Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 Why should it bother anyone that some homosexual devotees want to be married and go about their business? I think the reason it bothers people is because it is hypocritical. To behave like a devotee and yet be engaged in an irreligious activity is dishonest. I realize this argument can be extended to any irreligious behavior, including illicit heterosexual intercourse. But the point remains that it is only natural for religious people to be concerned when homosexual intercourse is rationalized through some haphazard jugglery of subreligious principles and pop culture sentiment. What to speak of Vaishnavas who are repeatedly told that they are following a centuries-old tradition, only to have the whole thing turned on its head with modern homosexuals improvising their own regulative principles just to accomodate their desires, yet calling themselves Vaishnavas all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 Can you name for us any homosexual devotees who "want to be married and go about their business?" I can think of two or three devotees who have publicly advocated recognizing same-sex marriages, but as far as I know they're either not gay or not interested in getting married themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 Can you name for us any homosexual devotees who "want to be married and go about their business?" I can think of two or three devotees who have publicly advocated recognizing same-sex marriages, but as far as I know they're either not gay or not interested in getting married themselves. The "Third Gender" subpage of the Chakra website is full of submissions of articles by authors, some of whom are openly homosexual, who advocate this view. Certainly there are many closet sympathizers within ISKCON who would like to see some kind of public recognition of same-sex partnerships. We've already seen some proponents here of this view - the view that one can still make spiritual progress despite behaving in an adharmic fashion so long as he/she "regulates" his/her adharmic behavior. I have yet to find the basis of such a view in Gaudiya Vaishnava writings, or in the scriptures which Gaudiya Vaishnavas venerate. On the contrary, there are many statements to the effect that even properly performed varnashrama duties do not equate to spiritual progress, what to speak of adharmic activities regulated through some personal, man-made institution. It is also a source of perpetual fascination to me, that these iskcon gurus who claim to represent a bona fide parampara, do not at all see the problem with social acceptance of such adharmic behavior. When the philosophy of Sri Caitanya so transcends even the ordinary religious principles of the Vedas, the modern-day Chaitanya followers nevertheless flounder on basic subreligious principles. I fail to see how a guru who cannot appreciate what is and what is not dharma, and the significance of following dharma, can nevertheless have any practical realization on such topics as surrendering one's self unto the Supreme Lord. "Give up all religious duties" can be a devotional statement or an atheistic statement, depending on who is speaking it.... food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 It's worth pointing out that the discussion here is not really about homosexuals privately engaging in sexual intercourse, since that is something they can do in any case. What is really desired by them it seems is social acceptance of the act. Social acceptance of any adharmic behavior by a religious institution whose authority is based on dharma leads to obvious problems. But again, many try to gloss over this point with the attitude of, "well, that dharma stuff is too troubling for me, so let me just avoid that and in this way I can say I'm surrendering." Hmmmmm, I just don't think it works that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 But... I do remember I did get a hoot out of the story about when Lord Brahma had created some passionate men who indeed then turned on him with sexual agitation. Poor Brahma had to seek the help of Lord Krishna to fend off the perverts. So, if we wonder what vaisnavas think of this topic we need look no further than to the very first vaisnava in our lineage. He didn't think much of it at all. Did he? Guess he was straight - the first homo-phob - adi-homo-phobia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2005 Report Share Posted September 7, 2005 It seems like you are all more interested in mundane or "smarta" dharma rather than Vaishnava dharma. Krsna consciousness is very practical and whatever works best to encourage bhakti can be accepted. Yes, gays want social acceptance and understanding. Doesn't everyone? If same-sex marriage helps gays control their sex life and eventually give it up, then that is a good thing and we should employ it in Krsna's service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2005 Report Share Posted September 7, 2005 Oh, the Brahma story! It's pretty obvious in that pastime that the demons were not homosexual--they were heterosexual. At the end of the tale they chase after women--I don't know any homosexual like that! Actually, His Holiness Hrdayananda Maharaja explains this fact very clearly and thoroughly in his recent article in support of gay monogamy. You might as well use the story of Ravana kidnapping Sita as an example of all heterosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2005 Report Share Posted September 7, 2005 Srila Prabhupada discussed in the books, go there, read, understand,in the pure sense, WE ARE NOT THESE SEX MACHINES. but yes there is purpose to the act--- as we well know, procreation, just think for a moment what that means exactly to Vaisnavas like the acharyas previously. ya you got it, lots and lots of beautiful bouncing Hare Krsna Vaisnava Babies ---exactly what the world needs. Any problem with that part of the philosophy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2005 Report Share Posted September 7, 2005 We are not gay no any other designation rather as one writer put we are spiritual beings yes meant for procreation and allowances of the Jivas to come hert to Mrtya Loka to engage in karmic life. If you are simply lonely and need to LIVE with someone Join an Yoga Ashram for celebatory association,in celebration of life as a servant of the Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2005 Report Share Posted September 7, 2005 It seems like you are all more interested in mundane or "smarta" dharma rather than Vaishnava dharma. Krsna consciousness is very practical and whatever works best to encourage bhakti can be accepted. Yes, gays want social acceptance and understanding. Doesn't everyone? If same-sex marriage helps gays control their sex life and eventually give it up, then that is a good thing and we should employ it in Krsna's service. Wow, he actually said it. And hardly 2-3 postings after the other guest predicted he would... So insisting that we follow regulative principles is "smarta dharma" and not "Vaishnava dharma," eh? In that case, Lord Krishna must be the biggest smarta of them all! "BG 16.23 He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. BG 16.24: One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated." Here is a humbling thought for the GALVA sympathizer who just spoke up - perhaps you and your friends do not even understand what dharma is, what to speak of "smarta" dharma or "Vaishnava" dharma. GALVA doesn't just want social acceptance for themselves; they want social acceptance for the *act.* How is this different from everyone? Well, there are no other groups in ISKCON asking for social acceptance of intoxication, social acceptance of meat-eating, etc. There may be many heterosexual people quietly violating the restrictions on sexual intercourse, but they haven't mounted an organized campaign for public acceptance of this standard. No, it's only the GALVA people who have demanded that. I don't know how many times it need be said in order to penetrate, but it's worth repeating. Merely following prescribed duties does not necessarily make one more devoted to Lord Krishna. So what to speak of following bogus institutions created by imperfect beings for the purpose of allowing sense gratification... Also, the article by Hrdayananda Gosvami in which he tries to give a new spin on the 3rd Canto description of the homosexual demons is pure rubbish. Anyone with sufficient intelligence to read the verses and their purports can clearly see that it is depicting what is known in medical circles as "situational homosexuality." Hrdayananda's writings are foolish, to say the least. Since he derives his own authority from his spiritual master, trying to argue that his spiritual master is wrong is self-defeating. GALVA people need to stop twisting and misusing philosophy to suit their ends. "Surrender unto me" is not implicit on so many conditions set forth by homosexual people. It means surrender, period. If you cannot even surrender your ego to the regulations of scripture, where is the question of you surrendering unto the Lord? What is needed in ISKCON is a basic standard of honesty to replace the astronomical level of cultural and moral ignorance that has become the standard. Referring to regulations as a "smarta dharma" is atheistic behavior, not Vaishnava behavior. It is more consistent with a new-age cult than a genuine Vaishnava tradition. Oh what the heck, why am I even saying all of this? You can't sing classical music to a donkey.... alpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted September 7, 2005 Report Share Posted September 7, 2005 "Wow, he actually said it. And hardly 2-3 postings after the other guest predicted he would... So insisting that we follow regulative principles is "smarta dharma" and not "Vaishnava dharma," eh? In that case, Lord Krishna must be the biggest smarta of them all! "BG 16.23 He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. BG 16.24: One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated." Here is a humbling thought for the GALVA sympathizer who just spoke up - perhaps you and your friends do not even understand what dharma is, what to speak of "smarta" dharma or "Vaishnava" dharma. GALVA doesn't just want social acceptance for themselves; they want social acceptance for the *act.* How is this different from everyone? Well, there are no other groups in ISKCON asking for social acceptance of intoxication, social acceptance of meat-eating, etc. There may be many heterosexual people quietly violating the restrictions on sexual intercourse, but they haven't mounted an organized campaign for public acceptance of this standard. No, it's only the GALVA people who have demanded that. I don't know how many times it need be said in order to penetrate, but it's worth repeating. Merely following prescribed duties does not necessarily make one more devoted to Lord Krishna. So what to speak of following bogus institutions created by imperfect beings for the purpose of allowing sense gratification... Also, the article by Hrdayananda Gosvami in which he tries to give a new spin on the 3rd Canto description of the homosexual demons is pure rubbish. Anyone with sufficient intelligence to read the verses and their purports can clearly see that it is depicting what is known in medical circles as "situational homosexuality." Hrdayananda's writings are foolish, to say the least. Since he derives his own authority from his spiritual master, trying to argue that his spiritual master is wrong is self-defeating. GALVA people need to stop twisting and misusing philosophy to suit their ends. "Surrender unto me" is not implicit on so many conditions set forth by homosexual people. It means surrender, period. If you cannot even surrender your ego to the regulations of scripture, where is the question of you surrendering unto the Lord? What is needed in ISKCON is a basic standard of honesty to replace the astronomical level of cultural and moral ignorance that has become the standard. Referring to regulations as a "smarta dharma" is atheistic behavior, not Vaishnava behavior. It is more consistent with a new-age cult than a genuine Vaishnava tradition. Oh what the heck, why am I even saying all of this? You can't sing classical music to a donkey...." alpa For what its worth I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhakta Don Muntean Posted September 9, 2005 Report Share Posted September 9, 2005 If you're straight or gay – or in-between - just see - it’s really only - Sexuality vs. Spirituality – Bondage vs. Discipline - these struggles with these identities - are in the mind – and only in the mind… “A man must elevate himself by his own mind, not degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy as well.” [bG 6.5] “In whatever condition one quits his present body, in his next life he will attain to that state of being without fail.” [bG 8.6] “The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another as the air carries aroma.” [bG 15.8] “It is fruitless to see and talk of the material modes of nature and their resultant so-called happiness and distress as if they were factual. When the mind wanders during the day and a man begins to think himself extremely important, or when he dreams at night and sees a beautiful woman enjoying with him, these are merely false dreams. Similarly, the happiness and distress caused by the material senses should be understood to be meaningless.” [sB 7.2.48] “…The various identities a person adopts in relation to his mind and body are all material designations. The pure soul is unencumbered by such mundane designations …” [RTW 2.6] “…Within these three worlds there is no distinction between men and women in relation to You because both men and women belong to the marginal potency or prakrti. No one is actually the enjoyer or the male; everyone is meant to be enjoyed by You. …” [KB 29, Introduction] How does it perpetuate? “…So imitating, imitating, the sex life is there, it becomes prominent…” [Philosophy Discussions, Sigmund Freud] So in the spirit of staving off Kali Yuga tensions - let's tend to be accepting of others [who are trying to control and regulate their senses in any way] - but be not accepting of these subtle sexuality ideas - not at the expense of the truth. In our own personal 'subtle identity struggles' we must often remind ourselves - that we are not this body and thus - the sexual identity which comes with it - is really an illusion. We cannot pretend to [be] transcend[ing] sexuality and still identify - with any of those designations…? “…That itching sensation can be tolerated if one practices Krishna consciousness. Then one will not be very attracted by sex life.…” [JSD: 7] “…So one who wants to cure these itches, he should be a little tolerant. Tolerant. And then he’ll be cured of this itching. Itching, if you stop itching, then it automatically cures.…” [bG 5.14-22 lecture, August 28, 1966] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2005 Report Share Posted September 11, 2005 sick is my only conclusion.......Allah has placed a sickness in their hearts.......AND HE WILL AGGREVATE THAT SICKNESS. AFTER ALL..........someone has got to go HELL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2005 Report Share Posted September 11, 2005 Quote: someone has got to go to hell Reply: Why not You too...? Hate is a sickness that is spreading like an epidemic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2005 Report Share Posted September 15, 2005 Talk about misreading things! What he said was: "If same-sex marriage helps gays control their sex life and eventually give it up...then we should employ it in Krishna's service." In other words, whatever best helps a person control their senses and ultimately give up sex life is best. The goal stated was controlling the senses and giving up sex. And that's the difference between "smarta-dharma" and "Vaishnava-dharma." Vaishnavas will employ whatever dharma aids them in their pursuit of bhakti and reject that which does not help. Smarta brahmanas, on the other hand, mindlessly follow rules and regulations from the Vedas whether they are appropriate or not. Celibacy and marriage are important components of Krsna consciousness for everyone -- it doesn't matter whether or not the person is gay or straight, male or female, black or white, etc. Gays will practice celibacy or marry as required in their spiritual life. As Srila Prabhupada used to say, "the dogs may bark, but the caravan passes." In other words, critics may bash gays and try to discourage them from marriage and other aspects of Krsna consciousness, but such foolishness will never stop them from pursuing Krsna to the best of their ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhakta Don Muntean Posted September 19, 2005 Report Share Posted September 19, 2005 So I knew that there was something wrong with your so-called quote from Koran - here is the full quote: "And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the last day; and they are not at all believers. They desire to deceive Allah and those who believe, and they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive. There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied. And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers. Now surely they themselves are the mischief makers, but they do not perceive." [Koran 2.8-12] That text has nothing to do with homosexuals! It in-fact is about extremist religionists and - their mischief mongering regarding the ‘end times’ teachings. Just see how perfect a description it is of evangelical lobby groups! Do not try to enforce some hodgepodge interpretation on sacred texts – no matter the reason – and if you really wanted to please God you would also know: "Those who spend [benevolently] in ease as well as in straitness, and those who restrain [their] anger and pardon men; and Allah loves the doers of good [to others]." [Koran 3.134] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2005 Report Share Posted September 19, 2005 Not that I care about this issue – for me sex and sexual identity is a non-issue – but for others – that’s not the case. Are all homosexuals deviant demons? No. Same sex attractions aren’t always demoniac – as a slight example I recall the episode involving Lord Brahma is counted - as demoniac - because they were his sons – so find me a passage that condemns homosexuals without that other part. So there are instances of men attracted to men – in the Vedic tradition. When the Pandavas were in hiding – what was the disguise worn by Arjuna in that last year? What about the sages who desired Lord Rama and thus became gopis - why were they attracted to Him in that way? “…In days gone by there were many sages in Dandakaranya. Dandakaranya is the name of the forest where Lord Ramacandra lived after being banished by His father for fourteen years. At that time there were many advanced sages who were captivated by the beauty of Lord Ramacandra and who desired to become women in order to embrace the Lord.… Lord Rämacandra remained silent, and His silence shows that He accepted the prayers of the sages…” [Nectar of Devotion ch. 16] BDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 im not gay but the lord does not care weather your homosexual or not. As males were once women and women were once men. what he does care is of the love that you have for him and that you do not fall prey to maya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 what he does care is of the love that you have for him and that you do not fall prey to maya. Don't you consider homosex falling prey to maya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2005 Report Share Posted September 23, 2005 May I humbly suggest that lust in any context – controlled or otherwise – is still LUST, that is an insurmountable barrier to any spiritual attainment. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, or bisexuals are equally and assuredly under the spell of Maya. My feeling has always been that the only sexual orientation acceptable to Lord Krishna is celibacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted September 24, 2005 Report Share Posted September 24, 2005 [snip] If we wish to become fully Kåñëa conscious, we have to give up the shackles of mäyä, or, if we remain with mäyä, we should live in such a way that we will not be subject to illusion. It is not necessary for one to abandon his family, for there were many householders amongst Lord Caitanya's closest devotees. What must be renounced is the propensity for material enjoyment. Although Lord Caitanya approved of a householder having regulated sex in marriage, He was very strict with those in the renounced order, and He even banished junior Haridäsa for glancing lustfully at a young woman. The point is that one must take up a particular path and stick to it, obeying all the rules and regulations necessary for success in spiritual life. It was Lord Caitanya's mission that He teach the path of Kåñëa consciousness to all men and thereby enable them to partake of the immortality of spiritual life. [snip] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2005 Report Share Posted September 24, 2005 Regulated sex life has been sorely misunderstood and grossly misinterpreted. Sex is allowed for procreation - period. Householders must sleep in a separate bedroom for the rest of their lives after they have taken part in the process of procreation. And above all – they can never EVER look at their own wife lustfully. Now you tell me – how many so-called householders do you know who can do that – that is look at their own wife as if she were their sister or their mother? Being a householder is hard work; calling yourself a householder is a lot easier. However, only a true householder has a chance of spiritual attainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted September 24, 2005 Report Share Posted September 24, 2005 Yes for procreation. Two men together or two woman can't procreat. I have yet to see any reference given to Lord Caitanya's recognition of a homosexual ashrama within His movement. Now we hedonistic debauchees like myself are still allowed to chant Hare Krsna even in our fallen state or how else can we ever improve. But that does not mean hedonism and debauchery are in anyway offically sanction by Lord Caitanya's representatives. Those that advocate for formal recognition of homosex are injecting poison into the Hare Krsna movement. Big titles or no titles doesn't change the reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 I am a christian who believes that we have a duty to help God's children the best way we can, and if we ignore what's going on in the world with homosexuality than how do we deal with ot more importantly how do we stop it by ignoring it...just as they band together to get what they want so should we but under God's leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 I personally believe we should start reading the bible because God is definatly against it...it's referred to as an abomination.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts