sikhism, you must allow the option of homosexual union, or else, they truly are not equal. A man and a woman are held higher (for lack of a better word) then two men or two woman. Why should a heterosexual couple have this right (so to speak) when a homosexual couple does not?

On another note, I have always thought that Sikhism was perhaps one of the most tolerant religion out there (I think Jainism wins out in that regard).

That would create inequality.
All couples are equal if all couples are hetero.

The moments couples diverge there is no longer equality.

How does that make sense? How does the creation of new couples foster inequality?

Sikh morality, as THEBOMB mentioned, is very different from Christian morality. It's more open and accepting, for one matter, and it is tolerant of other faiths. It doesn't preach that nonbelievers will be punished for eternity; it notes that all religions are paths to God.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 2:49:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 2:47:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yeah, your point is actually very good, THEBOMB. I'll add that as well.

Thank you!

I'm just curious, but, are you a Sikh?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 2:52:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 2:49:27 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/8/2012 2:47:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yeah, your point is actually very good, THEBOMB. I'll add that as well.

Thank you!

I'm just curious, but, are you a Sikh?

I don't know :/ I'm still thinking.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 2:52:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 2:48:54 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/8/2012 11:54:39 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/8/2012 10:44:07 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
Interesting...I agree with your thesis, but, perhaps you should include one of the basic dogma's of Sikhism, equality. In order to be truly equal, within Sikhism, you must allow the option of homosexual union, or else, they truly are not equal. A man and a woman are held higher (for lack of a better word) then two men or two woman. Why should a heterosexual couple have this right (so to speak) when a homosexual couple does not?

On another note, I have always thought that Sikhism was perhaps one of the most tolerant religion out there (I think Jainism wins out in that regard).

That would create inequality.
All couples are equal if all couples are hetero.

The moments couples diverge there is no longer equality.

How does that make sense? How does the creation of new couples foster inequality?

Sikh morality, as THEBOMB mentioned, is very different from Christian morality. It's more open and accepting, for one matter, and it is tolerant of other faiths. It doesn't preach that nonbelievers will be punished for eternity; it notes that all religions are paths to God.

I remember reading somewhere that all people are welcome on Gurdwaras (regardless of race, religion, etc.) and they actually give free meals out to the needy.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 2:55:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 2:52:52 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/8/2012 2:48:54 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/8/2012 11:54:39 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/8/2012 10:44:07 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
Interesting...I agree with your thesis, but, perhaps you should include one of the basic dogma's of Sikhism, equality. In order to be truly equal, within Sikhism, you must allow the option of homosexual union, or else, they truly are not equal. A man and a woman are held higher (for lack of a better word) then two men or two woman. Why should a heterosexual couple have this right (so to speak) when a homosexual couple does not?

On another note, I have always thought that Sikhism was perhaps one of the most tolerant religion out there (I think Jainism wins out in that regard).

That would create inequality.
All couples are equal if all couples are hetero.

The moments couples diverge there is no longer equality.

How does that make sense? How does the creation of new couples foster inequality?

Sikh morality, as THEBOMB mentioned, is very different from Christian morality. It's more open and accepting, for one matter, and it is tolerant of other faiths. It doesn't preach that nonbelievers will be punished for eternity; it notes that all religions are paths to God.

I remember reading somewhere that all people are welcome on Gurdwaras (regardless of race, religion, etc.) and they actually give free meals out to the needy.

It depends on the location. They do give out free meals to everyone in India, but I've been doing research, and apparently they're run like businesses in the U.S. and they don't really serve underprivileged populations.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 2:56:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting...I agree with your thesis, but, perhaps you should include one of the basic dogma's of Sikhism, equality. In order to be truly equal, within Sikhism, you must allow the option of homosexual union, or else, they truly are not equal. A man and a woman are held higher (for lack of a better word) then two men or two woman. Why should a heterosexual couple have this right (so to speak) when a homosexual couple does not?

On another note, I have always thought that Sikhism was perhaps one of the most tolerant religion out there (I think Jainism wins out in that regard).

That would create inequality.
All couples are equal if all couples are hetero.

The moments couples diverge there is no longer equality.

How does that make sense? How does the creation of new couples foster inequality?

Sikh morality, as THEBOMB mentioned, is very different from Christian morality. It's more open and accepting, for one matter, and it is tolerant of other faiths. It doesn't preach that nonbelievers will be punished for eternity; it notes that all religions are paths to God.

I remember reading somewhere that all people are welcome on Gurdwaras (regardless of race, religion, etc.) and they actually give free meals out to the needy.

It depends on the location. They do give out free meals to everyone in India, but I've been doing research, and apparently they're run like businesses in the U.S. and they don't really serve underprivileged populations.

Nobody's reminding them of their duty to the needy.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:05:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 2:52:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/8/2012 2:49:27 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/8/2012 2:47:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yeah, your point is actually very good, THEBOMB. I'll add that as well.

Thank you!

I'm just curious, but, are you a Sikh?

I don't know :/ I'm still thinking.

Shanti.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:13:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"According to Sikhism, when a girl attains maturity, it is incumbent upon her parents to look for a suitable match for her. It is neither desirable nor proper to marry a girl at tender age. The daughter of a Sikh should be given in marriage to a Sikh. If a man is a believer in Sikhism, is humble by nature, and earns his bread by honest means"
http://www.searchsikhism.com...

The entire concept of marriage in Sikhism is based on the idea of a heterosexual marriage. Sikhism deals with the marriage between heterosexuals and notes that when a women reaches puberty, she should look for a man etc etc. Sikhism also promotes a family life which is primarily formed through heterosexual (preocreative) means. Sikh marriage encourages and promotes heterosexual marriage much more than it does homosexual, in fact it doesn't even make a strict mention about which is the only reason why you have a case.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:15:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
On another note, I wish there were more threads on eastern theology: Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism (Sikhism is interesting it is a blend of eastern and western philosophy, it was heavily influenced by the Islamic tradition), and Taoism. The problem is, almost everyone active here follow western theology and philosophy (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) so any discussions on something like Taoism are likely to be overlooked...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:15:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:13:31 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
"According to Sikhism, when a girl attains maturity, it is incumbent upon her parents to look for a suitable match for her. It is neither desirable nor proper to marry a girl at tender age. The daughter of a Sikh should be given in marriage to a Sikh. If a man is a believer in Sikhism, is humble by nature, and earns his bread by honest means"
http://www.searchsikhism.com...

The entire concept of marriage in Sikhism is based on the idea of a heterosexual marriage. Sikhism deals with the marriage between heterosexuals and notes that when a women reaches puberty, she should look for a man etc etc. Sikhism also promotes a family life which is primarily formed through heterosexual (preocreative) means. Sikh marriage encourages and promotes heterosexual marriage much more than it does homosexual, in fact it doesn't even make a strict mention about which is the only reason why you have a case.

No, you are mistaking Sikhism for Punjabi culture. Punjabi culture makes those demands and has been doing so since the dawn of Punjabi civilization; the Gurus never made any such demands of the people. Just because most Sikhs agree with that principle due to Punjabi culture does not mean that the religion demands it. In fact, there are plenty of non-Punjabi Sikhs.

Could you show me a single piece of evidence that indicates that he Gurus were against it?
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:16:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:05:59 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/8/2012 2:59:55 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
What religion were you before you became an atheist?

As-Salamu Alaikum.

wa'alaikumussalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. May Peace be on the him, who follows the right path.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:17:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:13:31 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
"According to Sikhism, when a girl attains maturity, it is incumbent upon her parents to look for a suitable match for her. It is neither desirable nor proper to marry a girl at tender age. The daughter of a Sikh should be given in marriage to a Sikh. If a man is a believer in Sikhism, is humble by nature, and earns his bread by honest means"
http://www.searchsikhism.com...

The entire concept of marriage in Sikhism is based on the idea of a heterosexual marriage. Sikhism deals with the marriage between heterosexuals and notes that when a women reaches puberty, she should look for a man etc etc. Sikhism also promotes a family life which is primarily formed through heterosexual (preocreative) means. Sikh marriage encourages and promotes heterosexual marriage much more than it does homosexual, in fact it doesn't even make a strict mention about which is the only reason why you have a case.

Keep in mind you are ignoring the fact where the fundamental concept behind Sikhism is equality. EVERYBODY (including homosexuals) within Sikhism, are equal.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:21:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:16:37 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:05:59 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/8/2012 2:59:55 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
What religion were you before you became an atheist?

As-Salamu Alaikum.

wa'alaikumussalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. May Peace be on the him, who follows the right path.

I'm not Muslim.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:26:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:15:40 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

No, you are mistaking Sikhism for Punjabi culture. Punjabi culture makes those demands and has been doing so since the dawn of Punjabi civilization; the Gurus never made any such demands of the people. Just because most Sikhs agree with that principle due to Punjabi culture does not mean that the religion demands it. In fact, there are plenty of non-Punjabi Sikhs.

Could you show me a single piece of evidence that indicates that he Gurus were against it?

Whenever any of these sources (which are at least somewhat authoritative) speak of marriage they are specifically inclined towards a heterosexual marriage. I doubt Sikhs in the past have had homosexual marriages, if it did not then clearly when they speak about marriage they are speaking of a heterosexual marriage.

"The Rehat Maryada which is The Official Sikh Code of Conduct specifies that no thought should be given to the perspective spouses caste, race or lineage. As long as both the boy and girl profess the Sikh faith and no other faith they may be joined in wedlock by the Anand Karaj ceremony."
http://www.sikhs.org...

Heterosexuality is presupposed. This is the official Sikh Code of Conduct.

"According to Sikhism, when a girl attains maturity, it is incumbent upon her parents to look for a suitable match for her. It is neither desirable nor proper to marry a girl at tender age. The daughter of a Sikh should be given in marriage to a Sikh. If a man is a believer in Sikhism, is humble by nature"
http://www.searchsikhism.com...

Heterosexuality is presupposed and accepted as the basis for a Sikh marriage.

"Grown-up Sikh boys and girls get married when they are fully able to take on the responsibilities of married life."
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

I think this is enough proof that heterosexuality is promoted at least and is the basis for the Sikh Marriage. I ask you, when have the Gurus ever promoted encouraged a homosexual marriage between two homosexuals? I don't think they ever did.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:30:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:21:16 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:16:37 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:05:59 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/8/2012 2:59:55 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
What religion were you before you became an atheist?

As-Salamu Alaikum.

wa'alaikumussalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. May Peace be on the him, who follows the right path.

I'm not Muslim.

I know.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:34:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:26:38 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:15:40 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

No, you are mistaking Sikhism for Punjabi culture. Punjabi culture makes those demands and has been doing so since the dawn of Punjabi civilization; the Gurus never made any such demands of the people. Just because most Sikhs agree with that principle due to Punjabi culture does not mean that the religion demands it. In fact, there are plenty of non-Punjabi Sikhs.

Could you show me a single piece of evidence that indicates that he Gurus were against it?

Whenever any of these sources (which are at least somewhat authoritative) speak of marriage they are specifically inclined towards a heterosexual marriage. I doubt Sikhs in the past have had homosexual marriages, if it did not then clearly when they speak about marriage they are speaking of a heterosexual marriage.

"The Rehat Maryada which is The Official Sikh Code of Conduct specifies that no thought should be given to the perspective spouses caste, race or lineage. As long as both the boy and girl profess the Sikh faith and no other faith they may be joined in wedlock by the Anand Karaj ceremony."
http://www.sikhs.org...

I think I already discussed the Rehat Maryada. It was not created by the Gurus; it was created by a group of self-appointed Punjabi Sikhs in the 20th century. The Gurus had all died long before it was drafted, and it contains provisions (such as anti-tattoo provisions and a provision demanding that Sikh girls be married only to other Sikhs) that are definitely not part of the religion.
Heterosexuality is presupposed. This is the official Sikh Code of Conduct.

You ignored the fact that I already discussed this.
"According to Sikhism, when a girl attains maturity, it is incumbent upon her parents to look for a suitable match for her. It is neither desirable nor proper to marry a girl at tender age. The daughter of a Sikh should be given in marriage to a Sikh. If a man is a believer in Sikhism, is humble by nature"
http://www.searchsikhism.com...

Heterosexuality is presupposed and accepted as the basis for a Sikh marriage.

That's Punjabi culture. Do you have proof that this is a tenet of the religion?
"Grown-up Sikh boys and girls get married when they are fully able to take on the responsibilities of married life."
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

I think this is enough proof that heterosexuality is promoted at least and is the basis for the Sikh Marriage. I ask you, when have the Gurus ever promoted encouraged a homosexual marriage between two homosexuals? I don't think they ever did.

That doesn't mean that they prohibited it, and any claim that that homosexual Sikhs should not marry each other directly comes into conflict both with Sikh philosophy (which rejects materialism and claims that souls are genderless/have the same gender and that bodies are temporary and recycled through a transmigration process).
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:34:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:07:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/8/2012 2:59:55 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
What religion were you before you became an atheist?

Does it matter?

I dunno curious. People usually are much kinder and apply the principle of charity to their former religion. If a person for example haw left Christianity, they usually apply the principle of charity to any arguments or advice that might be offered to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:48:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:34:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:


You ignored the fact that I already discussed this.

I apologize for not fully reading your post. I now have.

That's Punjabi culture. Do you have proof that this is a tenet of the religion?

While I don't know whether it is a tenet of the religion (I'm not even knowledgeable on it), I know for sure that a heterosexually based marriage is much more encouraged than a homosexual one.

That doesn't mean that they prohibited it, and any claim that that homosexual Sikhs should not marry each other directly comes into conflict both with Sikh philosophy (which rejects materialism and claims that souls are genderless/have the same gender and that bodies are temporary and recycled through a transmigration process).

You stated in the OP:
"Some people claim that heterosexual couples need to marry to procreate and that homosexual couples cannot procreate. I agree, but note that they can still have a family life through adoption."

However, you have to admit that adoption is a secondary option to the primary and the most practical means which is procreation. Procreation is what makes a heterosexually based marriage more superior than that of a homosexual marriage which is why it has been encouraged by Sikhs and Sikhism ever since its inception.

You stated in the OP:
"procreation is not the goal of marriage. Rather, living a responsible family life with a partner and striving with that individual to attain salvation is, and there is no reason that this cannot be done with an individual of the same gender."

You are contradicting yourself here. We have already established that a family life is encouraged numerous times in the Sikh books. The primary means of attaining a family life is procreation, therefore it is necessarily encouraged too.

The Gurus never promoted a homosexual marriage, you still didn't prove me wrong on this statement. They promoted heterosexuality because is the primary means of attaining a family as was established.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:55:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:30:59 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:21:16 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:16:37 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:05:59 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/8/2012 2:59:55 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
What religion were you before you became an atheist?

As-Salamu Alaikum.

wa'alaikumussalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. May Peace be on the him, who follows the right path.

I'm not Muslim.

I know.

Okay, I was just making sure because that sounded awfully religious to me. (Although Arabic to English is never going to be perfect...)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:56:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:48:31 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:34:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:


You ignored the fact that I already discussed this.

I apologize for not fully reading your post. I now have.


That's Punjabi culture. Do you have proof that this is a tenet of the religion?

While I don't know whether it is a tenet of the religion (I'm not even knowledgeable on it), I know for sure that a heterosexually based marriage is much more encouraged than a homosexual one.

Any encouragement is not religiously based; its all culturally based. Culture and religion are distinct. Punjabi culture promotes erotic dancing, but Sikhism definitely does not.
That doesn't mean that they prohibited it, and any claim that that homosexual Sikhs should not marry each other directly comes into conflict both with Sikh philosophy (which rejects materialism and claims that souls are genderless/have the same gender and that bodies are temporary and recycled through a transmigration process).

You stated in the OP:
"Some people claim that heterosexual couples need to marry to procreate and that homosexual couples cannot procreate. I agree, but note that they can still have a family life through adoption."

However, you have to admit that adoption is a secondary option to the primary and the most practical means which is procreation. Procreation is what makes a heterosexually based marriage more superior than that of a homosexual marriage which is why it has been encouraged by Sikhs and Sikhism ever since its inception.

First of all, I don't think that adoption is in any way inferior, and second, the purpose of marriage in Sikhism is not procreation for world domination. It's about spiritual advancement on the spiritual level, and individuals of different genders are not required for that.
You stated in the OP:
"procreation is not the goal of marriage. Rather, living a responsible family life with a partner and striving with that individual to attain salvation is, and there is no reason that this cannot be done with an individual of the same gender."

You are contradicting yourself here. We have already established that a family life is encouraged numerous times in the Sikh books. The primary means of attaining a family life is procreation, therefore it is necessarily encouraged too.

Family life is not just obtained through procreation, and procreation is not necessary for family life. In fact, some of the Gurus did not even have children until very late in life, and yet during the times in which they were married, they still lived family lives. Family life is only necessary because it promotes responsibility and creates a commitment to pursue salvation since there are people who can help hold you accountable. You do not need to procreate for this to occur.
The Gurus never promoted a homosexual marriage, you still didn't prove me wrong on this statement. They promoted heterosexuality because is the primary means of attaining a family as was established.
I don't need to prove that they promoted homosexual marriage. I only need to prove that it was not prohibited, and it's not according to Sikh philosophy, Sikh hymns, etc. All of this was proven in the OP.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:57:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:48:31 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:34:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:


You ignored the fact that I already discussed this.

I apologize for not fully reading your post. I now have.


That's Punjabi culture. Do you have proof that this is a tenet of the religion?

While I don't know whether it is a tenet of the religion (I'm not even knowledgeable on it), I know for sure that a heterosexually based marriage is much more encouraged than a homosexual one.

That doesn't mean that they prohibited it, and any claim that that homosexual Sikhs should not marry each other directly comes into conflict both with Sikh philosophy (which rejects materialism and claims that souls are genderless/have the same gender and that bodies are temporary and recycled through a transmigration process).

You stated in the OP:
"Some people claim that heterosexual couples need to marry to procreate and that homosexual couples cannot procreate. I agree, but note that they can still have a family life through adoption."

However, you have to admit that adoption is a secondary option to the primary and the most practical means which is procreation. Procreation is what makes a heterosexually based marriage more superior than that of a homosexual marriage which is why it has been encouraged by Sikhs and Sikhism ever since its inception.

You stated in the OP:
"procreation is not the goal of marriage. Rather, living a responsible family life with a partner and striving with that individual to attain salvation is, and there is no reason that this cannot be done with an individual of the same gender."

You are contradicting yourself here. We have already established that a family life is encouraged numerous times in the Sikh books. The primary means of attaining a family life is procreation, therefore it is necessarily encouraged too.

The Gurus never promoted a homosexual marriage, you still didn't prove me wrong on this statement. They promoted heterosexuality because is the primary means of attaining a family as was established.

The gurus did not really even mention whether they preferred homosexual or heterosexual marriage. But, they did say, several times, that everything should be equal....