Homosexual marriages in Hinduism

[orlando]

Namaste all.
A person asked me if homesexual marriages are allowed and practiced in Hinduism.
I already know that generally Hinduism doesn't condemn homosexuality.
Please read what Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami(1927-2001) say in his book Dancing with Siva, Hinduism's Contemporary Catechism.
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/satgurus/gurudeva/photo-gallery/image/gurudeva_26.jpg
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/images/dws_cover.jpg

By http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_mandala-15.html

What Is the Hindu View of Sexuality?
SLOKA 74

The purpose of sexual union is to express and foster love's beautiful intimacy and to draw husband and wife together for procreation. While offering community guidance, Hinduism does not legislate sexual matters. Aum.

BHASHYA

Sexual intercourse is a natural reproductive function, a part of the instinctive nature, and its pleasures draw man and woman together that a child may be conceived. It also serves through its intimacy to express and nurture love. It is love which endows sexual intercourse with its higher qualities, transforming it from an animal function to a human fulfillment. Intensely personal matters of sex as they affect the family or individual are not legislated, but left to the judgment of those involved, subject to community laws and customs. Hinduism neither condones nor condemns birth control, sterilization, masturbation, homosexuality, petting, polygamy or pornography. It does not exclude or draw harsh conclusions against any part of human nature, though scripture prohibits adultery and forbids abortion except to save a mother's life. Advice in such matters should be sought from parents, elders and spiritual leaders. The only rigid rule is wisdom, guided by tradition and virtue. The Vedas beseech, "May all the divine powers together with the waters join our two hearts in one! May the Messenger, the Creator and holy Obedience unite us." Aum Namah Sivaya.

By the way I don't know if homosexual marriages are allowed and practiced in Hinduism.
Please could someone give me informations about this topic?

Regards,
Orlando.

[Arjuna]

Namaste all.
A person asked me if homesexual marriages are allowed and practiced in Hinduism.
I already know that generally Hinduism doesn't condemn homosexuality.

Well, i think there cannot be any homosexual marriage in traditional Hinduism, since it doesn't make sense in its context.
In my view, homosexual marriage may and have to be present as a social secular institute, but never as a religious one. It is a human right to live with whom he/she wills, but religion cannot sanctify any unnatural forms of sexual behavior — by which i mean de facto contra-natural, i.e. rapes, homosexuality, zoophilia and i would add arranged marriage. Apart from rape, other three types of unnatural sexual behavior should not be prohibited or prosecuted, but religion must not accept them to be proper in the eyes of God.

[Znanna]

I would add that love never dies, and is not necessarily physically sexual.

ZN
*loves flowers*

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Well, i think there cannot be any homosexual marriage in traditional Hinduism, since it doesn't make sense in its context.
In my view, homosexual marriage may and have to be present as a social secular institute, but never as a religious one. It is a human right to live with whom he/she wills, but religion cannot sanctify any unnatural forms of sexual behavior — by which i mean de facto contra-natural, i.e. rapes, homosexuality, zoophilia and i would add arranged marriage. Apart from rape, other three types of unnatural sexual behavior should not be prohibited or prosecuted, but religion must not accept them to be proper in the eyes of God.

Reputable scientific and medical organizations around the world would disagree with your assumption that homosexuality is "unnatural" considering that it has always been a part of humanity as well as existed in the animal kingdom and does not result in any harm to individuals or society. A more accurate description would be that it is somewhat rare and certainly not the "norm" but it is very much "natural." It is also erroneous to compare homosexuality with rape and zoophilia which are harmful acts of violence. As to religion "accepting" it, I don't even see the relevancy. Religion including Sanatana Dharma as well as other faiths should logically focus on the individual's relationship to God and perhaps equally important the individual's relationship to others and the environment. Religion should be about encouraging people to grow in their relationship to God through meditation and other prescribed methods as well as doing their duty which would naturally be to make the world a better place. Squabbling about personal non-harmful sexual habits and relationships is wasted energy and a misuse of genunine spirituality and religion. ~BYS~

[MananAtma]

Squabbling about personal non-harmful sexual habits and relationships is wasted energy and a misuse of genunine spirituality and religion. ~BYS~

I have definite and very strong opinions about this subject, but the wisdom of these words stopped me from commenting. Some would say thats a first.

*Bows to BYS*

Shanti,
Roy

[Arjuna]

Reputable scientific and medical organizations around the world would disagree with your assumption that homosexuality is "unnatural" considering that it has always been a part of humanity as well as existed in the animal kingdom and does not result in any harm to individuals or society. A more accurate description would be that it is somewhat rare and certainly not the "norm" but it is very much "natural." It is also erroneous to compare homosexuality with rape and zoophilia which are harmful acts of violence. As to religion "accepting" it, I don't even see the relevancy. Religion including Sanatana Dharma as well as other faiths should logically focus on the individual's relationship to God and perhaps equally important the individual's relationship to others and the environment. Religion should be about encouraging people to grow in their relationship to God through meditation and other prescribed methods as well as doing their duty which would naturally be to make the world a better place. Squabbling about personal non-harmful sexual habits and relationships is wasted energy and a misuse of genunine spirituality and religion. ~BYS~

Namaste,

I fully respect Ur opinion and have no wish to argue. However, i have reasons for saying what i said.
And expect same attitude from Ur side ;)

As practical law i accept this: "Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me."
Love is to be free.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Orlando,

The answer to your previous controversial question about masturbation, specifically respecting the orthodox Brahmana understanding of Shri Vaishnava, could only be answered, ‘NO! Masturbation (ultimately because of the wastage of seed) is strongly NOT recommended.’

Regarding the general question of homosexual “marriage” (by which term I assume you mean that the couple will be sexually active) within the broad spectrum of Hinduism, however, there is no general prescription and (so long as one is not a Brahmacarin or a Brahmin or a Sannyasin, or intending to be considered as such) sexual matters are entirely the private concern of the consenting individuals involved.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste BYS,

All reputable scientific and medical organizations around the world should agree that the haploid gamete phase of animal life is ultimately just as important as the diploid somatic phase. The gametes are produced by a unique method of genetic division (meiosis) for a unique purpose, and that sole purpose is the conception of a new diploid generation, and thus the continuing existence (i.e. virtually immortal prosperity) of the particular genetic lineage.

ANY ejaculation without the intention or hope of conception is thus surely an “unnatural” act, for the very nature of the haploid spermatozoids is to seek fertilization and expression in the next diploid generation.

The occasional wastage of seed is inevitable in the course of nature, but that does NOT mean that the proper nature of that seed is such that it should ever be deliberately wasted!

[satay]

By the way I don't know if homosexual marriages are allowed and practiced in Hinduism.
Please could someone give me informations about this topic?

Regards,
Orlando.

namaste Orlando,
To answer your question directly, Homosexual marriages are not allowed and not practiced in India.
Hinduism has nothing to do with it.

Re someone's comment about arranged marriages...the tradition goes back centuries. The thought process behind arranged marriages is that the elders of the family 'know the best' and are 'wiser' than you.

On a personal note, I chose not have an arranged marriage (for several reasons that are out of the scope of this thread) but even then I asked for permission from the elders in my family. Fortunately, for me they all are of 'modern' mindset...had they said 'no' to my request...I would have had to respect their opinion and sacrifice my personal choice (for this lifetime).

I digress...

[Arjuna]

Regarding the general question of homosexual “marriage” (by which term I assume you mean that the couple will be sexually active) within the broad spectrum of Hinduism, however, there is no general prescription and (so long as one is not a Brahmacarin or a Brahmin or a Sannyasin, or intending to be considered as such) sexual matters are entirely the private concern of the consenting individuals involved.

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Just interesting: since one is supposed to be in either of 4 ashramas (i speak of "orthodox" Hinduism now), and conventional brahmacharya and sannyasa are incompatible with any sexual activity, vanaprastha normally also, the only ashrama left for it is grihastha. Then, grihastha implies not only sex, but actual marriage and normally having children. How can a homosexual be a grihasthi? If he has a wife, then having sex with another person (that too a man) is considered to be adharma; but how can one marry a person of same sex? Especially seeing traditional obsession with procreation stuff...

Is there any scriptural justification for a kind of homosexual "marriage"?

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Arjuna,

Orthodox Hinduism recognizes 4 varnas as well as 4 ashramas. And the grihastha varna is the only ashrama common to EVERY varna.

A brahmana grihasthi should certainly NOT be considering homosexual relations!

A kshatriya grihasthi should be following the instruction of his brahmana guru.

A vaishya grihasthi should be following the law imposed by his kshatriya ruler.

And a shudra grihasthi is obliged only to his own family traditions (while remembering that he may be punished for offending the basic precepts of Yama within the bounds of “twice-born” society).

There is no absolute prohibition of homosexuality for the kshatriya or vaishya, but I am unfamiliar with any prescribed homosexual “marriage” ritual ~ indeed, I cannot imagine that such a thing could officially exist in traditional aryan society.

And for the shudra, there is no particular obligation to any authority other than his own ancestors and elders.

The diversity of tribal and shudra dharma may contain some provision for homosexual marriage; and perhaps the sakhi traditions would be a good place to look for such a ritual ~ see http://www.adolphus.nl/sadhus/rama.html#sakhis

[Arjuna]

Namaste Arjuna...

Namaste & thank U for this clear explanation.

I am well aware of existance of homoerotics in certain Hindu sects like sakhi, but these are obviously out of scope of "orthodox" Hinduism.
And it would be a real suprise to know of any traditional ritual of marriage for people of same sex!

[Ablaze]

I am well aware of existance of homoerotics in certain Hindu sects like sakhi, but these are obviously out of scope of "orthodox" Hinduism.
And it would be a real suprise to know of any traditional ritual of marriage for people of same sex!

Not just orthodox Hinduism.. how many religions or cultures have practiced homosexual marriage in any formalized "religious" rite throughout history?

[Arjuna]

Not just orthodox Hinduism.. how many religions or cultures have practiced homosexual marriage in any formalized "religious" rite throughout history?

I know only of some modern day christians :D

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Namaste BYS,

All reputable scientific and medical organizations around the world should agree that the haploid gamete phase of animal life is ultimately just as important as the diploid somatic phase. The gametes are produced by a unique method of genetic division (meiosis) for a unique purpose, and that sole purpose is the conception of a new diploid generation, and thus the continuing existence (i.e. virtually immortal prosperity) of the particular genetic lineage.

ANY ejaculation without the intention or hope of conception is thus surely an “unnatural” act, for the very nature of the haploid spermatozoids is to seek fertilization and expression in the next diploid generation.

The occasional wastage of seed is inevitable in the course of nature, but that does NOT mean that the proper nature of that seed is such that it should ever be deliberately wasted!

You are repeating your opinions from an earlier topic about masterbastion in which I already gave my opinions. I am not interested in continuing such discussions with you. If you cannot stay on topic which is about "homosexual marriage" then I will have to complain. ~BYS~

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Just interesting: since one is supposed to be in either of 4 ashramas (i speak of "orthodox" Hinduism now), and conventional brahmacharya and sannyasa are incompatible with any sexual activity, vanaprastha normally also, the only ashrama left for it is grihastha. Then, grihastha implies not only sex, but actual marriage and normally having children. How can a homosexual be a grihasthi? If he has a wife, then having sex with another person (that too a man) is considered to be adharma; but how can one marry a person of same sex? Especially seeing traditional obsession with procreation stuff...

Is there any scriptural justification for a kind of homosexual "marriage"?

Maybe it is time to keep religion and spiritualism relevant to the modern times. In the modern times, from my own observations I don't see a lot of love in society but I sure see a lot of egoism, intolerance, control, and fear. Sometimes (and often more times than not) an individual knows what is best for him over what society thinks is best for him. Society includes family as well as religion.

It appears to me that the main concern here is that people are expressing is that homosexual sex cannot result in procreation. Yet a simple reality check reveals to me that this concern is misplaced and downright ridiculous considering that in every country in the world there are millions upon millions of parents having kids that are unable to take care of them, abused children, missing and exploited children, parents and kids both on drugs, and parents having kids that don't want them as well unwanted kids shifted around from one parent to another, etc. This is all taking place in a world with a population of over 6 billion people about half of which suffer from some form of malnutrition and/or make less than 1 USD per day.

So Hinduism in the modern age should be focused on the basic things that the scriptures thousands of years ago were trying to teach us. These would be things such as love, harmony, ahimsa, piety, and selfless service. Instead of Hindus trying to encourage people to marry for the purpose of continuing to overpopulate the planet, Hindus should be encouraging marriage for the purpose of furthering spiritual life by excersizing the things that I mentioned above. So when I see comments here that are more concerned over sex without creating more mouths to feed than on encouraging relationships based on love, harmony, and spiritualism which are possible regardless of the genders involved, then it sounds like the attitude here is more about controling people than helping people.

So to conclude my point, Hindus need to look past technicalities about human interaction and behavior and start encouraging obvious virtues that anyone with common sense can figure out without the need of even opening up a book about it. Namaste. ~BYS~

[Arjuna]

Reputable scientific and medical organizations around the world would disagree with your assumption that homosexuality is "unnatural" considering that it has always been a part of humanity as well as existed in the animal kingdom and does not result in any harm to individuals or society. A more accurate description would be that it is somewhat rare and certainly not the "norm" but it is very much "natural." It is also erroneous to compare homosexuality with rape and zoophilia which are harmful acts of violence. As to religion "accepting" it, I don't even see the relevancy. Religion including Sanatana Dharma as well as other faiths should logically focus on the individual's relationship to God and perhaps equally important the individual's relationship to others and the environment. Religion should be about encouraging people to grow in their relationship to God through meditation and other prescribed methods as well as doing their duty which would naturally be to make the world a better place. Squabbling about personal non-harmful sexual habits and relationships is wasted energy and a misuse of genunine spirituality and religion. ~BYS~

Namaste,

1. Homosexuality did exist in human society always, but does that mean it is natural? Perhaps it depends on what we call "natural". Violence also always had been a part of humanity, as well as lie, jealosy, hatred etc. But are these things natural?

2. Homosexuality did result in harm both to individual and society. Starting from ancient Greece where young boys were made perverts from childhood, then to muslim countries where abused boys become later terrorists and ending with the spread of AIDS.

3. There is no religion misuse here. Religion must never use any external powers and authorities to make people follow its rules. Freedom is to be respected. But religion has to speak truth.

I do not mean homosexuality is to be prohibited. But is has to be seen for what it is. Men aren't supposed to unite with men, as women with women — not socially but from God's view.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Namaste,

1. Homosexuality did exist in human society always, but does that mean it is natural? Perhaps it depends on what we call "natural". Violence also always had been a part of humanity, as well as lie, jealosy, hatred etc. But are these things natural?


Your comparisons are actually quite malicious with regards to homosexuals themselves. None of your examples have anything to do with homosexuality. The examples you mentioned are all some form of himsa or another whereas homosexuality is not himsic (no individual or society is harmed by it).



2. Homosexuality did result in harm both to individual and society. Starting from ancient Greece where young boys were made perverts from childhood, then to muslim countries where abused boys become later terrorists and ending with the spread of AIDS.


Again, malicious and false comparisons. Please go check out a dictionary before posting such falsehoods. Homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia, rape, or terrorism. Also, there is no such thing as the "spread of AIDS." What you actually mean is the spread of HIV which is actually spread more by heterosexuals than homosexuals and was believed to be orginially spread from monkeys to humans through bestiality. India, which happens to be the country with the largest number of carriers of HIV also has the highest number of carriers to be heterosexual. Please actually check your facts before posting stuff that just isn't true. Also typical human behavior is to always blame some other person or group for a problem instead of taking responsibility and fixing the problem themselves. Blaming a very small percentage of the human population on the spread of HIV which actually affects the majority that is not in that group doesn't solve the problem. Since this board is about Hinduism and since most of Hinduism is in India, then I would assume that Indian Hindus take a serious effort to solve the problem of HIV in India but the international community is not convinced that any serious action (or any action whatsoever) has been taken in India to address this problem.

Anyway, this is completely off-topic anyway and belongs in another thread. I extended this discussion to make the point that it is unwise to bring up irrelevant stuff for the purposes of finger-pointing and blame-games when actually chances are that the person or group doing the blaming is most responsible for the problems he is pointing out.



3. There is no religion misuse here. Religion must never use any external powers and authorities to make people follow its rules. Freedom is to be respected. But religion has to speak truth.


Religion does need to speak the truth, but it rarely if ever does do that. Spiritualism speaks the truth because it reveals the higher Truth that cannot always be described with words. Religion typically claims ownership over truth yet never seems to speak it. What makes Hinduism great over other religions is that it is one of the few religions that actually has a heavy focus on spiritualism instead of just dogma and rule-following. Unfortuantely, even that is now eroding in the West as well as the East.



I do not mean homosexuality is to be prohibited. But is has to be seen for what it is. Men aren't supposed to unite with men, as women with women — not socially but from God's view.

Perhaps you don't mean prohibited by law, but you make serious allegations which are not truthful or dharmic. Comparing non-violent relationships and sexual activity between consenting adults with violence, rape, terrorism, pedophilia, lying, jealousy, and hatred are pretty damaging and serious allegations that are not based on reality whatsoever. Just as I pointed out above with religion, you are now claiming that your comments are also God's view. Yet I doubt you have had discussions with God on these matters and nobody has seen anything in any scriptures about the issue either not to mention that the holy books claiming to represent God's views may have translation errors or have been doctored by others. For all we know, homosexuality is God's way of handling the overpopulation problem that is affecting this planet.

So to go back to my earlier point, as a Hindu yourself you should be focusing on excersizing the basic virtues listed in the scriptures instead of trying to control and manipulate non-violent human behavior and human interaction which is really none of your business anyway nor is it any of mine. ~BYS~

[Sudarshan]

Any activity that does not harm others is never a sin, but a vice. A vice cannot have strong Karmic effect. (dRDa karma) and such effects are washed away by devotion to God and hence cannot stand in the way of salvation.

However, if the true goal of spiritualism is to do all activities that please the Lord, the first duty is to obey one's own guru or Acharya. If Acharya has disapproved of the practice, then one must not do it - it compromises the goal and spirit of religion. We are humans born with the higher instincts of God realization, and must not show animals as examples to support our behaviour- animals are not usually religeous.:)

Theists need not borrow all standards of morality and culture from atheists and humanists just for the sake of modernism and liberalism - the fundamental goal of these sets of people are different.

[sarabhanga]

BYS,

This information is entirely relevant to the subject of homosexual marriage in Hinduism!

Since you seem to have (once again) missed my point, I shall boldly repeat:

ANY ejaculation without the intention or hope of conception is thus surely an “unnatural” act, for the very nature of the haploid spermatozoids is to seek fertilization and expression in the next diploid generation. The occasional wastage of seed is inevitable in the course of nature, but that does NOT mean that the proper nature of that seed is such that it should ever be deliberately wasted!

[Arjuna]

Your comparisons are actually quite malicious with regards to homosexuals themselves.

Namaste,

U simply missed the point again. My comparisons were not in order to say homosexualism is equal to violence etc., but to disprove Ur false argument that "if homosexualism always existed it is natural."

I have nothing against homosexuals. I have got several friends with this orientation, and they are good people. But the very event of homosexuality is against nature. It develops as a result of psycological complexes and possibly some genetical diversions.

Anyway i prefer not to entertain any further arguement with U seeing it is useless.
Thank U for expressing Ur view.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Any activity that does not harm others is never a sin, but a vice. A vice cannot have strong Karmic effect. (dRDa karma) and such effects are washed away by devotion to God and hence cannot stand in the way of salvation.

However, if the true goal of spiritualism is to do all activities that please the Lord, the first duty is to obey one's own guru or Acharya. If Acharya has disapproved of the practice, then one must not do it - it compromises the goal and spirit of religion. We are humans born with the higher instincts of God realization, and must not show animals as examples to support our behaviour- animals are not usually religeous.:)

Theists need not borrow all standards of morality and culture from atheists and humanists just for the sake of modernism and liberalism - the fundamental goal of these sets of people are different.

Your views here on this subject seem to make a lot of sense. Sex and relationships in general are for the most part material and since spiritualism's goal is to realize God and perfect one's self spiritually, then material matters should be kept in proper balance with the real purpose focused on detachment and on attachment to God. This also means as I have said in previous posts that it is our responsibility as spiritual seekers to be focused on changing ourselves and improving our own habits and lifestyles instead of trying to control or manipulate other people's habits and behaviors that have little to no effect on our lives. Namaste. ~BYS~

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Rather than just go back and forther and try to argue based off of everyone's opinon whether or not Hinduism sanctions homosexual relations lets see what the scriptures tell us;


[
<H2>QUOTE]

<H2>Hinduism

In contemporary India LGBT people face discrimination and marginalization. This results from cultural attitudes imposed by the British during their long occupation of India. There is no condemnation of homosexuality in the ancient Hindu texts, and no bias against LGBT people is evident up to the 19th century. In a few Hindu lawbooks, same-gender sexuality is described as producing a state of impurity, but it can be expunged by a ritual bath.
The ancient Hindu attitude was that sexuality should be fully integrated into the fabric of life, and nothing to be ashamed of. For instance, in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV:4 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15098.htm), there is a passage about sex magic which was so explicit that Max Müller felt compelled to translate it into Latin.
Homosexuality is discussed frankly and without condemnation in the ancient Hindu sexual treatises. In the Kama Sutra, in Chapter VI (http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/kama/kama506.htm), lesbianism in harems is described, and in Chapter IX (http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/kama/kama209.htm), male and female homosexuality in the context of a discussion of oral sex. To quote the Kama Sutra, Chapter IX: "...in all things connected with love, everybody should act according to the custom of his country and his own inclination."
There are many accounts of beings who transformed their gender by supernatural means in the ancient Hindu epics and Puranas. One prominent example occurs in the Mahabharata (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm#maha). A transgender person, Sikhandin, plays a pivotal role in that ancient Hindu epic. In book 5, Chapter 191-5 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05191.htm), the origin of Sikhandin is related. Sikhandin was born as the daughter of King Drupada of the Panchalas, who had previously been childless. Druapada begged the God Mahadeva, to give him a son. He told him that "Thou shalt have a child who will be a female and male. Desist, O king, it will not be otherwise."
His wife gives birth to a baby girl, Sikhandin. King Drupada conceals the gender of his child and proclaims a male heir has been born, and Sikhandin is raised as a boy. When Sikhandin comes of age, a marriage is arranged with an unnamed daughter of King Hiranyavarman, of the Dasrnakas. Hiranyavarman is described as Drupada's brother. The two women are married, "...and the former soon came to know that that latter was a women like herself." The daughter of King Hiranyavarman sends word back to her father about the deception, and he proclaims war as a result: "Thou hadst, from folly, solicited my daughter for thy daughter!"
At this juncture, Sikhandin flees into the forest, where she encounters a Yaksha, a demon, named Sthunakarna. Sthunakarna says that he will grant one boon to Sikhandin, who asks to become a male, the swap to be temporary until the situation with King Hiranyavarman is cleared up. So the princess exchanges gender with the demon; and, now a prince, returns to the city which the army of King Hiranyavarman is about to besiege. King Drupada tells his brother, now truthfully, that Sikhandin is a man, and that he can prove it. King Hiranyavarman sends "a number of young ladies of great beauty" to Sikhandin, and they report back that he is "a powerful person of the masculine sex." Unfortunately, the demon, now female, is placed under a curse by the lord of the Yakshas, and the sex exchange is permanent. Sikhandin grows into a mighty warrior.
Sikhandin later plays an important role during the cataclysmic battle which is the central part of the Mahabharata. In the climax of Book 8 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/index.htm) of the Mahabharata, Bhishma, one of the chief protagonists, is killed because he refuses to attack a charge which is led by Sikhandin, because Sikhandin was born female. This ends up being the turning point in the battle and the war.
In this story we see what might, hypothetically, be an very old tale of a same-sex union woven into the vast epic of the Mahabharata. How old may be indicated by the fact that cousins are being married, which is typical of tribal societies worldwide. In Ancient Egypt women who attained positions of power wore male clothing, including false beards, in order to formally establish their leadership; for such a woman to marry a woman as a political maneuver would not be inconceivable.
Sikhandin, raised as a boy, is ready and willing to exchange gender magically. Once having switched to the male gender, he excels at the role, and becomes a famous and very skilled warrior. Sikhandin is reconciled with his transformed masculine identity, despite the fatal display of chivalry by his opponent Bhishma in battle. This brings into relief the contradictions of ancient Hindu society with regard to gender roles.
The story of Sikhandin is the classic hero narrative with a transgender twist.
</H2></H2>
This is from a website called Sacred Text, Its a great resource.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste,

I look at it this way...

look at your behavior, look at your goals i.e. of what you want to become... does your behavior support your goals?


pranams

[Yaruki]

.....

[ardhanari]

Now, I am not sure of my own personal stance when it comes to homosexuality itself and Hinduism, since I wonder about the religious necessities for two people of the same sex to have a religious marriage in itself...

To explain, I am an asexual, which plainly means "I have little or no sexual attraction." However, many asexuals do have romantic preferences (heteroromantic, biromantic, homoromantic, and aromantic [that is, they wish not to form a romantic relationship whatsoever]). I am thus a homoromantic asexual; I have a romantic preference for those of the same sex, yet I do not desire sexual relations nor do I get sexually aroused by men whatsoever.

In this case, I do wish to have a civil marriage, a governmentally recognised household institution that grants me civil rights as a couplehood. At the same time, I wish to practice Sanatana Dharma with my chosen husband.

Now surely, is a religious marriage necessary in this case? Ideally, I would be living with this person, and perhaps even raising a child (at least partly in Sanatana Dharma) in a spiritual home. There is the so-called Gandharva Marriage that would be applicable in this case, and there are various mentions of same-sex affections and romantic love between the gods and goddesses (via GALVA website). However, many more examples seemed to have the devas and devis change their 'sex' in order to fulfill that union. There seems to be more implied support for transgendered/transexual individuals than homosexual, bisexual or asexual peoples...

I mean, what would be better? A Hindu different-sex couple who smoke, drink alcohol, and raise their child in hatred, or a same-sex Hindu couple who practice vegetarianism and ahimsa, perform proper religious rites at home and raises their child with love of God? Does a marriage even matter then in this case? Would such a household be even Vedic at all?

As for me, as long as I am in love with someone who can be my spiritual partner for life, a religious marriage is a mere ritual that is blessed by the priests, since God alone recognises a marriage when Ey sees one. After all, I do not see the necessity of pushing something against someone's own inclinations, since it is eir own personal dharma. At least the minimum asked would be a blessing of this 'union,' since I find that such would be sufficient enough. :)

[Eastern Mind]

I mean, what would be better? A Hindu different-sex couple who smoke, drink alcohol, and raise their child in hatred, or a same-sex Hindu couple who practice vegetarianism and ahimsa, perform proper religious rites at home and raises their child with love of God? Does a marriage even matter then in this case? Would such a household be even Vedic at all?



Obviously (to me) the latter is the best option. I've pondered homosexuality and Hinduism for a long time. At first I read scriptures, and tried to find sites on the internet that talked about it at all. Then I realised something. Time to stop reading other's opinions and figure out via meditation, and reflection what I think.
So here goes: Sexuality is part of the world. God creates all kinds. Everyone is of God and God. God's purpose is not clear always to the ordinary thinking mind. Redheads, blondes, dark skin, light skin, seven foot tall people, dwarfism, homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals: all are God's creation. Nobody makes the choice. It is our duty to see God in all. It is also our duty to mind our own business, and work on our own character development, not to pursue the wild goose chase of changing others. God uses, and created karma. This law balances everything out over time to bring us all back to him. So any hatred or misuse of Love will surely end back on you. I love it all. Aum Namasivaya

[sarabhanga]

Regarding the general question of homosexual “marriage” (by which term I assume that the couple will be sexually active) within the broad spectrum of Hinduism, there is no general prescription and (so long as one is not a Brahmacarin or a Brahmin or a Sannyasin, or intending to be considered as such) sexual matters are entirely the private concern of the consenting individuals involved.

There is no absolute prohibition of homosexuality for the Kshatriya or Vaishya, but I am unfamiliar with any prescribed homosexual “marriage” ritual ~ indeed, I cannot imagine that such a thing could officially exist in traditional Aryan society.

And for the Shudra, there is no particular obligation to any authority (other than his own ancestors and elders).

The diversity of tribal and shudra traditions may contain some provision for homosexual marriage; and perhaps among the Sakhis would be a good place to look for such a ritual ~ see http://www.adolphus.nl/sadhus/rama.html#sakhis

N.B. Any ejaculation without the intention or hope of conception is surely an “unnatural” act, for the very nature of the haploid spermatozoids is to seek fertilization and expression in the next diploid generation. The occasional wastage of seed is inevitable in the course of nature, but that does not mean that the proper nature of that seed is such that it should ever be deliberately wasted.