homosexuality

[rainycity]

I'm just wondering if homosexuality is considered a bad thing in hinduism or by most hindus? I was just reading a thread on these forums about a sikh criticism of ramakrishna which mentioned a book that claimed he was homosexual. Apparently, these claims caused a lot of controversy in india because hindus are homophobic.

[sanjaya]

Someone else on this forum posted this most interesting article which mostly summarizes my views:

Homosexuality is not a virtue (http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Homosexuality+is+not+a+virtue&artid=|h1DXfUW5DY=&SectionID=d16Fdk4iJhE=&MainSection%20ID=HuSUEmcGnyc=&SectionName=aVlZZy44Xq0bJKAA84nwcg==&SEO=)

It's about an Indian court striking down a law that made homosexuality illegal. But what's interesting is the author's comments. I would like to highlight two of them.


What was the position of the state and state enacted laws in India such matters? The king or the state in India had refrained from handling most issues which the society or families could handle.


In the Indian — read Hindu — civilisational ethos, humans had never been seen as belonging to one uniform behavioural class. The Indian civilisation had recognised diversity in behaviour and morals. It therefore never imposed one moral value or rule for all. But it believed in a hierarchy of moral principles. It held out right conduct as ideal for the rest to imbibe and follow, but on their own volition. Even as it had evolved normative moral principles for the mainline society, it had subtly ignored, rather than focus on or punish, the deviants. Those who could not follow an ideal were never held as illustration for others to follow.

Regarding the issue of whether homosexuality is bad, my guess is that there's a diversity of opinions among Hindus (but if those more knowledgable of the Scriptures than me can elucidate, please feel free to cure my ignorance). In my experiene, most Hindus are socially conservative, and thus would not approve of homosexuality. I remember my own parents telling me before I left for college, "now don't come home one day and tell us you're gay!" They were of course being facetious to some extent. But I imagine that most other Indian parents have the same hope for their children. Hinduism is centered quite a bit on the family, and let's face it, homosexuality is not conducive of propagating family. However, Hinduism has never had a tradition of making statements about public policy or controlling the behavior of others, except insofar as others' behavior infringes on our personal rights. As far as homosexuality being "bad" in a moral sense, there's a long list of things that are far worse than homosexuality. Indeed I have two friends who are gay, and they're very nice people. However, it's widely accepted that the dharma of most Hindus is to have a wife and raise children (again, if anyone knows better, please feel free to correct me, because I'm mostly relying on my Hindu upbringing rather than Scriptural study here). Aside from adoption, homosexuals can't have children. I don't believe that God is going to burn someone in hell for being a homosexual. Nor do I believe in treating homosexuals badly or barring them from temples, pujas, etc. I'm not going to stand in the way of anyone who wants to be a homosexual (or who was born that way, if you prefer), and I'm not going to treat them differently or judge them. But I don't believe that homosexuality is a good thing, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Of course for those of us who live in America, the issue of gay rights and the sanctity of marriage is going to come up. I think that such terminology is used because we're working in a Christian Western context. In a Hindu context, people have the right to do things that don't harm others, and the "sanctity" of marriage isn't going to be affected by people practicing homosexuality. Besides that, morals should be taught in the home, not by the state. So I wouldn't support laws that prohibit gays from living as they choose. And frankly I don't care whether they call it civil unions or marriage. My rights aren't affected by gays calling their partnerships marriage, and I think that many Christians merely use this issue to push their religion on the rest of us. But this doesn't mean you're going to see me at a gay rights parade, or that you'll even see me praising homosexuality. To me it's a lot like sex before marriage (or other moral ill of the reader's choice). I wouldn't do it or call it a good thing, but I don't really care if anyone else does.

[sambya]

I'm just wondering if homosexuality is considered a bad thing in hinduism or by most hindus? I was just reading a thread on these forums about a sikh criticism of ramakrishna which mentioned a book that claimed he was homosexual. Apparently, these claims caused a lot of controversy in india because hindus are homophobic.


the sikh criticism against the book on ramakrishna was not because people of india are homophobic but because it amounted to a misrepresentation of facts and an intentional distortion of historical evidence relating to his life .

just an example to help u understand the point better---
there's an event mentioned in the life of ramakrishna about how the saint went into a deep samadhi when he saw a ten year old european boy leaning against a tree in tribhanga posture(the three bended posture in which lord krishna usually stands) . the imagery of the boy caused the bhava of krishna to arise in ramakrishna's mind . this is interpreted by the author as " the swami went into a sexual trance seeing the cocked hips of a european lad." . anyone who is is conversant with the indian language , its practises and culture can point out such willful errors in every page of this malicious work done solely with the intention of creating a sensation and carving out a place for himself in international scenario .

its best if you read a life history of ramakrishna and then the disputed book and find out the truth urself .



whether it is heterosexual sex or homosexual sex ,sex of any kind agitates the mind or chitta severely and acts as a hindrance in god realization . so it is best to forsake them altogether if u strive for realization in this life itself !


god bless.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

I know little about this behavior, yet a wise person said just one thing on this matter: 'They have confused what they do with who they are'.
That was all I needed to understand and the subject was closed.


praṇām

[rainycity]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

I know little about this behavior, yet a wise person said just one thing on this matter: 'They have confused what they do with who they are'.
That was all I needed to undersand and the subject was closed.


praṇām

it's true, some homosexuals derive a lot of their identity from their sexuality. It's no wonder, because at least in contempary western society, there's a big fixation on homosexuality and it carries a lot of stigma. Especially in the past few decades if someone was homosexual, their life was very much affected and characterized by their sexuality. It's probably very much the same today.

In western society there's a massive fixation on sex and sexuality, in hindu society the fixation seems to be on family.


Hinduism is centered quite a bit on the family, and let's face it, homosexuality is not conducive of propagating family.

Well, with the rights for homosexuals to adopt children I don't think this is neccesarily true anymore. It's too much of a generalisation. In the past homosexuals didn't have the opportunity to have a family unless they married someone of the opposite sex, which a lot of them did. But people identifying fully as homosexual had no opportunity to raise a family.


But I don't believe that homosexuality is a good thing, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

many homosexual people are born that way and it isn't a choice. In fact I remember reading a news article about the hindu attitude to homosexuality.
It quoted a hindu who mentioned a scripture which says homosexuality is determined by a predominance of female energy caused by the time of the year when the child is born. But the scripture instructed couples to conceive at certain times to avoid having a homosexual child.

[isavasya]

I'm just wondering if homosexuality is considered a bad thing in hinduism or by most hindus? . Apparently, these claims caused a lot of controversy in india because hindus are homophobic.

Namste,

A few months ago I was watching a programme on a news channel conducted a few days after Delhi high court decriminalized homosexuality. There was a Mulla, a christian priest and arya samaj cheif swami agnivesh represented Hinduism. Where as mulla and priest called homosexuality as sick, swami agnivesh defined it as natural and persisting from ever. He quoted a few scriptures from hinduism to prove hinduism is not against homosexuality in any ways. Till then I also disliked homos, but my perception has changed now.

Though I also think there are some cases in which personality disorder or inferiority complex etc leads to homosexuality, My friend is from NIFT and there are some homos in his college, who may not be have been naturally inclined towards homosexuality.

In any ways Hinduism has not demonized homosexuality anywhere and its western and abrahmaic influence on us that we look at them the way we do.In international relation forum community I frequently saw few muslims from saudi arab (living away from saudi) telling that strict law against unlawful sex has made a huge number of saudis as homos. ;)

[sm78]

Namste,

There was a Mulla, a christian priest and arya samaj cheif swami agnivesh represented Hinduism. ..... He quoted a few scriptures from hinduism to prove hinduism is not against homosexuality in any ways. Till then I also disliked homos, but my perception has changed now.

As far as I know Agnivesh has been kicked out of arya samaj and he is generally always making anti-hindu comments and seems like a communist in orche robe.

That aside, homosexuality is hardly mentioned except in puranic tales like that of union of shiva-vishnu, which though has a non-sexual meaning, nonetheless proves that there cannot be much against something which is part of the nature of a few people.

Common sense tells the same. Personally, based on the few homosexual people I have met, I find the weird - but I suspect this is not due to their sexuality but because of un-sympathetic environment of our society.

I am also little puzzled/interested by the fact that some people suddenly turn homosexual having previously enjoyed hetrosexuality etc.

[sambya]

in indian civilization sexuality was never a prominent identity of any person . having said that it doesnt mean that sexuality was unimportant . it had its own shastras . generally today , when we talk of shastras we think religious scriptures . but there are things like kamashashtras , dharmashashtra , shilpashashtras etc . topics like law , philosophy , science , arts all came under shastras . there are mentions of a third sex and their sexual conduct in kamashashtra

but generally sexual thoughts and practices were never assigned the highest place in the society as we often see in west . that highest position was given to values like compassion , renunciation and enlightment . even a king was supposed to practise and encourage renunciation , which is unthinkable in terms of western philosophy or psychology .

but i also feel the margin between the two sexes was very narrow in eastern thought than its western counterpart . tales of shiva vishnu union , concepts of ardhnarishswar . purusha prakriti being two sides of the same truth and suchlike concepts clearly show that line of distinction between the two sexes was somewhat permeable . perhaps this can be attributed to the advaitic thought that the true self lies beyond false indentities like sex , caste nationality etc. this thought of underlying unity and falsehood of our present perception lies at the base of indian thought . perhaps this thought is later reflected in puranic tales where a male deity or a male asura can assume a female form almost effortlessly without the fear of any stigma !

but such thoughts are essentially spiritual and philosophical and does noting to encourage or discourage homosexuality . i think ancient india was rather neutral to homosexual happenings , if it was there at that time . neither did it glorify it like ancient greece nor did it condemm it like catholics .....

[sanjaya]

many homosexual people are born that way and it isn't a choice. In fact I remember reading a news article about the hindu attitude to homosexuality.
It quoted a hindu who mentioned a scripture which says homosexuality is determined by a predominance of female energy caused by the time of the year when the child is born. But the scripture instructed couples to conceive at certain times to avoid having a homosexual child.

Hi Rainycity. Do you know what Hindu Scripture this is found in, and where? I didn't know that Hindu Scriptures ever directly address homosexuality, and I would be interested to read more on this.

Regarding whether homosexuality is congenital or not, I think the issue isn't all that relevant. Maybe some people are born with homosexual tendancies. On the other hand, many people have genetic predispositions to violence, alcoholism, and other things that we have no problem calling deviant. I believe that homosexuality is likewise deviant (i.e. different from standard practices in most societies). Unlike violence or alcoholism, it doesn't infringe on others' rights, so I don't think that anything has to be done about homosexuality on a societal level. As I mentioned earlier, Hinduism stresses the importance of teaching moral values in the home, not through legislation. Therefore, the only time I would ever "oppose" homosexuality is if the issue ever appeared in my family life.

Let's say, hypothetically, that my mom decides she's gay and that she needs to leave my dad to be with some gay lover (actually this isn't so hypothetical; in America a high-profile Christian priest and a governor have done just that). I'm not going to accept "I was born that way" for an excuse. I'm going to tell her that she has a problem, that she needs psychiatric help, and that she isn't going to break up the family and abandon her dharma as a wife and mother over some foolish sexually deviant whim. I bring up this example not to foment hatred towards gays, but simply to highlight why I view homosexuality as deviant behavior and how this affects the way I treat gays. I will oppose it only when it starts to become harmful.

Of course this is an extreme scenario. Again I want to emphasize that I believe in tolerating homosexual behavior and in treating gays with respect and friendship. However, I think that we're going a bit far when we say that homosexuality is normal or that it's equivalent to heterosexuality. Having a spouse of the opposite sex and raising children is a good thing. I don't believe that having a homosexual partner is the moral equivalent. If two people want to do this, I don't want to stand in their way. But tolerating something isn't the same as approving of it.

Anyway, I'm not terribly knowledgable on what our Scriptures say about all this (if anything), so I would be most interested in any comments about that.

[TatTvamAsi]

"Hindus are homophobic"?

In India, especially Hinduism, there was a provision made for a '3rd gender'.


In short, we don't give a damn whether someone is homosexual or not as long as they don't bother us (publicly or privately). This has been the approach of Hindus and Hinduism for thousands of years. That is why we have peacefully coexisted with each other despite our differences for millenia.
JAI HIND!


I'm just wondering if homosexuality is considered a bad thing in hinduism or by most hindus? I was just reading a thread on these forums about a sikh criticism of ramakrishna which mentioned a book that claimed he was homosexual. Apparently, these claims caused a lot of controversy in india because hindus are homophobic.

[kshama]

Namaskar blessed members,

Interesting topic indeed. In my humble opinion, whatever sexual orientation or sexual preferences one has now in this birth is due to past karmas and latent impressions of the past.

God is epitome of compassion, saying that, whatever one may be, God will be always be loving towards His devotees.

Homosexuals have to tune into God, seeks solace in Him. One must remember, even a greatest sinner in the world can turn into a better person, by the grace of God. So, use this birth to seek God. He will never abandon anyone.

I would like to add something for the heterosexuals. Live and let live. You may or may not approve homosexual culture, you are entitled to your own opinion, but do accept homosexuals as part of the society. Many times homosexuals are abused, ridiculed, bashed, boycotted, hurt and been entitled to many unpleasant things.

People tend to forget, the same God resides in them. We do not know what is it like to be in their shoes. Have tolerance. I am sure, god has plans for anyone. So accept them as part of society, that's my humble request.

[RamaRaksha]

I do believe that we are children/students of God, with no exceptions. I have to admit that when I saw two men kissing it made me uncomfortable, but i should not let my personal feelings cloud my judgement. Homosexuality is not wrong, they are just born that way.

It encourages me to see all these positive comments about Gays and Homosexuality and yet i am disappointed that Indian laws are geared against gays. These laws came from British times, I guess we still maintain a second-class mentality, still afraid to strike out on our own.

Don't understand why Sunday should be a holiday - that's not according to Hinduism, it should be Tuesday? Or why are we saying that this is the year 2009, that only if we take the christian calender. Why don't we Hindus use our own?

[RamaRaksha]

"In my humble opinion, whatever sexual orientation or sexual preferences one has now in this birth is due to past karmas and latent impressions of the past"

Hinduism is a Teacher faith, God our Guru on our path to Moksha. Each life is an opportunity for us to sit in God's classroom and learn. As the saying goes - walk in someone else's shoes before you judge someone - did i get the saying right?

Only by being born as a Dog will be learn to love unconditionally. Only by being born as a bird will we learn the joys of flight.

Those who hate gays may be born as a gay person in the next life, then maybe they get a different perspective on this issue.

[heartfully]

Namaste! I love how you expressed this.

Love,
Heartfull


"In my humble opinion, whatever sexual orientation or sexual preferences one has now in this birth is due to past karmas and latent impressions of the past"

Hinduism is a Teacher faith, God our Guru on our path to Moksha. Each life is an opportunity for us to sit in God's classroom and learn. As the saying goes - walk in someone else's shoes before you judge someone - did i get the saying right?

Only by being born as a Dog will be learn to love unconditionally. Only by being born as a bird will we learn the joys of flight.

Those who hate gays may be born as a gay person in the next life, then maybe they get a different perspective on this issue.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté RamaRaksha,


"Only by being born as a Dog will be learn to love unconditionally. Only by being born as a bird will we learn the joys of flight.

.

If I may, let me ask a few questions. In your opinion who is having the experience ? If in the last life one is born as a dog, then in this life does not recall any of those experiences, how is the value derived from that experience? How does the learning occur without recall?

Do you have ( or others) have a POV on this matter?

praṇām

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam




Hinduism is a Teacher faith, God our Guru on our path to Moksha. Each life is an opportunity for us to sit in God's classroom and learn. As the saying goes - walk in someone else's shoes before you judge someone - did i get the saying right?

No a saying does not make it right, a judge does not walk in someone's shoes to give judgment, it is based on facts presented.



Only by being born as a Dog will be learn to love unconditionally. Only by being born as a bird will we learn the joys of flight.

Those who hate gays may be born as a gay person in the next life, then maybe they get a different perspective on this issue.pure speculation.

To live and let live is the motto, I may personally abhor the idea that does not mean I hate the guy.

And because of my stance I have to become guy in some future life to understand it, just make no sense, it is injustice to say the least and there is nothing but justice is his court.

We may as well say because of ahimsa I hate eating meat and just to appreciate that I may become a tiger, that is not how karma works, you are simply speculating there is no bases in your may be.

Our birth is largely dictated by our desires and our karma would reflect that.

A dog is an obedient creature, Lord Datatraya took that as one of his Guru, one does not have to be a dog to learn that, and to call it a selfless love would not be my idea either,
for me no one can come close to a mother who is an embodiment of unconditional love

Jai Shree Krishna

[Shaan]

Sagotrite and Salingiye matchmaking is prohibited in manu smriti.

Sagotriye means in same family name, Salingiye means in same gender. So in hinduism its not allowed according to manu smriti.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Sagotrite and Salingiye matchmaking is prohibited in manu smriti.
Sagotriye means in same family name, Salingiye means in same gender. So in hinduism its not allowed according to manu smriti.

shaan brings us two words that are interesting to look at:


salingiye = saliṅga
sagotriye = sagotraNote both contain 'sa' ; sa is connected with 'sam' which has many meanings. Yet when compounded with nouns it may be translated as

having the same
together or along with
having , possessing, containing The next word is liṅga - meaning 'mark' or 'sign', also means 'the sign of gender or sex' Hence we get sa+liṅga or having the same gender of sex.

And gotra is defined as a 'family enclosed by the hurdle', family , race , lineage . So sa+gotra is of the same family

praṇām

[amra]

Homosexuality is an unnatural disease of the mind. Psychopaths are not condoned and given equal rights. If someone has some problem in their mind do we condone it and say it is done to Karma don't worry let him be messed up. If someone is dying in front of you would you use this argument?

gays are Rogi's they need help to be cured of this unnaturalism. But when a society begins to condone certain diseases and makes them acceptable in society then that society is on the way to destruction.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Amra: You are welcome to your view but you must know by now that view is disappearing fast, as stated on here, and by many experts on genes, sexuality, psychology etc. In America, gay teen suicide outnumbers hetero teen suicide 8 to 1. I always wonder what I would have done if any of my children would have been gay.

Aum Namasivaya

[sanjaya]

To live and let live is the motto, I may personally abhor the idea that does not mean I hate the guy.

Yes, this is a good point. Homosexuality may be unnatural and undesirable, but if they're not hurting anyone, I see no reason to do anything about the problem. Nonetheless, homosexuality is a problem (even if people are born gay, this doesn't make it any less of a problem than other genetic disorders), and I don't think we should view it as equal to heterosexuality.

Often we are presented with homosexuality as purely harmless. And indeed, if someone is able to be homosexual without hurting anyone, then that's fine with me. But often times homosexuality breaks up families. I think that family solidarity is a more important Hindu virtue than whatever value might be found in letting people engage in deviant behavior. How can we appeal to the virtue of family solidarity and tell Hindus that they should refrain from converting to other religions, and then use a different line of thinking when dealing with homosexuality? Just as some people might say that they have an intrinsic and immutable desire to practice homosexuality, Muslims argue that all humans are born Muslim, and I could very well see a person who leaves Hinduism for Islam saying that they were "born Muslim." We would reject that line of thinking, so why not with homosexuality?

Again, I'm not suggesting any sort of public policy here. I'm not saying that we actively do anything to prevent people from practicing homosexuality (indeed I'd be very much against that). But I hope it never comes to the point when people start celebrating homosexuality as a good thing. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not going to do anything to stop people from practicing homosexuality, but you won't find me at a gay pride parade.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


amra-jī offers the following:


Homosexuality is an unnatural disease of the mind.

I am not an expert in this field, I do not know if this is a dis-ease or not; I do know it is not right for my path.

One person said ( not of this HDF forum) that we find this behavior in nature, hence it is natural. I did some looking around and found ,that is, the scientists found, about 130 animals engage in same-sex activities.

According to the wise there are 4.8 million species. FYI scientists have documented 3.8 million and still counting, according to the Discovery Magazine I have read. That makes 130 animal types ~0.00000270% of this total population aligned to this behavior. This included a vast majority that were bi-sexual. Let's say the scientists are wrong by 1,000% , this number is still substantially small 0.0000270%

Now is the animal kingdom behavior's something that is 'natural' to a human's behavior, that we would like to emulate so we could call it ~natural~ and hence good/right/acceptable?

That would suggest it would be okay to eat another species offspring; or the father of a herd ( hippo-s in question here) killing his own male calf to insure his dominance in the herd. That ape's raid on another's tribe and kill the young. A killer whale killing a seal and using it for sport, not to eat?

One could argue , man has done this over the centuries how are we different? As I see it we have choice, discrimination and we have guidance from the wise on what is the best behaviors to engage in.
The animal kingdom is predicated on survival - their DNA is tuned to the survival instincts. We can say so is 'primal man'. Yet do men and woman only come together for survival ? My observations say no, my experiences say no.

That said, several of my friends are gay. I am friends with who they are, not what they do. I respect the notion that many gays feel they are wired that way, they do not have a choice on who they are attracted to. I respect that, yet it is not for me.

praṇām

[eriko]

I don't see homosexuality as anything unnatural, maybe in the physical sense but at least not in the spritual one.

I have never read Manu Smriti, and never intend to. Actually I have never read any Hindu scripture expect abridged versions of Ramayana, Mahabhararta and Buddh Charitra in school and if you take opening the Bhagvad once ot twice as reading. I know this isn't a good thing but I feel I am not yet ready for bigger things.

We all believe in Karma and reincarnation, isn't it? This is the crux of Sanatana Dharma. This means the soul is without any gender. So when there is no gender the question of homosexuality or heterosexuality doesn't arise at all.

Besides there have been many experiments that scientists/psychologists have done on the infants and they have found homosexuality to be a gentic trait, nothing to do with a disease of mind or whatever.

The whole problem is like someone pointed out, homosexuals confuse what they do with who they are. This the western point of view. If you look into the Indian history you don't find any discrimination on the basis of sexual preferences.

[eriko]

Because procreation is physical activity, it is essential for taking the population forward but isn't vital for survival of an individual. Nor does it have any spiritual significance.

[rahulg]

I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality, nor do I see, for that matter, anything sacred about heterosexuality. They both revolve around sex, period. Besides, it's hard to imagine that people have never felt any attraction for the same gender. They must have...at least on a few occasions.

Anyway, Hinduism is progressive and changes with the times. Our religion treats homosexuals in the same way it treats heterosexuals, and that is with respect.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté eriko


Because procreation is physical activity, it is essential for taking the population forward but isn't vital for survival of an individual. Nor does it have any spiritual significance.

While I can see why you would say this, it is not congruent with what the upaniṣad-s offer us. This total creation is of spiritual intent and development. From your POV there is no spiritual significance. From the wise, all there is, is spiritual intent.

This is offered and reviewed in the praśna upaniṣad and chāndogya upaniṣad. If you are not open to this knowledge, then your POV will remain in its present understanding which makes sense.

It would be like you telling me, yajvan, the earth goes around the sun, and me saying 'how can that be? just look up and watch the sun, you can see for yourself' the sun circles the earth . Your POV comes from your studies, yet you never made the absolute calculations yourself, you depended on others ( the scientist or astronomers).

We too stand on the shoulders of others, the wise, as they 'see' and comprehend much more then we can. From where did this universe come from? And what propels it to expand? Is this not brahman?

Brahman is based upon bṛh , to grow, expand, to shine. And brahman is prājapati - the Lord of all creatures. Is He not spiritual in nature? and His desire to expand via his creation? He is spiritual and His expansion is spiritual - yet we see material. Thus the blemish , and what the wise wish us to re-consider by personal and direct experience, not just their word.

praṇām

[sanjaya]

Besides there have been many experiments that scientists/psychologists have done on the infants and they have found homosexuality to be a gentic trait, nothing to do with a disease of mind or whatever.

The whole problem is like someone pointed out, homosexuals confuse what they do with who they are. This the western point of view. If you look into the Indian history you don't find any discrimination on the basis of sexual preferences.

Yes Eriko, you're correct that Indians in general have never really discriminated against any group of people, even gays. Like Yajvan, I also have gay friends, and I never avoid people simply because they are gay. I think we are all in agreement that discrimination against gays is flat out wrong. However, something Indian culture has been known to do is instill moral values in the family rather than via public policy. I know Indian parents who would chastise and correct their children for coming home and saying that they're gay. You pointed out that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Though there's some debate, let's grant that for the purposes of this discussion. As Yajvan also alluded, behavior that can be explained by genetics isn't necessarily right. A lot of bad things, like violence and alcoholism, are also due to genetic traits. The alcoholic can't get drunk, harm those around him, and then blame it on his genes. Likewise, a gay person can't say that his behavior is morally equal to heterosexuality simply because it is genetically inherited.

[kshama]

Dear Blessed Members of the Forum,

It is very interesting to see your views on this matter. When Sanjaya Ji brought up the subject about parents correcting and chastising their children, I thought what if, it happens to my children?

Well as a parent, I would advise the pro and cons of being homosexual in this very bitter world. Some people out there,how educated they are, won't accept homosexuals as a human being 100%. The legal issues, health issues, monagamous relationship in a relations, lifestyle and all matters will be discussed.

But then, I will leave it up to my child. As a parent, though I might not like the idea, she/he is still my child. The rest I can only pray to God that he/she will lead a normal life as possible. Though my stand on this issue might be bizarre, but that is what I will do.

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste all:

Firstly, homosexuality is not a choice. This still seems to be an assumption, as per kshama's hypothetical advice to her child.

Secondly, sexual drive is a strong force, not something we can alter over time all that easily, although it can be done. We can change it to other forces, mainly rising kundalini, with brahmacarya, and a ton of work distracting it. I have never heard of anyone legitimately being able to alter the same or opposite gender nature of this drive.

When I had gay bashing or gay hate expressed in my junior high teaching days, I countered with this fact: Usually the people who express the most vitriolic hate towards gays right after puberty, are gay people themselves, in an insecure defense mechanism simply to let everyone know they themselves are definitely not gay. This all due to the negative social stigma.

As well, many swamis will tell you that the things you observe in others that you despise are merely reflections of those qualities in yourself.

How can we walk in those shoes any more than we can walk in the shoes of the opposite genders? Which man here has the ego to say he knows how a woman thinks via his own experiential knowledge?

Aum Namasivaya

[rahulg]

Namaste all:

Firstly, homosexuality is not a choice. This still seems to be an assumption, as per kshama's hypothetical assumptions to her child.



Namaste Eastern Mind,

I do not not know whether it's genetic or a matter of preference. Even if it was the latter, I still don't see why homosexuality must be frowned at. If a person makes a choice, we must respect that. People have the right to be homosexuals if they so wish. All forms of discrimination must end.

[Eastern Mind]

This thread has piqued my curiosity. I would like to explore it from a deeper level. We don't believe in punishment, and yet karma is there as a belief. I am wondering what would be the past life experiences that would cause one to be born as a gay person in the current life. Clearly it is the karmic consequence of something. But of what? What would cause this as an effect. I don't know of any scripture that has anything to say on it. I am looking for insights from other members.

One thing I do know that might be related in some way is the notion or belief that older souls who are mature enough in evolution will sometimes purposely choose a lower caste birth or an ugly body simply for the purpose or working out karma, and further demolishing of ego. The Tamil Saint, Auviyar (spelling) did just that, I believe. Perhaps it is the old soul who chooses to live a life as a gay person. Then indeed choice would come into it. On this level I would disagree with my own previous assertion that it is not a choice.

Another thought would be that it may be the karma of an adulterer, especially of one who sired or bore children, but didn't do the dharma of raising them. To be reborn gay might balance out that previous digression. These are just ideas and conjectures, not based on any scriptures, or deep spiritual realisations of mine.

Aum Namasivaya

[kshama]

Namaskar Blessed Members,

Regarding Eastern Mind Ji's question, in my humble opinion, I can say, our karma plays some role on how we are in this birth. Now if someone is gay in this birth, IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE BAD IN THEIR PREVIOUS LIVES. There could be many reasons why they are such in this birth. Only God knows.

There are many things beyond human comprehension, such as the law of karma. So what are the more important things ponder about: how to do good to humanity, how to be a good bhakta and to be a good person in this life.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté EM,

you mention,


Firstly, homosexuality is not a choice.

Several people I know are bi-sexual. They say exactly the opposite of what you offer - they want choice .
Cole Porter was a famous composer and song writer (circa 1930's, USA). Extremely talented, married and openly bi-sexual. For me I am quite fond of his music , not of his choices.

Can you perhaps rationalize this so I better understand... for many it is a choice based upon my observations and conversations.

praṇām

[amra]

Genes are not the cause of traits in Human Beings. There is a new development in Genetics called Epigenetics it rejects the primacy of DNA as the only causal factor. It also emphasises the causal factor of the environment. The environment causes certain Genes to trigger not only external but internal environment - thoughts - so gays may be created by abnormal societal conditions.

In a society where gays are portrayed as absolutely normal people more people will be gay because it is seen as acceptable. There is a whole schema of thought that has been put into movement to normalise gays. You can see it in the media. A film was made about gay hero harvey kinsey who pioneered sexual research on gayism and concluded it was 'normal' what they forgot to tell you in the film is that this gay hero used many young children in his 'experiments' in sexuality and thought it fine to be a paedophile. And this mans research on sexuality is what gays brandish ion peoples faces to show they are normal.

This schema of thought needs to be pushed in peoples faces because most people have traditional morality and patriarchality. Which are the foundations of any society. Making gays normal is part the movement occuring in todays world to destroy and atomise society. We can see families breaking up and community spirit failing. Gay rights are another way of saying 'do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law' said by a prominent satanist. Gayism erodes peoples ideas of family values and the primacy of family and community. This is the real issue not gays in themselves whom i could not care about but the insidious gay movement

[kshama]

Namaskar Blessed Members,

I was reading Amra Ji's post and yes, there are some truths. But acceptance of homosexuals as human beings does not mean normalization of homosexual culture. It is quite unfair to say by accepting this will pose threat to normal family values etc.

In this world today lots of unjust happening and people do not seem to care, because they are not the affected one. Our minds too are accustomed to beliefs that somewhat biased. E.g. A man may have visit a house of ill-repute, have a chain of lovers, but yet people at large view him as a man, if a woman does so, they call it another word. Sexism takes place here.

When a family is ruined because of an extra-marital affair by the husband, people at large don't say the husband is at wrong, they will blame the wife. Sexism again takes place here.

In another scenario, lets says a husband gets involved in an affair, and the family members got to know this. They will try to patch things up and make the couple stay together. Why? Because a man will be man, and women should take it as fate. But let's say the wife is at fault, the woman is unfit for the family and divorce ensues. Again sexism takes place

Many BIG things are overseen. In normal heterosexual relationships too there are BIG BIG problems. Problems caused by man and women in heterosexual relationships too can ruin a family, values and the society at large. But it is highly biased to say homosexuals will tarnish family values etc.

I am sure many people might not able to digest my views. These are solely my view, my views should not in anywaybe guideline to how to lead a life. As I believe everyone is capable of making judgements and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I am sorry if my views hurt the sentiments and values of the members here. Namaste.

[amra]

Kshama it is true what you write. A difference i'd like to make clear is this; it is accepted that extra marital affairs are unethical. They still go on, but if a movement is started and a group of beings say that they should be allowed to be adulterers and they attempt to normalise immoral behaviour in society - then this is wrong. It then makes others feel as though it is acceptable to behave in this manner. If this occured society would break up. This is what is happening with gays. There will always be gays but should we as a society condone and normalise this form of low lustful behaviour.

[Eastern Mind]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté EM,

you mention,


Several people I know are bi-sexual. They say exactly the opposite of what you offer - they want choice .



Namaste Yajvan: I think it would be obvious that bisexuals would have a choice, yes. I wasn't referring to bisexuals at all. And of course you've read that at least some bisexuals are actually gay, but behave in a bisexual way to hope for a change, or feign some hetero behaviour just to get along better in society.

This is how I personally got a better feeling for what it would be like to be gay. If I imagine that I myself am gay, it is basically impossible. I do no better at that than I do imagining I'm a woman. Its simply not part of this lifetime's makeup in this body. Now I would imagine that for a gay person to imagine that they are hetero would be equally as difficult. Its simply not in their makeup to think so.

Another reason I don't believe its a choice is that no person in their right mind would make that choiuce given the cultural attitudes towards it

Aum Namasivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste all:

Firstly, homosexuality is not a choice. This still seems to be an assumption, as per kshama's hypothetical advice to her child.

Secondly, sexual drive is a strong force, not something we can alter over time all that easily, although it can be done. We can change it to other forces, mainly rising kundalini, with brahmacarya, and a ton of work distracting it. I have never heard of anyone legitimately being able to alter the same or opposite gender nature of this drive.

When I had gay bashing or gay hate expressed in my junior high teaching days, I countered with this fact: Usually the people who express the most vitriolic hate towards gays right after puberty, are gay people themselves, in an insecure defense mechanism simply to let everyone know they themselves are definitely not gay. This all due to the negative social stigma.

As well, many swamis will tell you that the things you observe in others that you despise are merely reflections of those qualities in yourself.

How can we walk in those shoes any more than we can walk in the shoes of the opposite genders? Which man here has the ego to say he knows how a woman thinks via his own experiential knowledge?

Aum Namasivaya

For those who didn't get the deduction in the above words, I'll be more direct. It is my opinion and that of many that those who enter into gay-bashing of any degree are at a much higher likelihood to be gay themselves. You outwardly disdain what you don't like about yourself.

Aum Namasivaya

[amra]

No Eastern Mind there is such a thing as an impartial opinion which is unconditioned by desires or fears, but the extent to which an individual is impartial that is totally subjective and not something we can speculate on. I agree with the principle of what psychologists call projection which is what you describe but the extent of this projection is individual and depends on how much the subject identifies with his deficiencies.

[Eastern Mind]

Vanakkam: Yes, Amra, you are correct. Projecting is not black and white, just grey. It does vary with individuals. I was merely trying to point out something that others may not have thought about.

I want to share a personal experience in this area that has influenced me a lot, and caused me to explore the situation for better understanding.

Once upon a time I sat at a negotiating table with teacher colleagues negotiating our collective agreement with the local board of trustees. A gay (female) colleague had approached me about a particular clause in the contract that she felt was in need of a change. (Actually she had had a quite difficult time coming out to me personally as she didn't know Hinduism's stance on the matter.) She also wanted to remain anonymous so that the parents, students, and board members wouldn't know. This was in fear of losing her job.

The particular clause in question was funeral leave. The clause listed 'up to five days with pay for spouses, children and parents. Further, a large group of other relatives were listed for a one day paid leave just to attend the funeral. That was it. There was no mention of close friends, and especially of gay significant others. In other words there was blatant discrimination in the contract regarding rights.

I remember to this day the looks on the faces of the board's negotiating representative and the board members present, after I made the suggestion to change the wording from 'spouse' to 'significant others'. They stared at me as if I had just broken someone's expensive vase. A look of homophobic awe that said, "What? There are no gay teachers in this district. And if there are those people don't deserve the rights the rest of us normal people do." The clause was left unchanged that year, but I heard later that it did get changed eventually.

This event lead me to research and be aware of the issue, and to this day I carry some of the compassion generated then.

I apologise for ranting.

Aum Namasivaya

[atanu]

Namaste Friends,

I agree with ksama in general.

What about Hijras (Eunuchs)? Even, if amraji says that environment triggers certain habit or bad habits, but the pre-disposition has to be there. And, till the scriptures were revealed to me, I did not know that I was the author of my own pre-dispositions. And so with every Pasu. Righteousness is easy. I am not saying that one should actively promote the destructive or abberant traits as normal. But can those who pass the judgements vouch of their adherence to requirements of purity? I doubt.

A hijra, is usually considered a member of "the third gender" — neither man nor woman. Most are physically male or intersex, but some are physically female. Hijras usually refer to themselves linguistically as female, and usually dress as women. In Hindu contexts, hijras belong to a special caste. They are usually devotees of the mother goddess Bahuchara Mata, and/or Shiva. In Tamil Nadu each year in April/May, hijras — or aravanis, as they are called — celebrate an eighteen-day religious festival. In North India Goddess Bahuchar is worshiped by Pavaiyaa. In South India, the goddess Yellamma is believed to have the power to change one's sex. Male devotees in female clothing are known as Jogappa. They perform similar roles to hijra, such as dancing and singing at birth ceremonies and weddings.

Kama Sutra mentions the performance of fellatio by masculine and feminine people of a third sex (tritiya prakriti). This passage has been interpreted as referring to men who desired other men, so-called eunuchs ("those disguised as males, and those that are disguised as females") etc.,

Hinduism is not too judgemental. Else, "Sarva Dharma Paritajjya---" would not have been taught. Aberration is not good for society but many a times abberants are put in terrible situations before "Sarva Dharma Paritajjya---" is revealed.

However, it is during the era of the British raj, that authorities attempted to eradicate hijras, by placing them under Criminal Tribes Act 1871 and labelleling them a "criminal tribe", hence subjected to complusory registration, strict monitoring and stigmatized for a long time. Ater independence however, they were denotified in 1952, though the century old stigma continues.

In Hinduism it is maha paap to walk over remnant food, remaining after a meal on table or on floor. It is transgression to Vishnu, who is the food. But Ramana Maharshi taught that these rules apply to those who know of the scriptural injunctions and not for people who know nothing about the rule, such as foreigners etc. This was told by Ramana Maharshi, to His mother who was very critical of foreigners in Ramana Asramam.

Similarly, many people, as mere puppets, but under the illusion of doership, get trapped in situations. Passing righteous judgements on them is actually a bigger ignorance and most christian like. On the other hand, sages are compassionate. Truth has always been given a higher place than ritualistic/legalistic purity. That is how Jabala became a Brahmana suitable for initiation.

What I say is because of the following:

Brahma Sutra

SECTION - II

Topic-1: Dream State
----
5. From the meditation on the supreme Lord, however, becomes manifest that which remains obscured; because the soul’s bondage and freedom are derived from Him.
6. Or rather that covering occurs also on account of connection with the body.
----------------------------------------------

For the conditions of Pasus, Pasupati alone is the judge and the redeemer. Many are Shiva bhaktas because they are abberant in some way, since God alone accepts all. One should read the stories of Shiva bhaktas such as Sundara and others in Shiva Bhakta Vilasam to understand what is bhakti.

I repeat that I am not voting for promotion of any abberation as good.

Om Namah Shivaya

[devotee]

Namaste,

EM has said correctly. I, being a male, cannot know a homosexual, a lesbian or whatever ... how they feel & why they are so.

And who gives me authority to say anything against them ? It is for them to decide what is good for them. The problem is that I try to set right things about which I actually know absolutely nothing ! It is like males making rules for females ... how they should behave, look etc.

If whatever is an aberration is wrong then having a genius among us in the society is also wrong, because that is an aberration !

OM

[rahulg]

Good points by everyone. I'd like to conclude by saying that most musicians, poets etc. have been homosexuals. Thank god we didn't have bigots in Russia, or the world wouldn't have heard of Tchaikovsky! The same goes for Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde and many others...all this world needs is a little tolerance.

[Eastern Mind]

Vanakkam:

Yes, Devotee. And this concept extends out to the folly that all people think the same. It gets applied in all aspects of life, and is the causal factor in debate and argument. So silly.

One is so convinced that Tirupati temple is THE temple of India that he goes about trying to tell others all the time that he forgets to even go back and humbly worship. But its fun to watch, and learn, and watch , and learn some more.

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté atanu,


What about Hijras (Eunuchs)?

Is this a Tamil word, hijras? Is it equal to klība in saṃskṛt ?

Also, the garuḍa purāṇa offers ideas on homosexual behavior if you are considering different view-points or for those that are vaiśṇava.

praṇām

[atanu]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté atanu,
Is this a Tamil word, hijras? Is it equal to klība in saṃskṛt ?

Also, the garuḍa purāṇa offers ideas on homosexual behavior if you are considering different view-points or for those that are vaiśṇava.

praṇām


Namaste yajvanji,

Hijra is a north indian word for Eunuch. klIba, the sanskrit word, however, is IMO, more general, though it also includes the third prakriti. Where the Eunuch thing is very much a physical peculiarity, the klIba on the other hand includes the peculiarities of mental domain also and is primarily used for impotency.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam all

People do what they do is to derive pleasure, weather something is natural or otherwise is inconsequential to them, the over riding factor is sense gratification.

Before we start to endorse or condemn something on a Dharma forum, one has to consider weather if sex in any form except for procreation, is conducive to spiritual progress.

Lord Krishna says it burns like fire and is never satiated.

Jai Shree Krishna

[jonaz]

When i recognized the similarity between men and women,
i could see that they are much more alike than they often think.

So i have made a conscious choice to no longer make any distinction between
a heterosexual and a homosexual act.

On the otherhand, i totally agree with the poster above.
Desire for pleasure is what keeps us suffering.

Why would we hold on to pleasure if we can let go of attachment,
and forever dwell in the divine blissfull happiness...

a bliss so much stronger than any kind of pleasure of the flesh could ever give us?

[heartfully]

Namaste,

I apologize if any of this has already been asked & answered and I missed perusing the thread.

1) Isn't there a goddess who is popularly worshiped by gays? I have to google it again. I'll post what I find.

2) Are there any good autobiographies on gay Hindus (both in and outside of India)? How about movies (fictional or documentary)?

3) I like the attempt to make room for people with something like third gender. I'll google that, too. I think the word "homosexuality" causes some people to focus on the sexual aspects of same gender attraction. Just as heterosexual relationships are about the heart more than the sex, so it is for people who have same gender attraction. What would be a better term, in your opinions, for "homosexual" so that it would take into account that same gender attraction is no more or less interested in sex than opposite gender attraction?

4) It is only in recent times that the rights of gays have been protected in the US. Hate crimes against gays were tolerated as if gay bashing was acceptable. Would the majority of Hindus frown on gay bashing or ignore it as it was ignored until recently in the US.

5) I don't think that homosexuality is the reason gays identify so strongly with their sexuality. If you look at minorities who are oppressed or discriminated against, there often grows an attempt to create self-esteem within the community. Women did it in the 60s in our country. People of different races, with different health issues, etc, have had to create a way to fight back at a society which thought them inferior.

In order for minorities to fight back at the mores of the society, they often have to raise confidence within their community first.

6) How big is the gay pride movement in India?

7) I'm still trying to remember the name of the prince who came out a few years ago. I will post what I find on that also.

Love to you,
Heartfully

[heartfully]

The gay prince's name is Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil. Here's an article I found that includes info about him and the topic of homosexuality in India: http://abcnews.go.com/International/Travel/story?id=7362042&page=1

Check out GALVA, an organization for gay Hindus.
http://www.galva108.org/hinduism.html

Wikipedia gives a fairly thorough report on the topic of homosexuality in Hinduism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Hinduism

Hijras:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)#Hijras_and_religion

And the goddess I was trying to remember is Bahuchara Mata:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)#Hijras_and_religion

Thought I'd share the links since others might be interested in exploring them.

Love to you,
Heartfully

[devotee]

Come on, Heartfully, why are you so much interested in gays & their activities ? I don't think people here are so much interested to know them in so much detail.

Let them live their life as a normal human beings ! We have better things to do than keep thinking on sexual preferences !!

OM

[rainycity]

Come on, Heartfully, why are you so much interested in gays & their activities ? I don't think people here are so much interested to know them in so much detail.


I want to know the traditional hindu attitude to homosexuality.

[Eastern Mind]

I want to know the traditional hindu attitude to homosexuality.

Vannakkam:
If you go back and read or re-read this whole thread, it basically exhausts almost all opinions on the matter. There is no constant traditional Hindu attitude.

Aum namasivaya

[Ramakrishna]

I don't see homosexuality as anything unnatural, maybe in the physical sense but at least not in the spritual one.

I have never read Manu Smriti, and never intend to. Actually I have never read any Hindu scripture expect abridged versions of Ramayana, Mahabhararta and Buddh Charitra in school and if you take opening the Bhagvad once ot twice as reading. I know this isn't a good thing but I feel I am not yet ready for bigger things.

We all believe in Karma and reincarnation, isn't it? This is the crux of Sanatana Dharma. This means the soul is without any gender. So when there is no gender the question of homosexuality or heterosexuality doesn't arise at all.

Besides there have been many experiments that scientists/psychologists have done on the infants and they have found homosexuality to be a gentic trait, nothing to do with a disease of mind or whatever.

The whole problem is like someone pointed out, homosexuals confuse what they do with who they are. This the western point of view. If you look into the Indian history you don't find any discrimination on the basis of sexual preferences.

I pretty much agree with this. I have always viewed Hinduism as being tolerant toward homosexuals, rather than discriminatory and hypocritical like some other religions. I find the hijra to be very interesting, and they have been mentioned and approved of in the Mahabharata.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté ramakrishna,


.... and they have been mentioned and approved of in the Mahabharata.
Would you be so kind as to point out the parva¹ so I may read first hand this knowledge and information?

praṇām

words
parva or parvan पर्वन् a division

[Ramakrishna]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté ramakrishna,


Would you be so kind as to point out the parva¹ so I may read first hand this knowledge and information?

praṇām

words
parva or parvan पर्वन् a division

"Arjuna replied, "O lord of the Earth, I will declare myself as one of the neuter sex. O monarch, it is, indeed difficult to hide the marks of the bowstring on my arms. I will, however, cover both my cicatrized arms with bangles. Wearing brilliant rings on my ears and conch-bangles on my wrists and causing a braid to hang down from my head, I shall, O king, appear as one of the third sex, Brihannala by name. And living as a female I shall (always) entertain the king and the inmates of the inner apartments by reciting stories. And, O king, I shall also instruct the women of Virata's palace in singing and delightful modes of dancing."
Mahabharata, Book 4: Virata Parva: Pandava-Pravesa: Section II

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté ramakrishna


"Arjuna replied, "O lord of the Earth, I will declare myself as one of the neuter sex. O monarch, it is, indeed difficult to hide the marks of the bowstring on my arms. I will, however, cover both my cicatrized arms with bangles. Wearing brilliant rings on my ears and conch-bangles on my wrists and causing a braid to hang down from my head, I shall, O king, appear as one of the third sex, Brihannala by name. And living as a female I shall (always) entertain the king and the inmates of the inner apartments by reciting stories. And, O king, I shall also instruct the women of Virata's palace in singing and delightful modes of dancing."
Mahabharata, Book 4: Virata Parva: Pandava-Pravesa: Section II
Thank you for taking the time to find this... this parva describes how each pāṇḍavaḥ plans on 'hiding' for the last year of their exile in the forest.
Yet I am not clear in my mind on how I may come to your POV by reading this. You mention in your post:


I find the hijra to be very interesting, and they have been mentioned and approved of in the Mahabharata.
Are you saying then that due to Arjun's choice, of his disguise, that then suggests approval?

praṇām

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Yajvan ji


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté ramakrishna
Are you saying then that due to Arjun's choice, of his disguise, that then suggests approval?

praṇām


I don't think this was Arjun's choice, he was cursed by Urvashi for rejecting her proposal, to be impotent.napuMsaka (http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=napuMsaka&direction=SE&script=HK&link=yes)m.impotant (http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=impotant&direction=ES&script=HK&link=yes) man (http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=man&direction=ES&script=HK&link=yes)नपुंसकnapuMsaka (http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=napuMsaka&direction=SE&script=HK&link=yes)n.neuter (http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=neuter&direction=ES&script=HK&link=yes) gender (http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=gender&direction=ES&script=HK&link=yes)
Later Indra reduced this for one year only, which helped him in Agyatvas year.

Jai Shree Krishna

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté ganeshprasad,


Pranam Yajvan ji
I don't think this was Arjun's choice, he was cursed by Urvashi for rejecting her proposal, to be impotent.
Later Indra reduced this for one year only, which helped him in Agyatvas year. Jai Shree Krishna

Yes, you are correct! - I had forgotten about this curse. It still makes me wonder if carrying out this action is still considered 'approval'.

praṇām

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Yajvan


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté ganeshprasad,



Yes, you are correct! - I had forgotten about this curse. It still makes me wonder if carrying out this action is still considered 'approval'.

praṇām


Not in my books, it only means one is unable to be manly.

Jai Shree Krishna

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan ji, GaneshPrasad ji and others,

The thread's main point of discussion was, "Homosexuality" and not the "third sex". Mentioning a "napunshak"/impotent or "third sex" in Mahabharata doesn't approve homosexuality.

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté devotee,


Namaste Yajvan ji, GaneshPrasad ji and others,

The thread's main point of discussion was, "Homosexuality" and not the "third sex". Mentioning a "napunshak"/impotent or "third sex" in Mahabharata doesn't approve homosexuality.
OM

Yes, you are correct - that is why I asked ramakrishna the parvan he was referring to so we can look and consider
from where this persepctive has come.


praṇām

[Ramakrishna]

yajvan: Thank you for your clarification. My sincere apologies for being misinformed. You sound like a very intelligent and well-informed person. I do not feel like going back and reading all the previous posts, so would you be so kind as to tell me your opinion of Hinduism and homosexuality? Do you believe it is against Hinduism, or does it not really matter?

Thank you

[SeekingPeaceOfMind]

Here are some points to ponder upon when approaching this subject.

Some people have the opinion that homosexuality isn't natural because it appears less in the species, well then what about gold and diamonds? Why does a human not take a plentiful rock readily available from ones back garden and perhaps some bark from a tree and fashion jewelery from those items which are abundant. The very reason humans appreciate and covet gold and diamonds is exactly the same reason why they do not accept homosexuality, it comes down to rarity. Perhaps the homosexual with it's rarity should be considered precious as are all rare things, be it gold, diamonds, oil, rare spices and delicacies etc etc.

Another point is the Shiva-Shakti equation, if one wishes to view this spiritually, then perhaps the homosexual has a greater balance of masculine and feminine influences within them. A heterosexual man requires a wife and a heterosexual women requires a husband, but often times homosexuals (particularly gay men) are far more independent and able to at times be sensitive yet conduct themselves with the masculinity to lead and direct those around them. Blue for a boy, pink for a girl but purple for a homosexual due to the blending of character traits.

Another argument is homoesexuals cannot have children, well spiritually the physical is seen as being spiritually inferior to pure consciousness. The homosexuals love is one comprised solely of consciousness without the by-product of the gross physical.

If homosexuals weren't so beaten and discouraged from engaging in spiritual practices who knows what treasures might be uncovered. I'm paraphrasing here but once a man said to Boy George 'it is harder for a gay person to get into heaven' and Boy George replied 'well perhaps straight people should stop holding the gates shut.'

Namaste.

[Sri Vaishnava]

I'm just wondering if homosexuality is considered a bad thing in hinduism or by most hindus? I was just reading a thread on these forums about a sikh criticism of ramakrishna which mentioned a book that claimed he was homosexual. Apparently, these claims caused a lot of controversy in india because hindus are homophobic.

This is not a subject I would frequent, but it so happens that I know the answer to this one. Everyone here quotes the mahAbhArata, but one needs to look in the right place.

There is an anecdote connected with the sishya of srI vAnamAmalai jeeyar swami in the sri vaishnava tradition. His name was srI varadAchArya and lived in the 15th century. He was renowned for his discourses on the mahAbhArata. One day, his sishya approached him and asked him a question - "In this world, we see that a man is married to a woman. Do the dharma sAstras say that it is possible for a man to love a man?"

*Note: The sishya who asked this question later on became one of the greatest acharyas of our tradition. His question was not motivated by any personal inclinations, but only as a tattva jignyAsa. Understanding every facet of nature is a part of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and we leave nothing unexplained.

SrI varadAchArya replied - It is not uncommon. In the virAta parva, when the pandavas were in hiding during the last year of their exile, Draupadi served as a hand-maid. The mahAbhArata says that when Draupadi went to take a bath, the ladies who waited on her were so enamoured of her beauty that they wished they could be men so that they were eligible to love her. Hence, developing feelings for the same sex is possible.

So, atleast as far as we are concerned, it is not an unnatural thing, homosexuality. All this is also a product of karma.

But, one must also add that the sAstras permit marriage and union only for the sake of progeny and furthering of the vaidika tradition. If you are marrying for love, such a marriage falls into the scope of samsArA. So, by default, since homosexuals cannot reproduce, their marriage would not be classified as any of the 8 types of marriage (daiva, brahma, pisaca kalyanas, etc) sanctioned by the sAstras and it would not be deemed beneficial.

In short, no matter what your inclinations are, vairAgya and restraint of the senses is important. Kama is discouraged, be it for a man or a woman.

And I think, this position is neither biased nor over-free. Its a rational stance.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

the arguments continue and there is no convincing side A or side B of what is or is not best. It is one more thing of confusion that comes to the human condition. I am firm and clear on my position and can sleep well at night. For those thinking this whole subject though I wish you the best that you come to a resolution.

praṇām

[Viraja]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

the arguments continue and there is no convincing side A or side B of what is or is not best. It is one more thing of confusion that comes to the human condition. I am firm and clear on my position and can sleep well at night. For those thinking this whole subject though I wish you the best that you come to a resolution.

praṇām

Maybe the confusion is because those who oppose (homosexual marriages) aren't applying 'desh/kaal/patra' principles, Yajvan ji. ;)

[Sri Vaishnava]

the arguments continue and there is no convincing side A or side B of what is or is not best. It is one more thing of confusion that comes to the human condition. I am firm and clear on my position and can sleep well at night. For those thinking this whole subject though I wish you the best that you come to a resolution.

There is no need to assume that everyone other than your good self is confused. The sAstras are very clear on this and every other subject and leave no room for doubt on any matter (and by that, I hope I do not invite sarcastic comments on dinosaurs and stuff like that!). Especially in the matter of dharma, artha and kama, which the mahAbhArata covers in full.

However, if you find these arguments unconvincing, that is of course, your viewpoint and naturally, that will be your "firm conviction" as others have theirs.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I do not know the convictions of the last two posts above... yet the term 'oppose' surfaced. My view is not based upon opposing.

For me it is quite clear - I do not wish to confuse what one does to whom one truly is. I wish avoid becoming defined by an action.

... do as you see fit.
praṇām

[philosoraptor]

Sexuality in general is "unnatural," as it relates to the body, which is itself the result of past guNa and karma. Our distinctive identity as spiritual Atman-s makes such bodily activities inherently unnatural, especially when they are performed for purposes other than realizing the nature of Atman and paramAtman. There is an allowance for limited heterosexual contact in the context of marriage for progeny. Sensual contact for the purpose of physical pleasure, even when rationalized in the name of so-called "love," is still on the plane of materialistic activity, and thus generates karma, which is binding.

People who say that we have many valid opinions on this subject are simply not correct. The position of shAstra is very clear on this point: liberation should be sought, and activities which cause karma should be discarded. None of this is to say that people will seek liberation and discard materialistic activities. In the end, people will do whatever they want to do, but we should be honest and stick to the conclusions of shAstra, rather than implying there is some kind of non-existent ambiguity on this subject.

People who talk about having arrangements for homosexual marriages are missing the point. Our Vedic culture has never been about creating more arrangements for sensual pleasure.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I have noticed that good family men and women have many activities, inclusive of religious activities as well as directing hobbies such as painting or study of nature or sewing clothes (including attire for home murtis and altars) etc towards religious devotions, they live an entire life surrounding themselves with the world but not becoming addicted to singular vices.

Then there are those who overplay sex, I have noticed it is a vice and seems surely to led to downfall. This is true for all, but it seems to be a particular problem for those who want to over glorify their identity on the physical level.

Let me give an example of what I mean.

I have many homes and home away homes, one is San Francisco. It is today known as a center for homosexual activism.

I know and have known many, many Hindus from every sect, all parts of the world. There was an ISKCON member I knew who was advanced and liked by many.

Upon his returning from a world tour for ISKCON, I was asked to go pick him up at the San Francisco airport. I was happy to do so. Little did I know that drive from the airport to the city of S.F. was his death palanquin to the pyre.

He made San Francisco his center for his ISKCON duties. This would be his death. Keep in mind, he was not originally an American. At that time, homosexual activism was just starting, it was before AIDS was known. Homosexuals were making a very public scene of things, frankly they would glorify their physical nature, and vice was rampant. This ISKCON notable fell down, surrounded by vice, at that time as I said AIDS was not known and when it arrived it was first called "KS(I?)" (cannot recall what this stood for, the KS was for Karposi's Sarcoma and I think I for immunodeficiency but the term HIV wasn't yet known). This person fell away from ISKCON, and got entrapped into this self-glorification of gay acts, which also included drug use.

At that time something called "poppers" (some use of a drug that gays were using) became popular, and early in the introduction of HIV there were medics and scientists who linked the use of poppers and the AIDS virus to the very ugly skin sores that suddenly appeared among the active gay population in S.F., that this use of the drug caused a very strong surfacing of the initial infection with the virus. It is rather hushed up today, but suddenly you would see men in S.F. with these bloody like cancerous looking sores all over their arms, neck and so on. It was startling to see, even scary, sort of like encountering lepers from the past. Then they started to die in numbers, a drop in T counts in the blood and what is today called the HIV virus became known.

This initial breakout of these bloody sores among gays is today forgotten. This rather scary condition for some reason subsided, probably because gays themselves saw a connection between the drug use and those who broke out severily with the sores and became afraid of using this drug, but not AIDS.

This former ISKCON notable became infected but did not know. It was his lust, physical lust, combined with drug use which is also a lust and vice, that sealed his doom.

He returned to ISKCON, but he did not know that his fate was now sealed. It was in India that he learned he had HIV after the government there did some random testing. He died later as his body deteriorated.

Now, one can say such lust is regardless of orientation, we see married men who lust and have vice, and spell their doom which is not always death but always takes one to psychological doom, never happiness, spiritual decay and then fear of the world and living in a little prison of lust, they put themselves in a prison even if there are no steel bars.

Do not glorify your physical lusts. If that is your agenda, then you will go to a terrible place. Do not glorify those things. You will not live fuller in the world, you will make your world smaller, and then very small, very repetitive, then a prisoner of a lesser world.

There must be children. So it will be, men and women, the next generation will come. Control yourself beyond that. It isn't hard to do actually, you will be surprised, and you will have more time for the entire world. I am not condeming, I am just observing the folly of it all.

IMHO.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Believer]

Namaste,

A proposal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4HpWQmEXrM (https://www.google.com/search?q=flash+mob+at+home+depot&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Pranam.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Homosexuality was discussed a lot in another thread, Marriage Equality and Hinduism: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11368

Since that thread is closed, here I would like to say something on the subject.
Some members said that there is no scriptural evidence about homosexuality as adharmic practice. Actually there is, located in Bhāgavatam 3.20.26 (http://vedabase.net/sb/3/20/26/) :


"Lord Brahmā, approaching the Lord, addressed Him thus: My Lord, please protect me from these sinful demons, who were created by me under Your order. They are infuriated by an appetite for sex and have come to attack me."

Purport (by Srila Prabhupada):
It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahmā. In other words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not for any sane male in the ordinary course of life.

This view is further strengthened through the arguments given by the other members. Their argument was that sexual intercourse is allowed only in marriage in a regulated manner. And marriage is according to the scriptures, obviously, possible only between a man and a woman. So there is no way to justify homosexuality as part of dharma.

regards

[SeekingPeaceOfMind]

Well if two males had an appetite for sex and were going to attack a women would this situation be any different? Seems to me the problem with the scene described is one of consent not sexual orientation.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Namaste
Since that thread is closed, here I would like to say something on the subject.
Some members said that there is no scriptural evidence about homosexuality as adharmic practice. Actually there is, located in Bhāgavatam 3.20.26 (http://vedabase.net/sb/3/20/26/) :


"Lord Brahmā, approaching the Lord, addressed Him thus: My Lord, please protect me from these sinful demons, who were created by me under Your order. They are infuriated by an appetite for sex and have come to attack me."
Purport (by Srila Prabhupada):



It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahmā. In other words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not for any sane male in the ordinary course of life.
This view is further strengthened through the arguments given by the other members. Their argument was that sexual intercourse is allowed only in marriage in a regulated manner. And marriage is according to the scriptures, obviously, possible only between a man and a woman. So there is no way to justify homosexuality as part of dharma.
regards


Can you assist ? I do not see the reference , either broad or short to the notion of samaliṅgākāmin¹ within this offer Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (http://vedabase.net/sb/en) 3.20.26:

pāhi (http://vedabase.net/p/pahi) māḿ (http://vedabase.net/m/mam) paramātmaḿs te (http://vedabase.net/t/te)
preṣaṇenāsṛjaḿ prajāḥ (http://vedabase.net/p/prajah)
tā (http://vedabase.net/t/ta) imā yabhituḿ (http://vedabase.net/y/yabhitum) pāpā (http://vedabase.net/p/papa)
upākrāmanti (http://vedabase.net/u/upakramanti) māḿ (http://vedabase.net/m/mam) prabho (http://vedabase.net/p/prabho) ||

That is, I do not see the 'dots' that connect this śloka to homosexuality or the subject thereof. Can you assist ?

iti śivaṁ

words

samaliṅgākāmin = sama+liṅgā+kāmin
sama - same
liṅgā or liṅga - the sign of gender or sex , organ of generation
kāmin - desirous , longing after

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

I do not see the 'dots' that connect this śloka to homosexuality or the subject thereof. Can you assist ?

I think we should look at the context. Already in verse 3.20.23 we see it is said:


"Lord Brahmā then gave birth to the demons from his buttocks, and they were very fond of sex. Because they were too lustful, they approached him for copulation."

We have "demons" mentioned here.
Then we have "shameless asuras" mentioned in verse 3.20.24 (http://vedabase.net/sb/3/20/24/).
Is that enough to determine that it is longing after same sex?

regards