gay marriage in California - Page 2

RadheyRadhey108 · 05-21-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bija

I know have to learn this lesson Radhey....its the human condition isnt it? Something we all have in common.

We are all trapped in Samsara, and without loving and understanding both our brothers and sisters and God, we'll never leave it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bija

All these Rakshakas etc....where did they eminate from? Where did all these manifestations come from? Was it from Brahma's mind?

Just wondering.

What a good point... I'd never thought of it that way before.

bija · 05-21-2008, 11:41 PM

I am no expert on sastra Radhey, but through observation, study, and self-realization I have intuited these things.

This is why I say the 'basic moralists are flawed in their arguments'. The vedic viewpoint shows something vastly bigger and different.

Manu-samhiti is a guide line, as are all other moral scriptures to maintain society and individual maintenance. The self-realized soul will understand all the purport of moral scripture within his heart. Now, upon realizing its purport he/she understands the dependance upon the Lord for its fulfillment.

No fundamentalist government, in my opinion, can bring about that self-realization in a living entity. Moral structures can only bring about an environment that is conducive to spiritual practice. If the society does not have advanced spiritual teachings alongside that, then all that remains is fundamentalist society....which often can be opressive.

If U.S. is not careful it could fall into basic fundamentalism oneday too (as a society)....and it would not be the Islamic threat to bring it about...but possibly Christian. Ignorance of an advanced spiritual path (suddha sattva) will be its cause. Not all western countries have such a strong fundamentalist/puritan pull as does U.S. I may be wrong...but I can envision this happening. If the society does not have within its understandings and foundation the spiritual path of pure goodness (suddha-sattva) its prospects are not good. Transcendental spiritualism is above moralistic religion. (religiosity, economic development, sense gratification, liberation - love of God).

Quote:

from Sri Bhagavatamrta Kana by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura

...The vast material universe, including the seven lower planetary systems like Patalaloka, right up to the topmost planet Satyaloka, is described as the gross body of Lord Brahma. (It can also be described as Brahma.) Hiranyagarbha (another name for Lord Brahma that means 'full of gold'), is the subtle presence, or the jiva soul, who resides in the gross form of Brahma...

...Lord Brahma is the Vairaja purusa (the aggregate of the material world, which is also his gross body) as well as Hiranyagarbha (the total soul of the jiva).

from Sri Bhagavatamrta Kana by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura

...Lord Garbhodaksayi Visnu, the second Purusa Avatara, is present in Hiranyagarbha's heart as the Super Soul, and Supreme Controller...

Sri Bhagavatamrta Kana Online - click here

Baobabtree · 05-21-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

I am just an immature 14 year old, but this is my input.
I had said the purpose of marriage and sex life was to produce Krishna conscious children and since homosexuals do not do this, it goes under illicit sex.
Radhe Radhe pointed out that this is an imperfect world and they should not be discriminated against for fulfilling their desires. After all many heteroexuals also participate in sex life and not always is it for producing Krishna conscious children. More often than not, it is simply for self gratification. And the heterosexuals never get discriminated against.
My opinion is a little harsh about this matter. I think ANYONE whether they are homosexual or heterosexual should be stopped from sex life if their object isn't to produce Krishna conscious (or God conscious depending on the case) children.

Indulekhadasi, I mean no disrespect to you when I say this (or other Vaishnavas, and Vaishnava gurus who hold this point of view), but this view point of yours is contradicted by Shruti. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says in VI.4.9 and VI.4.10

Quote:

9
If a man desires his wife with the thought: "May she enjoy love with me," then, after inserting the member in her, joining mouth to mouth and stroking her organ, he should utter the following mantra:
"O semen, you have been produced from my every limb, especially from my heart through the essence of food you are the essence of the limbs. Bring this woman under my control, like a deer pierced by a poisoned arrow."
10
Now, the wife whom he desires with the thought: "May she not conceive"—after inserting the member in her and joining mouth to mouth, he should inhale and then exhale, repeating the following mantra:
"With power, with semen, I reclaim the semen from you."
Thus she comes to be without semen.

I know this is perhaps a bit explicit, but it is Shruti, and when we debate concepts like this, it is important that we use Shruti, to determine what is and isn't Vedic.

RadheyRadhey108 · 05-21-2008, 11:57 PM

Probably not the best method of contraception... but... hey... it might've worked back in the day... LOL

bija · 05-22-2008, 12:03 AM

The power of mantras

theist · 05-22-2008, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadheyRadhey108

How so?! It says the rakshasas wanted to attack Brahma Dev and then have sex with him... that'd classify as rape in my book. I'm sorry that I don't interpret a verse talking about homosexual rape at the beginning of a world age as an attack on all homosexuality (since I know it's the only verse you guys have from shastra to back up your anti-homosexual bias).

TRANSLATION

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

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.

Please read more carefully. You are clearly ignoring what is being said especially in Prabhupada's purport.

indulekhadasi · 05-22-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baobabtree

Indulekhadasi, I mean no disrespect to you when I say this (or other Vaishnavas, and Vaishnava gurus who hold this point of view), but this view point of yours is contradicted by Shruti. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says in VI.4.9 and VI.4.10

I know this is perhaps a bit explicit, but it is Shruti, and when we debate concepts like this, it is important that we use Shruti, to determine what is and isn't Vedic.

This is fine, but this is for Kamis only.
Vaishnavas would not engage in this practice.

RadheyRadhey108 · 05-22-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theist

TRANSLATION

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

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.

Please read more carefully. You are clearly ignoring what is being said especially in Prabhupada's purport.

Prabhupada's commentary on shastra isn't shastra... at least not for me. And... what about the ladies? Got any verses/commentary for them? So far, everything people are quoting is applying only to male homosexuality... what about lesbians? Is it okay to be a gay girl but not a gay guy? If so, why?

mahak · 05-22-2008, 06:07 PM

Actually, there is a problem with a devotee being in intensive care in the first place. What kind of intensive care do devotees need at the time of death?

The reason I came out sorta in favor of gay marriage is because I view religionists as a greater threat than homosexuality. However, I know that death is a great trauma, and say if a GALVA type couple were faced with this, I would want them to be able to associate together at this serious time. I doubt that homosexuality would be going on. There is a difference between homosexuals and homosexuality, just as we should hate the sin, not the sinner. If I, for instance, knew that the late Sudama (SWAMI) was dying of aids alone in a hospital somewhere, I would marry him just to be able to assist him in death the way he assisted me in life. Because the law is clear that only direct family members are allowed into intensive care units and other trauma centers.

But a law change could be just as effectual, without disturbing the religionist (but they are disturbed anyway, their solution is a final solution). Equal rights is what I am speaking of, not a perversion of the yajna of marriage. But then again, the yajna of marriage is about twelve different bonafide marriages, two of which are raksasa (kidnap and elope) and gandharva (common law). So heterosexual marriage yajna of these types also would deny human rights of free association where laws are in effect denying access to all but family members. A gay couple should be accepted as family members, not necessitating any idea of marriage.

This whole gay activism is directly responsible for bush's second term. I hold the gays equally responsible for all the problems of this constitution busting regime. The gay community is not compassionate or liberal in any sense of the term. They are selfish, arrogant, and are much more unable to appreciate diversity than any republican of right wing christian Ive ever met. Their only goal is to display their utter perversion for all to see, hear, etc. So, while Im not inclined to be a part of any homophobic rhetoric, I have no sympathy for any of their causes. Any favor I may show them is, as described, strictly human rights issues, not allowance of their ridiculous philosophies or justifications of their utter lack of self control or even common decency.

mahaksadasa

RadheyRadhey108 · 05-22-2008, 06:14 PM

Where is the shastra that says that all homosexuals are selfish, lack compassion, and are perverted without an ounce of self-control?

mahak · 05-22-2008, 06:47 PM

scuse me, but you are speaking with people, not dictionaries. Im 57 years old, a graduate of the sixties and remember them quite well. Ive known some righteous gays in my day, the very best of folks who Id gladly go to the big war with. But they were righteous people, and their gay trim was inherant within themselves. They had no self esteem problems that made them go out and advertize themselves, nor did they have desire to have their sexual preference displayed anywhere other than with their partners in the privacy of their own intimacy.

The shastra you hear is mahaksadasa shastra. And I would be just as critical if heterosexuals always spouted off their sexual preferences or poloitcked for their rights to do so. Im speaking of what I have always called the hetero fags, the disco boys and macho men who think that what goats and rats and dogs do anywhere and everywhere is the goal of life, a religion to fight for and die for.

The folks who are arrogant are those who insist that those opposed to war for oil and those who desire liberal viewpoints must subscribe to faggots rights to turn young boys in the schools and include such wierdness into their national platform, and the dems fall for it all the time, just as kerry did, just as mondale and the other losers did, while the carl rove geniuses operate the gay agenda like puppet masters. Same with abortion (another topic). Why should me, a leftie left of fidel and che and uncle ho, have to accept the abortion genocide as a liberal ideal when everything about abortion is against human rights and other liberal platforms. Why should I have to tolerate the homos' claim to Dr Martin Luther King when he would have been the last person to approve of them at all.

Thank God I know this is all a game show, soon to be over. Thank god im with the police when they sing "there is no political solution". Its all maya kicking us thru the goalposts of Ayodhya.

mahak

What, you never read the mahaksadasa purana? Its the most dynamic of shastra, based on everyones entitlement to my opinion.

indulekhadasi · 05-22-2008, 06:49 PM

I am not saying gays are bad people, just that I really don't agree with what they are doing.

Baobabtree · 05-22-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

This is fine, but this is for Kamis only.
Vaishnavas would not engage in this practice.

So now Shruti is for Kamis?

RadheyRadhey108 · 05-22-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahak

scuse me, but you are speaking with people, not dictionaries. Im 57 years old, a graduate of the sixties and remember them quite well. Ive known some righteous gays in my day, the very best of folks who Id gladly go to the big war with. But they were righteous people, and their gay trim was inherant within themselves. They had no self esteem problems that made them go out and advertize themselves, nor did they have desire to have their sexual preference displayed anywhere other than with their partners in the privacy of their own intimacy.

Sorry... I thought you were talking about the gay community in general... not just some homosexuals who wish to display their sexual preference to the world and make what they do with their genitalia everybody's business. Those types also bother me. And, it's not an anti-gay thing... I'd be just as upset with a 'straight parade' or a holiday for straight people to celebrate being straight.

mahak · 05-22-2008, 07:30 PM

I actually accept the notion of third gender, based on the fact that such a gender was created from the very beginning of time.

I have years of experiance as a civilian working with the military. The military is a large microcosm of the whole population. Therefore, the notion of "no gays in the military" is ludicrous, has no bearing on morale, fighting ability, etc. However, the reason that the military is taking a severe stand is not because of homosexuals in the military. Their stance is in response to the aggressive and pompous freaks that want their sexual perversion to be noted in a big way. The military KNOWS the contribution of homos who serve, because over 10% of those who fought WWII were gay, and we won that last righteous war in a big way. But morale is definitely hurt when some want rights that they do not deserve, because a hetero does not have the RIGHT to brag about his wife of the opposite gender and the missionary position they employ for their sexual activity. In fact, I fully support the military's stance on sexual harassment, and those who want to have open gay relationships in the military violate every sexual harassment law in regard to the effect on "third party". The result of sexual harassmen