Marriage Equality and Hinduism

[Sudas Paijavana]

Sahas I agree. Hindu marriage ritual is between a man and a woman. No Hindu priest would really in their hearts want to conduct a Hindu marriage ceremony for two girls or two guys. But I am sure that Indian government can oversee a governmental (non Hindu) marriage between two males.
---------------------
(on a side note)

I understand Hinduism is universal; but homosexuality is not universal. Also, Hindu marriage glorifies the concept of procreation and the producing of offsprings. I think you need a female and a male for procreation.....


No insult intended to any out there....disagree away as much as you would like....

[eriko]

I completely disagree that same sex people cannot marry the Hindu way. In Tamil Nadu, I read in an article a few years back, the eunuchs (or gays, do not particularly remember) marry each other. And the alliance is between a man who feels masculine, and the other who feels feminine.

Besides there are many stories of women marrying each other in rural India. Just because these people are born as homos you cannot take away their right to be Hindus and practice dharma.

The purpose of the Hindu marriage could have been of producing offspring but I do not think how this logic works today with all the medical technology that we have.

And nor do I in any way look down on people who are homosexuals. They have very different emotional and sexual needs than the rest of us which could be because of their past life karma (or even not, who knows). But they are Hindus in every right (if they chose to be identified as such).

As for the lack of historical homosexual figures, I am unable to understand how can this be an issue at all. There is also a complete absence of women bhramacharinis and saints (except for few like Meera etc). So does that mean that women are incapable of pursuing such paths in general?

And if marriage is so discriminatory, than I am not sure what to make of Hindu marriage if it fails to serve a section of the society (no matter in minority), and if Hinduism is universal than this makes even little sense. Should not Hindu way of life be for everybody no matter their gender and sexuality?

Besides, IMHO, maybe the whole logic of producing offspring was to maintain lineage, preserve culture and what not. Considering that we are already so many in numbers the concept of producing more and more children feels outdated.

Just recently in my locality two working couples adopted baby girls from a local NGO. They did this not for any medical reason, but because they did not have the time. So they took the easiest route: they adopted. And two orphan girls got loving homes. Same-sex people can also do the same.

And as for the talk of gender and sexuality being completely separate. I do agree to it, as research points to it. But let us leave people to decide their gender and sexuality for themselves. And besides by this logic any person is a male if he feels himself to be one no matter the sex. Can you tell him because his reproductive organs do not match his gender, he is not a male?

Another very interesting thing, and which I know many people are not aware of. There are actually not so many born eunuchs in India as people think there are. Most of these people (as a matter of majority of the hijras) are born as completely fit males but chose to identify with the female gender (and want to marry males).

Besides Hindu dharma as I understand is not based on male and female concepts, but those of femininity and masculinity. I could be born as female but be very masculine and like girls, or I could be a man and feel very feminine and like guys (or do not like). When we are taking about the union of two souls, I do not think we are taking about them being male and female, rather we are taking about the blending of femininity and masculinity, and sex has nothing to do with how you feel internally.

I do not of course think of marriage as a necessity, and much less the only path of fulfilling and happy life, and even lesser the only path of attaining moksha. There is more to living then just getting married and having kids (do not understand people's obsession with marriage at all). Research points out that people with children are more stressed and unhappy than those without in the long run. But there are people who do not share my thoughts on marriage, and are of alternate gender and sexuality and I do not see why they are being denied Hindu life because they do not apparently fit in the mainstream.

For that matter, I will go even further to state that the present wedding rituals survived because they served patriarchy (and if interpreted from a feminist point of view are unfair to women). Which completely erodes them, lets us say, their sanctity and purity, etc etc.

Maybe be need much more gender and sexuality neutral rituals, and if do not want to interfere with customs already set, then let us not take them so literally so as to use them as justification of discriminating against people with alternate gender or sexuality.

For that matter, if you think about this, this whole debate about homos and Hindu marriage is very similar to what would have been happening in India in the late 19th century regarding widow remarriage. And from this perspective you will see how illogical and regressive some of the thoughts on this forum are.

Another objection that I have against Hindu marriage rituals being taken literally is the whole concept of seven births. I am not sure if I am entirely right, but people have told me that those seven pheras are actually about seven births that you spend with your spouse (I love this term, so much gender neutral). What guarantees that I was born in all these seven births as a woman and married the same man (over and over again). Were my life karmas so similar in all the seven births? Is something like this even possible? I could have been anything in my past life, could be anything in my future life.

Besides think about this if I did everything the same in my life (that is in every life my goal was to marry the same man in every life), did I make any spiritual progress. I do not think so. I was stuck with the same routine, life and people for all my seven lives. Complete waste of my karma potential, don't you think?

And besides why are we not talking about the concept of Karma bhog? As you sow, so you reap, isn't it? So these homos are basically experiencing the fruits of their own karma, let us help them do it the Hindu way. So that if the present life was not that of their choice (could also be a choice), they can make efforts to shape their next life like they would want it. By not assimilating them with the Hindu society we are declining them a chance to make progress.

Some people could completely ignore the above by saying that Hindu dharma as nothing to do with homosexuality or whatever. Or let is leave it to the State to decide to this people? But dude, you so strongly believe in Hindu life, love being Hindu why deny other people this? Hindu dharma might not be a state religion, neither the law of the state but it is a way of life for many us. It has shaped our culture (and also vice-versa) and continues to do so. And if we Hindus are so tolerant, liberal and progressive as we project ourselves (and also feel), then why are we being so intolerant and dismissive about this issue.

And if you cannot think of anything than think of widow remarriage.

[philosoraptor]

Eriko,

Whether you "agree" or "disagree" is of no relevance to anything.

If you "disagree" that wasps can sting you, it will not change the fact that they can and will sting you if you disturb them.

If you "disagree" that sky is blue, it will not change the fact that the sky is, indeed, blue.

We cannot change Reality simply by refusing to believe in it. Hinduism represents the religious culture based on veda-s, purANa-s, and dharma-shAstra-s, and no amount of "disagreeing" is going to change that.

There is no allowance for "same-sex marriage" in Hinduism. This is a fact. The very notion of a "same-sex marriage" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the significance of the marriage samskAra.

[eriko]

Whether you "agree" or "disagree" is of no relevance to anything.

Nor is yours.

If you "disagree" that sky is blue, it will not change the fact that the sky is, indeed, blue.

The sky is indeed not blue. Read some science.

We cannot change Reality simply by refusing to believe in it.

Whose reality?

Hinduism represents the religious culture based on veda-s, purANa-s, and dharma-shAstra-s, and no amount of "disagreeing" is going to change that.

I am a Hindu. None of the purans, vedas and dharma-shastras can challenge this statement, nor can you.

There is no allowance for "same-sex marriage" in Hinduism. This is a fact.

Earth is flat. Was a fact before 16th century in Europe. Non-hindus cannot convert to Hindu dharma was a fact not long ago. Widows cannot remarry, was a fact before 19th century in India. Untouchables cannot enter temple, was a fact before 1947 (still is at some places).

The very notion of a "same-sex marriage" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the significance of the marriage samskAra.

And what is that?

[philosoraptor]

Eriko, there is no meaning to your self-identification as a "Hindu" when you explicitly disagree with the scriptures that define what "Hinduism" is. Your position is about as sensible as that of a "Christian" who disagrees with the Bible, or a "Muslim" who disagrees with the Koran. As a matter of literary convenience, historical application, and a generous helping of common sense, a religion is what its scriptures say it is. It isn't what people born into the religion by accident of birth say it is.

Would I want to challenge your claim that you are a "Hindu?" Not really, since there would be no point. There is similarly no point in challenging the claim that a free-sex-advocating "guru" is a "Hindu," or in challenging the claim that followers of a pedophile godman from South India is a "Hindu." Almost anyone can claim to be a "Hindu" these days. I know of quite a few people who smoke, drink beer, and eat hamburgers who also call themselves "Hindu." Would you challenge their claim to being "Hindu?" Why or why not? On what basis?

Earth is flat. Was a fact before 16th century in Europe.

Not a fact. Earth was always spherical. Only the misconception that it was flat was en vogue until 16th century in Europe. Not a very good example of anything, and not very bright of you to bring this up.

Non-hindus cannot convert to Hindu dharma was a fact not long ago.

Also not a fact. There are records going all the way back to pre-medieval times showing that Buddhists, Muslims, and Greeks had converted to Hinduism.

Widows cannot remarry, was a fact before 19th century in India.

Traditionally, widows still do not remarry. This is culture that is based on an understanding that material enjoyment is temporary, and no lasting benefit is derived by simply chewing the chewed.

Untouchables cannot enter temple, was a fact before 1947 (still is at some places).

Untouchability as it is understood today has little if anything to do with the orthodox Hinduism that is discussed in shAstra. The bhAgavata purANa explicitly states that even mleccha-s and all sorts of sinful races can be redeemed by taking up bhakti.

Once again, not a very good example to bring up. These are the same kinds of stereotyped responses I have come to expect from Indian, post-modern, free-thinkers.

[eriko]

Eriko, there is no meaning to your self-identification as a "Hindu" when you explicitly disagree with the scriptures that define what "Hinduism" is. Your position is about as sensible as that of a "Christian" who disagrees with the Bible, or a "Muslim" who disagrees with the Koran. As a matter of literary convenience, historical application, and a generous helping of common sense, a religion is what its scriptures say it is. It isn't what people born into the religion by accident of birth say it is.

Which scriptures are we talking about? Please specify them, and I will decide for myself if I need to follow them or not. Unlike the religions (adharmic) you have mentioned we Hindus has liberty to choose our own paths.

And who says I am a Hindu just because I am born into it. Hindu Dharma is my choice and I am proud of it.

Would I want to challenge your claim that you are a "Hindu?" Not really, since there would be no point. There is similarly no point in challenging the claim that a free-sex-advocating "guru" is a "Hindu," or in challenging the claim that followers of a pedophile godman from South India is a "Hindu."
Almost anyone can claim to be a "Hindu" these days. I know of quite a few people who smoke, drink beer, and eat hamburgers who also call themselves "Hindu." Would you challenge their claim to being "Hindu?" Why or why not? On what basis?

It is same for the homos. Why discriminate against them then?

Not a fact. Earth was always spherical. Only the misconception that it was flat was en vogue until 16th century in Europe. Not a very good example of anything, and not very bright of you to bring this up.

Not very bright of you for not understanding.

Also not a fact. There are records going all the way back to pre-medieval times showing that Buddhists, Muslims, and Greeks had converted to Hinduism.

Your repeated use of the term Hinduism is a proof enough of your ignorance.

Traditionally, widows still do not remarry.

Or is it people like you who do not let them marry.

This is culture that is based on an understanding that material enjoyment is temporary, and no lasting benefit is derived by simply chewing the chewed.

Strange that being so enlightened you should waste your time on materialistic marriage vows between two consenting adults.

Untouchability as it is understood today has little if anything to do with the orthodox Hinduism that is discussed in shAstra. The bhAgavata purANa explicitly states that even mleccha-s and all sorts of sinful races can be redeemed by taking up bhakti.

Untouchability was a consequence of a mentality. You seem to have a similar mentality about the homos.

Once again, not a very good example to bring up. These are the same kinds of stereotyped responses I have come to expect from Indian, post-modern, free-thinkers.

An easy way to generalize and dismiss my points.

[philosoraptor]

Eriko, you didn't answer my questions.

What makes a person a "Hindu?" On what basis do you argue that? If the shAstra-s are not the authority, then what is? Your personal opinion? Majority vote? The constitution of India? What?

Can you engage in an intelligent discussion without having recourse to strawman attacks and stereotyped responses? I will repeat that untouchability as you have described it has nothing to do with shAstric Hinduism:

kirāta-hūṇāndhra-pulinda-pulkaśā ābhīra-śumbhā yavanāḥ khasādayaḥ |
ye ’nye ca pāpā yad-apāśrayāśrayāḥ śudhyanti tasmai prabhaviṣṇave namaḥ || bhAgavata 2.4.18||

"Kirāta, Hūṇa, Āndhra, Pulinda, Pulkaśa, Ābhīra, Śumbha, Yavana, members of the Khasa races and even others addicted to sinful acts can be purified by taking shelter of the devotees of the Lord, due to His being the supreme power. I beg to offer my respectful obeisances unto Him."

If you could put aside your stereotypes, you might learn something about the religion you so vehemently disagree with.

[eriko]

What makes a person a "Hindu?" On what basis do you argue that? If the shAstra-s are not the authority, then what is? Your personal opinion? Majority vote? The constitution of India? What?

Never thought my views held so much importance. Anyways, I feel that one should identify oneself as Hindu, practice Sadhna (in any form) and believe in Karma and rebirth.

Can you engage in an intelligent discussion without having recourse to strawman attacks and stereotyped responses?

Can you?

I will repeat that untouchability as you have described it has nothing to do with shAstric Hinduism:

I never said so. You assumed. It is not dharma, but mentality that I speak against. Arrogantly, you believe yourself to be a representative of Hindus, and any opinion which goes against your own personal beliefs is seen as a an attack on so called 'traditional Hinduism' when nothing as such actually exists.

If you could put aside your stereotypes, you might learn something about the religion you so vehemently disagree with.

I do not think of it as religion, you do.

[philosoraptor]

Anyways, I feel that one should identify oneself as Hindu, practice Sadhna (in any form) and believe in Karma and rebirth.

Why? Who is a Hindu? How do you know that such a person is a Hindu?

What is the basis for your views on who is, and who is not, a Hindu? Is it personal opinion? Majority opinion? Goverment edict? What?

Can a person who eats hamburgers be a Hindu? Why or why not? On what basis?

[eriko]

Why? Who is a Hindu? How do you know that such a person is a Hindu?

What is the basis for your views on who is, and who is not, a Hindu? Is it personal opinion? Majority opinion? Goverment edict? What?

Can a person who eats hamburgers be a Hindu? Why or why not? On what basis?

I did say, "I feel...". So obviously this is my personal opinion. It will not only be extraordinarily arrogant, but also ignorant of me if I go on deciding which people are Hindus and which are not. I would rather take their word for it and keep my life simple.