It is almost like Lord Singh is just jumping on the bandwagon of anti-gay marriage, specially as he says religious scriptures do not condemn homosexuality.
Get off the hate bandwagon it ismost unbecoming
What a hoot! How on earth is same-sex civil marriage attacking religion? Where are the facts, Singh, do tell? What an idiot. If anything, religion is attacking the majority of us who want to be free from religious interference in what is purely and entirely a civil matter. We’re NOT demanding religious marriage, moron! Nor do we care what you think.
Mr Singh is religious – so it should not come as a surprise that he is a stupid bigot.
Religion has almost become a synonym for hatred.
The roman cult is the worst offender of all. Imagine, a catholic bishop summoning British MPs to a meeting to figure out a way to block marriage equality. This is nothing more than subversion of our government by a representative of a foreign state which happens to be the Vatican. He should be arrested and prosecuted.
In fact I personally feel that the Pope’s recent visit here (UK) should not have been allowed and he certainly should not have been received by the Queen – there is a strong prima facie case to answer of his inciting British Catholics to break her laws and thus disobey her. An explicit public assertion before he came here (which probably would never have been given) that her Catholic subjects must obey UK anti-discrimination laws and reveal all suspected RC paedophile activity to the Police would have probably sufficed to enable HM to receive him without affront to her dignity or ours.
if his faith doesnt condem homosexuality what is his execuse for blatant homophobia?
Just another moron trying to get into the ‘Bigot League’, Sikh faith does not condemn homosexuality.
Well at least Lord Singh can’t use the it’ll-lead-to-polygamy argument as, historically anyway, polygamy was permissible for Sikhs – several of the rajas certainly had more than one wife each.
And so too do some Islamic countries permit polygamy, but never a word of condemnation about that is there?
Many rajas did have more than one wife each, yes, but polygamy is not permitted in the Sikh religion
So how did the Sikh rajas manage then?
Sikh rajas were mostly monogamous. Very few exceptions.
As virtually none of the rajas before the 1920s were monogamous, I find that rather hard to believe. However, the fact that even you admit that some sikh rajas were not suggests there was no hard-and-fast rule about monogamy in Sikh tradition.
It is not permitted. The official SGPC Rehat Maryada compiled in the early 1900′s by the most learned Sikh scholars forbids. Who the hell are you and what do you know?
Your statement “suggests there was no hard-and-fast rule about monogamy” is a baseless assumption. It’s things like this that make me suspect that LGBT elements of our society want our religion either subverted or completely done away with. You truly do yourself no favours. Maharaja Ranjit Singh took opium, also definitely not premitted.
Well, who the hell are you ‘Mr Singh’? Someone who accepts without question a set of rules reformulated in 1915 and 1931 and only finally approved in 1950, some 490 years after the invention of this religion? You seem unaware that if exceptions could be made in the case of rulers and other powerful men, then the rules were clearly not hard-and-fast in the first place. Perhaps you don’t understand the difference between rules and principles?
In any event, to put polygamy aside for now, are you now going to deny that there’s no prohibition on – indeed, no mention of – homosexuality in the Sikh scriptures?
I think we should all write to him.
Equal civil marriage is in no way an attack on religion and anyway this change is being done by the conservative party not a group of secularists.
Teressa May, for instance, is the daughter of a vicar and attends church every Sunday. Cameron is a Christian etc etc.
Many LGBT are as religious as any other part of society. We aren’t aliens.
I totally agree. We should challenge whenever it arises the assumption that the LGBT people aren’t religious by definition.
It is true that both church attendance and the “instituion of marriage” are not nearly as popular in the UK as previously, right across the population.
But LGBT people are entitled to be considered part religion if they want to.
The various religious groups have managed to get to the stage (after centuries of hating each other) where they are able to rub along together in the UK – even become friends. Now they have to make the next quantum jump and get to the stage of living happily with LGBT people both within and without their groups.
Are these Churches there to serve society or to control it?
just another case of a religous authority (as i always say, besides god) becoming deluded with power. i dont think the religious oposition to homosexuality will withstand the future generations of believers in a progressive society.
and as lord singh said, there is no scriptures condemning homosexuality. so thats his own opinion, not his god.
Come to think of it, almost all religions have a long history of attacking groups of people, be it for adhering to a different religion, for not being ‘pious’ enough, for being uppity women or ‘lower’ classes.
Religion may not be dead, but it has lost its dominant position in life. Even Lord Singh will to face that fact.
The fact he says that Civil partnership gives us ‘everything they need’ shows he views us as second class citizens so I in turn have to question how exactly he ‘totally respects’ us?
Why does religion fear a stable society? Is it because they become more irrelevant prehaps?
Sikh teachings focus on individual behaviors, actions, meditation on God’s name (24X7), seva (service to humanity), honest living thru hard work. The human body is considered a field of actions in life and comes by God’s grace i.e. speaking, listening, seeing, serving, working while praising God’s and always remaining in God’s will. Every other pursuit is a waste of time. Only problem is one’s deifinition of righteous act may not equal of another. A true Sikh submit himself/herself to Guru and dedidate their life to the service of the Guru. Worrying about who is gay, straight, rich, poor, good, bad, ugly, beautiful, lower, upper caste, class, different religion and so on is just a waste of time for any Sikh. I am equally guilty though among many. Traditionally, Sikh marriage has always been between man and a woman. Even the Anand Karaj ceremony and hymns sung are focused on marraige between man and a woman. We are all children of One creator and no one is my enemy.
Would Lord Singh say that Black people had a seat on the bus when they were made to sit at the back and so should be happy with that I wonder?. The man is an unmitigated idiot.
BTW…I thought Sikhism was pretty much Gay friendly. Whats with this moron?
As we’re informed above that a Sikh’s duty is submission to their guru, I fear it’s not likely to become particularly gay-friendly any time soon – unless there are some enlightened equality-minded gurus around I suppose, which somehow I doubt (very willing to be corrected there, though).