...and don't look back.

[theist 1]

Gay monogamy preferred to promiscuity

by Hridayananda das Goswami

 

Posted December 19, 2004

 

In a recent essay appearing on Chakra, "Vaisnava Dharma is very liberal", Amara prabhu raises the following question:

 

Gay marriage is . . . taken to be outside of the rigid varnasrama system and the ordinary prescription for married life, but suppose it is found to be the best practical arrangement to sustain a person's bhakti, someone who is exclusively homosexual and unable to follow complete celibacy. Can an exception be made to the general rule in the spirit of encouraging bhakti, as cited above, or should we give more importance to the rigid codes of ordinary dharma?

 

I agree with Amara that a truly spiritual society must constantly seek a balance between the strict codes of varnasrama, and the practical spiritual needs of sincere devotees. There can be no doubt that a significant number of souls, whose external sexual orientation is homosexual, sincerely strive to be Krishna conscious. It is entirely natural and predictable that a majority of these devotees, as with most hetereosexual devotees, will not be suited for lifelong celibacy.

 

My view of this issue is as follows:

 

As a general rule, we should appreciate devotees in terms of the sincerity and diligence of their spiritual attempts, given the psycho-physical circumstances of their life. In other words, in any condition of life, if a devotee sincerely strives to please Krishna, that devotee is to be admired.

It is the duty of any society to recognize, and thus encourage, the admirable behavior of its members. Monogamy, among devotees of any orientation, is an admirable achievement in the context of today's promiscuous society, and should be thus appreciated and encouraged.

Given the need to balance strict varnasrama with liberal spirituality, I believe that ISKCON should recognize and encourage monogamy among all its members of whatever orientation, and that such recognition and encouragement should take appropriate forms that achieve both purposes: the maintenance of varnasrama and the encouraging of spiritual sincerity.

I am not convinced that marriage is the best means in all cases, but some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy is, in my view, in the best interest of ISKCON and its members.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

but some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy is, in my view, in the best interest of ISKCON and its members.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada wasn't very appreciative of gay monogamy.

[theist 1]

Thess big timers have "improved" Prabhupada's ISKCON practically into the ground and now it appears they are going to bury it.

 

I am tired of thinking things are just about to improve and feeling hopeful and then inevitably something like this comes up.

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada recommended, in the beginning stage, that one minimize the materialistic activities. The mahamantra is the purifier in all cases, as as one becomes more attracted to the Holy Names, the unwanted things GRADUALLY drop off.

 

Gay monogamy is not tolerable. However, in light of Srila Prabhupadas clear teaching of minimization of materialistic activities in conjunction of increasing the processes of devotional service, gay monogamy can be seen as a valid step in the gradual process, much more beneficial to gay promiscuity (actually, the word gay can be dropped, because the same applies to heteros).

 

However, permissiveness for materialistic activities should never be assumed, and leaders should not give false messages muddying these waters. Sex is described as Krsna Himself, when practiced according to religious principles. The genitals are so named because they have a single function, to procreate the species. Any use of these organs outside their intended function must be taken as sense gratifying materialistic activities, and should be DECREASED with a goal of ZERO. While we recognize that Krsna and the Vaisnava loves all beings despite their stage of forgetfulness of swarup, they do not coddle such forgetfulness, they wake the sleeping souls up to that which is truely satisfying, performance of bhakti yoga.

 

Monogamous homosex and heterosex is not performance of bhakti yoga if the act is outside the function of procreation.

 

In my humble opinion, the maharaja would have been more clear had he stated a firm non-discrimination and membership of homosex devotees who practice celibacy, even if partnerships are affirmed. Non-discrimination in itself is already a standard of the Vaisnava, and does apply to all beings despite their modes of nature. Hitler and the Pope are equal. Monogamous is better than infecting the world with STDs, but useless in itself without being directly devotional service.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[krsna 3]

'Gay Monogamy': Why I Posted It

By Umapati Swami

Posted Dec. 20, 2004

 

I have received some surprised responses to Hrdayananda Maharaja's article "Gay Monogamy." People are asking why dipika.org would print an article condoning homosexual behavior.

 

But the article does not condone homosexual behavior or suggest that we initiate anyone who is breaking the regulative principles. Nor does the article sanction any kind of marriage ceremony for same-sex unions.

 

In fact, the article recognizes that homosexual behavior is against the regulative principles of ISKCON but suggests that we be more encouraging to people who have this problem and are trying to control it. And that's all.

 

I have lived in temples where there were admitted homosexuals in the congregation. These people never asked for initiation, and they rendered whatever services can be rendered by people who are unable to follow the regulative principles.

 

Thanks and appreciation from dipika.org to our sponsor and host,

 

 

A same-sex union, be it monogamous, is not acceptable in a brahminical society, but it is better than promiscuity. I agree with the author's contention that we should give these people the same chance to make some advancement in this lifetime that we give to those who break other regulative principles and that we should encourage them to control their senses to whatever degree they can.

 

I will gladly print responses to Maharaja's article, but I request the people who have written in so far to consider these points and adjust their responses accordingly. Otherwise, they will be arguing with things that have not been said.

 

—Umapati Swami

 

© dipika.org Dec. 20, 2004

 

[theist 1]

HDG:

I am not convinced that marriage is the best means in all cases, but some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy is, in my view, in the best interest of ISKCON and its members.

 

 

"...in all cases..."

 

But marriage for the others he is convinced of.

 

" ...but some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation..."

 

And in an Iskcon setting what would that be do you suppose? A fire sacrifice in the Temple room or maybe they will invent something new? Perhaps invite the press for such a ground breaking event.

 

He sees that as being in the best interest of ISKCON and it's members.

 

Would Prabhupada attend such an event? Would he sanction it? Most temples if not all have a murti of Prabhupada on the Vyasasana. Would this be pleasing?

 

It will be interesting to hear what those members think.

 

 

Umapati Swami:

But the article does not condone homosexual behavior or suggest that we initiate anyone who is breaking the regulative principles. Nor does the article sanction any kind of marriage ceremony for same-sex unions.

 

 

?????

 

[stonehearted 0]

If we read even more carefully, we see no mention of a ceremony or any kind of event, in a temple or elsewhere. It's more likely that he means some recognition among a community of devotees that a particular couple is monogamous and making steps toward spiritual progress, such as chanting the holy names regularly, associating with devotees, especially advanced devotees, hearing and studying literatures about Krishna and Krishna consciousness, etc. I can't see any reason why a long-term, monogamous same-sex relationship enhanced by such powerful devotional activities (Mahaprabhu says the most powerful) cannot change in the same way a heterosexual relationship would. The ideal considered here, I suspect, is that the partners' interst would be less focused on sense gratification (of all varieties) and more on pleasing Krishna. They could likely end up as celibate friends, no doubt very close friends, just as married couples should. This may naturally be hard for those who think that gay people's lives revolve around sex to a greater degree than straight people's, as well as to those who don't have experience of a long-term, faithful marriage in which the partners focus on helping each other advance spiritually.

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada "RECOGNIZED" everyone who walked through his door. Purification is not the job of the preacher, analyst, commentator, boards of commission, lawmakers, etc. "Hare Krsna" is the purifier, and ENCOURAGEMENT for ALL to take this descending gift from Krsna is the duty of all.

 

If this is the motive here, I have no quarrel with anything being said. It is all of our duties to encourage all to take part in this process. If we discourage, then it is us who are useless and detrimental to the Vaisnava Community, not those who are discouraged (ie the gay community).

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist 1]

He is saying marriage but not in all cases.

 

He also says formal and public recognition by ISKCON. Formal and public is more than just a general feeling of acceptance amongst the community. Initiation ceremonies are public and formal. Marriages are public and formal. So I guess they will paint the dog's face and give it a new name, *unions*.

 

I thought Prabhupada handled this issue quite well. He never rejected someone who was gay because they were gay. It seems some of his closest disciples also had this tendancy. But he spoke aganst the practice and vigorously against priests who conducted gay marriages. I never thought this was an issue. He made his feelings known and didn't seem to dwell on it at least from what is recorded. It seems to be an issue now as a reaction to gay activists trying to impose this idea on ISKCON.

 

Oh well it ain't my problem. I've got enough of my own. Hate to see this though.

[stonehearted 0]

theist:

He is saying marriage but not in all cases.

 

 

I read it just the other way around: marriage won't help genereally, but maybe in a couple of cases. I think he may be leaving a little wiggle room, and it certainly complicates his expression of his opinion. In any event, that aside, there's nothing in his post that condones homosexual behavior; he is, I'm sure, simply expressing what I and others have on many occasions: that we ought to extend the same mercy to gay conditioned souls that we do to straight conditioned souls. Has anyone here condemned an unmarried heterosexual couple and told them they had to get married, give up sex except when they want to have pure-devotee children? How about someone who comes regularly but still drinks, regularly or occasionally, or smokes cigarettes or cannabis? I don't think Maharaja's note goes any further than this. On what basis would I make this assumption? I know him and have spent some time with him. There's nothing there about "gay marriage" or that even approaches saying the gay sex is good.

[theist 1]

We read it differently. And maybe that's the wiggle room. No I don't think anyone needs to be quized at all about their personal habits as long as they aren't disturbing the kirtan. That is my point. Devotees should not feel they have the right to condemn or sanction.

 

I mean hetero or homo the temple is not the place to be expressing either. To faciltate one's practice someone may develop a relationship with a teacher or temple leader and may request a marriage. Formal disciples certainly should. There is much precedent for that but even that is not much of the other bhaktas business.

 

But seriously especially ISCKON should reflect Prabhupada's viewpoint and he made it clear what he thought of such marriages.

 

Seriously what would he think of the proposal? This people would not even have the audacity to bring it up to him. I doubt that anyone is even bothering to pray for guidance on such a course. Just whimsically imposing their opinion on Prabhupada's mission. It's horrible.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

Has anyone here condemned an unmarried heterosexual couple and told them they had to get married, give up sex except when they want to have pure-devotee children? How about someone who comes regularly but still drinks, regularly or occasionally, or smokes cigarettes or cannabis?

 

 

But none of these people's actions deserve a formal acceptance and appreciation by ISKCON. Thus the analogy is meanginless. If you fail to see this point you are trying hard to avoid it.

 

We don't formally accept and appreciate the use of drugs, the eating of meat, those who sell drugs but don't use them, those who choose to faithfully use only one drug and not others etc. The problem is the homosexual propagandists want to make their vice appear as a virtue; and they clearly want a formal acceptance and appreciation from ISKCON for their deviant behaviour.

 

All types of people are welcome to participate in ISKCON activities, but these demands for formal acceptance and appreciation of their deviant lifestyles, when it is against the wish and teachings of Prabhupada, is too much.

[stonehearted 0]

jndas:

But none of these people's actions deserve a formal acceptance and appreciation by ISKCON. Thus the analogy is meanginless. If you fail to see this point you are trying hard to avoid it.

 

 

The analogy works to the extent that we don't make those who drink sometimes at home, who live together outside marriage, who smoke cigarettes (away form the temple), or who don't care whether their food has eggs or other disgusting substances feel unwelcome at the temple. If they give a lot of money to the temple, as is the case with many Indians in the West, we celebrate them, make them members of the temple's board of directors. (I have seen the containers in which Indian folks bring food to the temple.) And if they are willing to stop smoking, chasing the opposite sex, or eating pastry with eggs to move into the temple, we welcome them. If a drunk falls off the wagon, he may have to move out of the temple after a while, but he's welcomed back and put in the Lord's kitchen because he says he's sober. That's not the case with gay devotees, in my experience. I've seen guests treated poorly, even though the only obvious reason is that they are known to be, or act, gay. And I've seen devotees who live in the temple tormented by other brahmacharis, even though they may control their urges just as much as the "straight" brahmacharis. My own experience is somewhat limited, but others in many other places have written of similar experiences. That's not to say it's universal, but such treatment is widespread enough to undermine our mission to educate all peoples.

 

No one I know advocates solemnizing any sinful behavior. Rather, they suggest encouraging anything that moves aspiring devotees toward a more regulated life. If you see more to it than that, especially in Hridayananda Maharaja's post (since that's actually the topic of discussion here), I'd like to see the evidence.

 

Moreover, heterosexual sex is just as dirty and disgusting as homosexual sex. Srila Prabhupada compared them to dry stool and wet stool. The only difference is that "straight" sex can become as pure as Krishna by engaging it in His service under the guidance of guru, sadhu, and shastra.

[Guest guest]

Iskcon is the most liberal religious organization I have ever seen. If you go to a Jewish synagogue you will find neatly dressed Jews in prayer. If you go to a Balaji Temple you will find South Indians (many computer programmers). If you go to a Muslim mosque you will find Muslims of a fairly standard consistency, and the same with a Catholic church.

 

It is only in Iskcon that all the "social misfits" of the world are included. I have never seen one excluded. I have literally seen an African tribal with a plate in his lip and a bone through his nose at an Iskcon temple standing in line with all the others. I have seen a man who took his own blood and created 3 horizontal stripes for tilak (the marks of Shiva) dancing at an Iskcon temple. I have seen homeless people with nothing but the clothes on their back at an Iskcon temple. As well as kids with purple hair and nose rings. And I have seen homosexuals at Iskcon temples.

 

You will not see this level of diversity in ANY other religious setting. I have been to Baptists churches, and Jewish synagogues, to Buddhist & Hindu temples, and Catholic churches, and they all are the same. They all have a certain consistency in membership.

 

It is only in Iskcon that I have seen a liberality to a fault. Everyone comes and chants and dances. Everyone stands in the same line and receives prasadam. It is almost mind-bogglingly liberal and open.

 

But we don't allow the purple haired nose-ring crowd to be pujaris. There are standards that must be met for various levels of service. But everyone is open in the temple as are all members to sing, chant, dance, and partake of prasadam.

 

Iskcon is without a doubt the most open religious community you will find.

[theist 1]

 

Moreover, heterosexual sex is just as dirty and disgusting as homosexual sex. Srila Prabhupada compared them to dry stool and wet stool. The only difference is that "straight" sex can become as pure as Krishna by engaging it in His service under the guidance of guru, sadhu, and shastra.

 

 

In fact isn't that the whole difference between Krsna conscious activity and ordinary mundane activity? That seems to me to be the whole argument in a nutshell. Only activity that is sanctioned by shastra and engaged in under the guidance of Guru for Krsna's service should be seen under the umbreela of Krsna's devotee's institution.

 

Now fortunately advanced devotees reach even father down and individually help us with our various difficult habits that we may have acquired under the modes but sanction appreciation and public acceptance is another thing altogether.

 

Just the fact that this particular subject keeps coming up is an impositon and a distraction. Since it is kali-yuga it must be dealt with. But considering Srila Prabhupada was in clear oppositon to it one must wonder what drives those that want to now bring it into HIS temples.

 

[stonehearted 0]

theist:

But considering Srila Prabhupada was in clear oppositon to it one must wonder what drives those that want to now bring it into HIS temples.

 

 

Could you explain what you mean by "bring it [what?] into HIS temples"? People keep asserting that we don't let purple-hair, nosering types, or dopers on the altar (although I can remember several known drunks, cannabis smokers, and indulgers in [straight] pornography who were pujaris or cooks), as though someone's proposing that ISKCON appoint flagrant gay predators as temple presidents, have same-sex marriage (or whatever it may be called) fire sacrifices before the Deities, or something like that. If you have seen such things proposed, show me where. The most drastic proposal I've seen is Amara suggesting gay marriage, although I don't think it believes it's exactly equivalent to heterosexual marriage. No one else I've seen has gone that far, though.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

The analogy works to the extent that we don't make those who drink sometimes at home, who live together outside marriage, who smoke cigarettes (away form the temple), or who don't care whether their food has eggs or other disgusting substances feel unwelcome at the temple.

 

 

The anology doesnt work at all, and I am sure you are purposely not seeing the logical falacy in your analogy.

 

We are not speaking about turning away people. Hridayananda Maharaja uses the specific words "formal acceptance and appreciation in ISKCON".

 

Now with your analogy, how many of those groups you cite (drinkers, smokers, etc.) demand "formal acceptance and appreciation in ISKCON" for their lifestyles? The answer is none. Thus your analogy is logically inconsistent.

 

And to wash that aside you try to paint a pitiable picture of gays being turned away from ISKCON temples somewhere at sometime in history. I've seen plenty of gay people visiting the Sunday feast at ISKCON temples, eating prasadam, chanting and dancing. And likewise the smokers, drug users and drinkers are there in plenty as well.

 

The difference is only one group is demanding "formal acceptance and appreciation within ISKCON".

 

You shift your analogy to now be refering to people "feeling unwelcome at the temple", something which is not in contention. Everyone agrees that all people should feel welcome at a temple. But that does not justify getting a "formal acceptance and appreciation within ISKCON" for one's lifestyle.

[krsna 3]

You're Looking

for an Easy Fix

 

From Joshua Hawley

Posted Dec. 21, 2004

 

It's not really a solution to give all people who say they are gay some formal recognized status. We're not getting at the core of the issue by giving someone a status. Rather, it seems we are justifying that behavior.

 

According to all scriptural evidence, homosexuality is condemned as being a sinful activity. There is no argument to defy that point. If you are really serious about giving gays a solution in spiritual life, then why not take a look at the factors that lead to homosexuality? There are numerous studies being conducted into just that very matter.

 

Instead of giving someone a title or recognition for what we genuinely know to be against the principles of sastra, why not look for the cause of this type of behavior? More and more evidence is showing that homosexuality is not something that is a genealogical defect. Rather, it is something that develops in early childhood.

 

How about doing some preventative measures, instead of looking for an easy fix? Yeah, everyone wants to be Krishna conscious, so everyone should have that opportunity. But please remember that giving people a recognized formal status of being "gay" would mean that you would have to facilitate them in every way that you would any other recognized social group.

 

In effect you would have to, by your endorsement, give them asrama facilities independent of other asramas and any other requirement they may need. While that is not an entirely objectionable idea, I personally feel that it would have to be done as a sort of rehabilitative process.

 

There are a good many Christian scholars dealing with this very point, and they have come up with some remarkable insights. They are offering many social and welfare programs, and Dr. Dobson has devoted a good amount of time and effort in researching this exact point: that homosexuality is not something one is born with but rather a result of defects in the parenting and other social factors current in modern times that allow for someone to entertain the idea of homosexuality.

 

Thanks and appreciation from dipika.org to our sponsor and host,

 

 

I have heard from many gays that the only reason they are gay is that the sex is so much better. So in this modern age, where everything is driven by how you feel and not on principle and integrity, that would lead many to believe that homosexuality is a right and natural function of humanity. It's a fault of the modern education and media and ultimately ourselves for not alleviating the causes that lead to these various social abnormalities such as homosexuality.

 

My point is that you're not really offering a solution to this issue. Rather, it's like a little piece of adhesive tape over the wound. The best medicine is prevention, and if we are really serious about tackling this issue, then it would require a much deeper and much more serious look.

 

Finally, I would invite Hridayananda Maharaja to offer some scriptural or scientific evidence support each of his points.

 

Best regards,

Joshua Hawley

 

© dipika.org Dec. 21, 2004

 

[vijay 0]

Can i point out that hetrosexual marriage is athorised by scripture (karma) (not just for procreation in the karma khand section), however homosexual acts do not fall into the same category that is counted as vikarma (acts against scripture) so im not too sure if formaly accepting it is a good move, just like formally accepting users of drugs is not okay, (if not practicing gay then different issue). I agree all should be welcomed but practicing in a gay monogomy is not the same as marriage, and should not be accepted as so.

 

Also the article about gay behaviour being unnatural is not true (this is also a contravercial topic whats natural and unnatural), there are animals that resort to gay behaviour. Prabhupada comments on this somewhere in vedabase. But thats another issue i think. I think Joshua's point was that we look in to it and find a solution rather than condone it by acceptance.

[theist 1]

 

Could you explain what you mean by "bring it [what?] into HIS temples"?

 

 

The subject is homosexual marriage. While Srila Prabhupada had gay disciples even up to his personal servant he never authorized "serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy ". Srila Prabhupada's view was diametrically opposed to HDG's view which is, "but some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy is, in my view, in the best interest of ISKCON and its members".

 

So many are saying that since Sria Prabhupada started ISKCON that it should be run in the way he delineated. Perhaps HDG should start his own temple and there give his appreciation for gay monogamy.

[stonehearted 0]

theist:

The subject is homosexual marriage.

 

 

Oh--I thought the subject was Hridayananda's remarks. He doesn't actually condone same-sex marriage in that note. He concedes that it may not be inappropriate in some instances. (I exaggerate the hedging to highlight it.) Just what he means by that and the "formal" part of the the recognition and appreciation he suggests do leave ambiguitites in these remarks. My understanding is that this was a fairly casual note to a disciple who asked about this. Rather than assert our own conjectures as the utlimate truth of what HDG meant, it would be best to ask him if he would be willing to clarify those two points. The other real issue, I believe, is his intention. In my experience with Srila Prabhupada, there's room for devotees to have somewhat different perspectives on details. I doubt that even Amara would assert that homosexual behavior is a violation of the regulative principles. And the ultimate principle is to somehow or other always remember Krishna and never forget Him. My reading of the remarks of most of the devotees criticized in this regard is that their intention is to further that goal. It may be that a greater social good may be achieved by encouraging more stable relationships among these devotees, as well as among heterosexual devotees. It just may be that the long-term commitments to helping each other advance in Krishna consciousness would result in the same kind of non-sexual relationship that would be the ideal of long, faithful marriages. And that does happen. Not enough, Iguess, but then long, faithful marriages are rare enough to be remarked on, even among devotees. When devotees hear that my wife and I have been married almost 32 years, they're surprised. And so far, I'm unaware that anyone has equated even a monogamous same-sex relationship with the ideal marriage which is itself identical with celibacy in its purity.

 

In the meantime, your self-righteous disgust and my self-righteous "broad-mindedness" seem to serve no end but to assuage our own egos and protract quarrel. Oh, and to keep us thinking about gay sex (not a pretty picture to any straight person, much less one who might prefer mental images of Krishna hassling Radhika and her friends at Dana-ghat--or Her friends ambushing Krishna and the gopas).

 

If no one else is willing or able to approach HDG about the ambiguous or otherwise troublesome parts of his essay, I'd be willing to do so. One complication is that I leave for California tomorrow and don't know what kind of access I'll have to the internet.

[theist 1]

 

I am not convinced that marriage is the best means in all cases, but some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy is, in my view, in the best interest of ISKCON and its members.

 

 

His comments are not divorced from the subject of gay marriage and especially as it relates to ISKCON. You are seeing through your professors eyes again but you should know most of us don't keep to that scrupulous of a focus.

 

Anyway his remarks are very clear to me. I can see someone may see wiggle room but I don't. The only thng is he didn't elaborate on what cases would be right for marriage and others not but by "serious formal public recognition by ISKCON" it is very clear what he means. Apparently he is suggesting that another ceremony be invented in place of the traditional vedic style.

 

I can see it now two bhaktas walking around with their dhotis tied together. OMG

 

ps They are discussing this on Dipika also.

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

I can see how his comments are related to the subject of same-sex unions, marriage, or whatever. I will not be bullied into apologizing for reading carefully, nor for recommending others to read carefully so we don't nbeed to waste time, energy, and enmity discussing something unnecessarily. /images/graemlins/wink.gif (That's supposed to be a sign that I don't really feel bullied by you, theist, but also that I won't let anyone intimidate me with Limbaugh-esque name calling, such as "pinhead acadimic elitist.") Umapati Maharaja, whom I have known for 32 years and who seems rather conservative (I'm not fond of a conservative/progressive [or liberal] dichotomy, at least among devotees) with regard to many issues, urges the same. It's not an elitist-professor thing but an important element of civil discourse.

 

Now that my whining is out of the way, back to the substance of HDG's post: Once again, my reading of it is that "no marriage" is the rule, or default position, in his suggestion, whereas "marriage" is a possible exception he concedes may be appropriate in some cases. The quotation you gave, "serious formal public recognition by ISKCON," is inaccurate. Rather, he says, "some serious, formal, and public recognition and appreciation." I think there may be some serious difference between the two, and I'm certain that to gloss over any possible difference would be unproductive. It may be best, as I've suggested, to see if he can clarify just what he means by "formal." Otherwise, I don't see any clear indication that he thinks some ceremony should be invented. He may be talking about something no more than devotees in ISKCON treating members in a commited, monogamous relationship differently from those who come to the feast to cruise for a friend, along with the kirtan and prasadam. The dichotomy he draws is between a committed relationship and promiscuity, so I think it's problematic to infer anything more than is actually clear from plain meaning. It may be that he intends more, but only he can tell us that.

[Guest guest]

Rather, he says, "some serious, formal, and public recognition and appreciation."

 

I would be interested in knowing just what HDG means by the word "some", as well as the word "and", which he uses twice in that sentence.

 

It may be best, as I've suggested, to see if he can clarify just what he means by "formal."

 

Excellent point. And not to nit, but what exactly did you mean by the word "it" at the beginning of your sentence.

 

C'mon guys, time for another group hug, (strictly platonic of course.)

[Guest guest]

Babhru:

<hr>In the meantime, your self-righteous disgust and my self-righteous "broad-mindedness" seem to serve no end but to assuage our own egos and protract quarrel. Oh, and to keep us thinking about gay sex (not a pretty picture to any straight person, much less one who might prefer mental images of Krishna hassling Radhika and her friends at Dana-ghat--or Her friends ambushing Krishna and the gopas).

<hr>

 

Yeah Prabhu!

 

A devotee tries to be humble and is always aware that proving yourself right in a debate can be more of an exercise of ego-gratification than of discussion about TRUTH.

 

I can see that leading devotees such as Umapati and Hridayananda are compelled to make statements about "gays", just as the leaders of various chrisitian denominations have had to in recent years. All I see them saying is that they feel that the "gay" people who are connected to ISKCON should not be criticized or ostracised, but rather that they should be engouraged to engage in devotional service.

 

Babhru, I do agree with your reading of Hridayananda Maharaj's statement, and with your reading of why Umapati Swami has made this statement public.

 

I happen to have a different point of view, but I can appreciate what Umapati and Hridayananda's viewpoints.

 

I myself feel that homosexual people are very bad association and I never encourage homosexual people to come to our Maths or to meet with devotees. But that is just my personal view, and other devotees in our Math have a different point of view. My wife for instance. She thinks gays should be accepted and tolerated. We fight about this, every few months or so. Then she says that since I am so passionately against gays that I must be hiding my own "passionate gay" tendencies. When she says that I usually can't think of a quick come-back, so she wins the fight.

 

-murali