Gay and Hindu: 19 LGBT Hindu Gods

[Cpt. Rishwat]

https://www.advocate.com/religion/2016/9/06/19-lgbt-hindu-gods


Fascinating insight from an Indian POV. Would be interesting to hear views from our Indian posters how they relate.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

https://www.advocate.com/religion/2016/9/06/19-lgbt-hindu-gods


Fascinating insight from an Indian POV. Would be interesting to hear views from our Indian posters how they relate.

Great article Cpt.

From what i gather, Hindus are quite open about these issues. They even have images in their temples of LGBT people engaged in acts.

 

[PakLFC]

Really it is up to them how they see their religious figures who are often shown as being bisexual and gay. We know this through Kamasutra and their temples that are adorned with such paintings and figures.

I strongly disagree without ever enforcing the Islamic perspective on such issues. Hindu's also have on stage plays depicting their ancient past.

 

[mustang]

I have seen similar online sources and anecdotes from Indians. I mostly have latin+catholic background in my family (I'm not religious) and not in touch with the hindu side of my ancestors so this knowledge is hearsay for me.

Overall I see this as a very positive thing and it speaks to the openness of the religion. This seems to be the common thread among eastern/dharmic religions as opposed to the "my way or highway" craziness of Judeo-Christian and Islam.

My guess is that OP posted this as a way of making a jab against Indians (given all the prior data points from his prior posts) probably because by his definition - a religion that advocates for some/all of it's gods to be gay or have gender fluidity is something negative. If this was the intention then OP has exhibited clown class behavior. Of course, I'm much happier if I'm wrong about this and if he posted this with the intention of sharing something positive.

My question of ignorance for the Indians ...

1. How any common people are aware of such things in hindu religious texts?
2. How is the tolerance towards trans and gay people in India and do you see the awareness of such religious connection have any effect on the level of this tolerance?
3. Do you see changes in the level of this tolerance among very religious and among not so religious hindus?

 

[street cricketer]

Hinduism is an unorganised religion and so you don't have a central code or edicts and different regions have different mythologies based on cultural differences. But yes, I've came across quite a few few of these stories as a Hindu growing up. Hindu Gods have hundreds of avatars and there are a few avatars where they manifested in female form. But it's interesting that I never thought about these avatars or versions of Gods as "gender fluid" or "LGBT" labels. You just learn Gods have hundreds of avatars and there have been occasions when a male God has manifested as a female avatar in the world.

A lot of these beliefs and concepts were diametrically opposite to the Abrahamic thought and it was why many of the God believing Christians in the colonial British probably viewed Hindus as "heathens" for having "deviant beliefs". Afterall the 377 law was a colonial law introduced by the British criminalising same sex relations and I can only imagine they would've been appalled and offended when they first saw the Khajuraho carvings! The Indian thought also came to be shaped in the same way afterwards, and most of these colonial laws were adopted by modern India after independence.

Fast forward a few decades later, we see the western world creating a hundred different labels for gender, LGBTQ and writing articles on beliefs on gender fluidity in the Hindu mythology. Whereas the Indians are not yet open to adopting the same open beliefs towards gender relations that are held in the western world. So it's kinda come a full circle in a way, with the colonial white Europeans viewing the Hindu beliefs as heresy for having objectionable beliefs in their mythology while it's sort of the other way around now. Eventhough India has decriminalised same sex relations by repealing the colonial era 377 law, same sex marriage is still not legal in India if I'm correct, so there is change, Indians are getting more open, but not yet completely open to these views.

I understand a lot of these beliefs and views might frankly appear offensive and conflicting to practising muslims. I always think you can understand (any) religion the best when you leave your subconscious bias behind and try to understand it with an open mind. I would be lying if I said there are not hindus who similarly have reservations on many of the islamic beliefs. What I've understood over the years is that you cannot understand Islam if you read it with a hindu mind and you can't understand Hinduism if you read it with a muslim mind. You've to take your religious lens off, and try to view and comprehend it as one of the beliefs of hundreds and thousands of cultures and subcultures that human beings have evolved over centuries as a result of their existence on Earth.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

I have seen similar online sources and anecdotes from Indians. I mostly have latin+catholic background in my family (I'm not religious) and not in touch with the hindu side of my ancestors so this knowledge is hearsay for me.

Overall I see this as a very positive thing and it speaks to the openness of the religion. This seems to be the common thread among eastern/dharmic religions as opposed to the "my way or highway" craziness of Judeo-Christian and Islam.

My guess is that OP posted this as a way of making a jab against Indians (given all the prior data points from his prior posts) probably because by his definition - a religion that advocates for some/all of it's gods to be gay or have gender fluidity is something negative. If this was the intention then OP has exhibited clown class behavior. Of course, I'm much happier if I'm wrong about this and if he posted this with the intention of sharing something positive.

My question of ignorance for the Indians ...

1. How any common people are aware of such things in hindu religious texts?
2. How is the tolerance towards trans and gay people in India and do you see the awareness of such religious connection have any effect on the level of this tolerance?
3. Do you see changes in the level of this tolerance among very religious and among not so religious hindus?

Interesting.
What oracle have you used to arrive at this heuristic?

The presence of LGBT in the Hindu Gods is a "positive thing and indicates openness", because it sits well with the recent LGBT support and allegiance that has exploded in the western world, and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to normalize the sexual sin?

So the question is, when people take full sovereignty into their own hands, where the majority decides, what do they want to do, then there is no ending. Where does it stop?

I feel the more we normalize sexual sin, it makes me wonder what’s next…. Incest, Bestiality, pedophilia? The line needs to be drawn somewhere… God created man & woman for a reason. Only a husband & wife can make babies if the choose to.

This is my personal opinion, neither do I expect anyone to agree or disagree with it, nor do I want to impose it to anyone.

But my point, take for example, Bestiality or polygamy. It is considered immoral, and sinful and in some case criminal in 'most of' todays 'Western' world, but what happens if in a year or two, the majority of people call for it to be normalized?

Are we going to throw the pictures of Hindu gods having sex with animals, and multiple wives, and call it a "positive thing" in Hinduism?

What is our oracle here?
Whatever the majority decides is always right? If not, where would you draw the line?

 

[street cricketer]

Interesting.
What oracle have you used to arrive at this heuristic?

The presence of LGBT in the Hindu Gods is a "positive thing and indicates openness", because it sits well with the recent LGBT support and allegiance that has exploded in the western world, and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to normalize the sexual sin?

So the question is, when people take full sovereignty into their own hands, where the majority decides, what do they want to do, then there is no ending. Where does it stop?

I feel the more we normalize sexual sin, it makes me wonder what’s next…. Incest, Bestiality, pedophilia? The line needs to be drawn somewhere… God created man & woman for a reason. Only a husband & wife can make babies if the choose to.

This is my personal opinion, neither do I expect anyone to agree or disagree with it, nor do I want to impose it to anyone.

But my point, take for example, Bestiality or polygamy. But my point, take for example, Bestiality or polygamy. It is considered immoral, and sinful and in some case criminal in 'most of' todays 'Western' world, but what happens if in a year or two, the majority of people call for it to be normalized?

Are we going to throw the pictures of Hindu gods having sex with animals, and multiple wives, and call it a "positive thing" in Hinduism?

What is our oracle here?
Whatever the majority decides is always right? If not, where would you draw the line?

Isn't polygamy allowed in Islam? It's interesting that being a staunch muslim, you'd equate polygamy with immorality, given it's allowed in Islam.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Isn't polygamy allowed in Islam? It's interesting that being a staunch muslim, you'd equate polygamy with immorality, given it's allowed in Islam.

pretty shallow response but you already know, I am not talking about MY beliefs. I am talking about someone else's belief who seem to have been aligned himself with the western norms where polygamy is considered a criminal act.

 

[Realromeo]

Really it is up to them how they see their religious figures who are often shown as being bisexual and gay. We know this through Kamasutra and their temples that are adorned with such paintings and figures.

I strongly disagree without ever enforcing the Islamic perspective on such issues. Hindu's also have on stage plays depicting their ancient past.

Hinduism is so broad, lot of mixed stories and what is and what it was. It is always changing from region to region. I don't think most South Indian "Hindus" will care if someone finds out that their god was gay or not. Hinduism for the most part is followed mostly as a traditional/cultural thing. I never would go to a Ram temple, even though it is part of Hinduism, that is not my tradition. This is also depending on different parts of India. India is basically like European Union. Different cultures, traditions and varieites.

 

[street cricketer]

pretty shallow response but you already know, I am not talking about MY beliefs. I am talking about someone else's belief who seem to have been aligned himself with the western norms where polygamy is considered a criminal act.

Well that's the point. For you, polygamy might not be a sin, while homosexuality is a sin because of your religious upbringing. For him, homosexuality might not be a sin but he might think polygamy as immoral behaviour because of his western upbringing.

Ultimately, it's a matter of subjective bias on what's considered moral and immoral in the world.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Well that's the point. For you, polygamy might not be a sin, while homosexuality is a sin because of your religious upbringing. For him, homosexuality might not be a sin but he might think polygamy as immoral behaviour because of his western upbringing.

Ultimately, it's a matter of subjective bias on what's considered moral and immoral in the world.

exactly.
My belief remains consistent and constant. The line has been drawn for me.

Where do you draw the line then since your line keeps on changing and moving.

What if majority of your world votes to make homosexually mandatory so that you could get a little taste of sodomy for a true life experience before you take a decision of your gender classification?

In a recent FL college application, they added a choice to answer the m/f gender question. Students can now pick "Undecided".

And some parents in USA actually are now bring up their babies as gender neutrals where the kid is made to wear half male and half female clothes REGARDLESS of his/her gender and REGARDLESS of what hangs or sits between his/her legs. The idea is, after 18, the kid will decide whether he is a male or female.

You may personally not like it but the majority of the people have the mandate now. They can turn homosexuality mandatory upon everyone. Where does it stop?

 

[street cricketer]

exactly.
My belief remains consistent and constant. The line has been drawn for me.

Where do you draw the line then since your line keeps on changing and moving.

What if majority of your world votes to make homosexually mandatory so that you could get a little taste of sodomy for a true life experience before you take a decision of your gender classification?

In a recent FL college application, they added a choice to answer the m/f gender question. Students can now pick "Undecided".

And some parents in USA actually are now bring up their babies as gender neutrals where the kid is made to wear half male and half female clothes REGARDLESS of his/her gender and REGARDLESS of what hangs or sits between his/her legs. The idea is, after 18, the kid will decide whether he is a male or female.

You may personally not like it but the majority of the people have the mandate now. They can turn homosexuality mandatory upon everyone. Where does it stop?

Where did I said my line is constantly changing. I thought we were discussing the openness of Hinduism.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Where did I said my line is constantly changing. I thought we were discussing the openness of Hinduism.

you or someone with this approach, may consider bestiality and polygamy not sitting too well with their personal self at this point - but - if bestiality and polygamy becomes normalized in the progressive first world, you may align yourself with it, and refer to some of those artifacts of bestiality and polygamy at Khajuraho, and now call it "Openness of Hinduism" because it now got the confirmation from USA.
See the change?

It looks like this is the trend that has been shown for LGBT.

 

[mustang]

Interesting.
What oracle have you used to arrive at this heuristic?

The presence of LGBT in the Hindu Gods is a "positive thing and indicates openness", because it sits well with the recent LGBT support and allegiance that has exploded in the western world, and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to normalize the sexual sin?

So the question is, when people take full sovereignty into their own hands, where the majority decides, what do they want to do, then there is no ending. Where does it stop?

I feel the more we normalize sexual sin, it makes me wonder what’s next…. Incest, Bestiality, pedophilia? The line needs to be drawn somewhere… God created man & woman for a reason. Only a husband & wife can make babies if the choose to.

This is my personal opinion, neither do I expect anyone to agree or disagree with it, nor do I want to impose it to anyone.

But my point, take for example, Bestiality or polygamy. It is considered immoral, and sinful and in some case criminal in 'most of' todays 'Western' world, but what happens if in a year or two, the majority of people call for it to be normalized?

Are we going to throw the pictures of Hindu gods having sex with animals, and multiple wives, and call it a "positive thing" in Hinduism?

What is our oracle here?
Whatever the majority decides is always right? If not, where would you draw the line?

Well, the "Oracle" I use is the oracle of common sense, something that seems to elude the "my way or the highway" type religious crew (be it of any faith).

Where to draw the line - believe it or not, this is a good question because at surface level many of these things seem to be subjective and so how does one create a standard that could be applicable for everyone.

The answer to the above that also intersects with the oracle of common sense is the logic of two consenting legal adults. So long as any act involves two consenting legal adults, it is nobody else's business.

You comparing LGBTQ type relationships with bestiality or pedophilia shows a very shallow logic. None of those other true evils (by my definition) involve two legal consenting adults. But gay and trans lifestyle does involve that. What two consenting adults do in their lives (public or behind closed doors) is no business of mine and neither should it be yours.

This is my oracle and this is where I draw the line. Not some 1000s of year old book or preaching or my subjective interpretations.

 

[cricketjoshila]

That article is full with half truths and lies and sets the narrative as per the agenda of the website.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That article is full with half truths and lies and sets the narrative as per the agenda of the website.

Please leave conspiracy theories to Pakistanis who are world leading experts.

 

[mustang]

Please leave conspiracy theories to Pakistanis who are world leading experts.

Nah, I think the Indians could equal the Pakistanis with their own fair share of conspiracy theories. I doubt the Pakistanis have a monopoly on that.

 

[Dingolfy]

Nah, I think the Indians could equal the Pakistanis with their own fair share of conspiracy theories. I doubt the Pakistanis have a monopoly on that.

True.Especially after 2014.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Please leave conspiracy theories to Pakistanis who are world leading experts.

Lol. No.

A simple Google will tell you how the truth has been twisted.

 

[Robert]

This shows that ancient cultures were fine with freedom of sexuality between consenting adults. The world was largely at peace and the gods were aspects of human behaviour.

Then Abrahamism turned up and banned a lot of sexual expression, causing much harm to humanity in terms or war and dominator culture.

 

[mustang]

This shows that ancient cultures were fine with freedom of sexuality between consenting adults. The world was largely at peace and the gods were aspects of human behaviour.

Then Abrahamism turned up and banned a lot of sexual expression, causing much harm to humanity in terms or war and dominator culture.

Well said! I cannot agree more and this is from someone raised in a catholic family background.

 

[James]

This shows that ancient cultures were fine with freedom of sexuality between consenting adults. The world was largely at peace and the gods were aspects of human behaviour.

Then Abrahamism turned up and banned a lot of sexual expression, causing much harm to humanity in terms or war and dominator culture.

This post is factually correct.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This shows that ancient cultures were fine with freedom of sexuality between consenting adults. The world was largely at peace and the gods were aspects of human behaviour.

Then Abrahamism turned up and banned a lot of sexual expression, causing much harm to humanity in terms or war and dominator culture.

I know it's a touchy subject, but the world was probably fine with incest, bestiality and paedophilia before Abrahamism. Why wouldn't it be?

 

[PakLFC]

Hinduism is so broad, lot of mixed stories and what is and what it was. It is always changing from region to region. I don't think most South Indian "Hindus" will care if someone finds out that their god was gay or not. Hinduism for the most part is followed mostly as a traditional/cultural thing. I never would go to a Ram temple, even though it is part of Hinduism, that is not my tradition. This is also depending on different parts of India. India is basically like European Union. Different cultures, traditions and varieites.

There are more God's in Hinduism then hair on my head. I don't have any problem or issue with what they believe or reject.

 

[street cricketer]

you or someone with this approach, may consider bestiality and polygamy not sitting too well with their personal self at this point - but - if bestiality and polygamy becomes normalized in the progressive first world, you may align yourself with it, and refer to some of those artifacts of bestiality and polygamy at Khajuraho, and now call it "Openness of Hinduism" because it now got the confirmation from USA.
See the change?

It looks like this is the trend that has been shown for LGBT.

It is human tendency to expect the world to be tied to the cultural norms of the age they live in. If you took a white European from the middle ages and brought him to the current age, he would be appalled by the way people live, races mixing as equals, marrying each other, eating and living together. Heck if you brought an American from one of the slave states as late as the early 19th century, he would be horrified to learn that the United States of America had a black man as its President. He would defend the right to bear slaves with passion. You calling him a racist would have no meaning for him because he is a product of the age he lived in and in his mind, he thinks he is actually doing good by bearing slaves because they would not survive without him holding them as slaves, or so he'll probably reason. They're the product of the times they lived in and they'd probably not strike a conversation as equals with a coloured person like you or me because that was the norm of the world during that age.

Of course, people have evolved different opinions with time and all men came to be seen as equals with time. A few centuries ago, women didn't have the right to vote in many countries, they would be shocked to know countries can be ruled by women leaders if people of the past centuries were time travelled to our time. You might think homosexuality is a sin and those who engage in it are sinners, but that wouldn't matter if a hundred years from now, everyone in the world thinks every person has a right to love any person regardless of their gender. Heck a 100 years from now, people might view us meat eaters as heartless people for eating flesh of animals, but it wouldn't matter because we are shaped by the norms of the world we currently live in. It is inevitable that the world would keep evolving new habits and norms with every century that we might not be happy about, but our opinions wouldn't matter because we would be long gone in a 100 years and wouldn't be a part of the world to have our opinions respected. If more people are favourable to polygamy and polyamorous relationships in the next century, then there would be nothing to stop those practices from getting normalised, because ultimately the world is for the people who live in that particular time, and not people who lived in it centuries ago.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Dr Ranj is a welcome introduction to British tv viewers who are keen to see positive Indian gays portrayed on screen rather than the wife bashers and misogynists previously portrayed in British productions like Bhaji on the Beach or Bend it like Beckham.

He is doing a show about mental health issues I believe, although I haven't watched yet.

 

[mustang]

I know it's a touchy subject, but the world was probably fine with incest, bestiality and paedophilia before Abrahamism. Why wouldn't it be?

This is an attempted mix of apples and oranges to dilute gay rights.

LGBTQ - consensual relations between two legal and mature adults

Bestiality and Pedophilia - Non-consenting adults/humans where one is exploiting the other.

Two vastly different situations.

 

[Robert]

I know it's a touchy subject, but the world was probably fine with incest, bestiality and paedophilia before Abrahamism. Why wouldn't it be?

Probably? Have you any evidence for this?

 

[Napa]

I know it's a touchy subject, but the world was probably fine with incest, bestiality and paedophilia before Abrahamism. Why wouldn't it be?

It wouldn't be okay with bestiality and pedophilia because they aren't between consenting adults.

Probably? Have you any evidence for this?

Evidence shevidence... who needs that?

 

[Napa]

Probably? Have you any evidence for this?

This is just another example of Abrahamic partisans believing that morality is based on their religions and not something humans can arrive at by their humanity. Hence, prior to their religions there must have been no morality.

Unfortunately, the morality track record of the Abrahamic religions with their constant wars is rather poor.

 

[mustang]

This is just another example of Abrahamic partisans believing that morality is based on their religions and not something humans can arrive at by their humanity. Hence, prior to their religions there must have been no morality.

Unfortunately, the morality track record of the Abrahamic religions with their constant wars is rather poor.

The entire mom's side of my family where I was raised is full of such "my way or the highway" people. Latins can be pretty aggressive catholics for those of you not in the know, especially when they feel one of their own has "gone astray".

The issue is such people never see the light of logic no matter how much you try to reason because they have been completely indoctrinated. Reason/logic is in such cases can be the antithesis of religious indoctrination. The most typical response when you try to reason with them is -- "How dare you question and offend our beliefs" or "This person is not trying to make valid points but is only trying to make me feel bad about my religion" (typical defensive mindset I noticed among my family folks).

Once they get into this defensive mindset then nothing you say flies and their primary objective becomes a point scoring strategy or a denying-you-to-score-a-point strategy (because in their minds your reasoning is just mere point scoring). This is true for most religion indoctrinated fanatics from whichever part of the world.

 

[Napa]

The issue is such people never see the light of logic no matter how much you try to reason because they have been completely indoctrinated. Reason/logic is in such cases can be the antithesis of religious indoctrination. The most typical response when you try to reason with them is -- "How dare you question and offend our beliefs" or "This person is not trying to make valid points but is only trying to make me feel bad about my religion" (typical defensive mindset I noticed among my family folks).

Their religion is "working" for them. It provides them comfort and allows them to make "sense" of the world. The world can be a very threatening place with many threats. It is good to have God on your side. Any challenge to their religion engenders a feeling of insecurity and provokes a defensive reaction.

 

[mustang]

The entire mom's side of my family where I was raised is full of such "my way or the highway" people. Latins can be pretty aggressive catholics for those of you not in the know, especially when they feel one of their own has "gone astray".

The issue is such people never see the light of logic no matter how much you try to reason because they have been completely indoctrinated. Reason/logic is in such cases can be the antithesis of religious indoctrination. The most typical response when you try to reason with them is -- "How dare you question and offend our beliefs" or "This person is not trying to make valid points but is only trying to make me feel bad about my religion" (typical defensive mindset I noticed among my family folks).

Once they get into this defensive mindset then nothing you say flies and their primary objective becomes a point scoring strategy or a denying-you-to-score-a-point strategy (because in their minds your reasoning is just mere point scoring). This is true for most religion indoctrinated fanatics from whichever part of the world.

Their religion is "working" for them. It provides them comfort and allows them to make "sense" of the world. The world can be a very threatening place with many threats. It is good to have God on your side. Any challenge to their religion engenders a feeling of insecurity and provokes a defensive reaction.

Of course true this. To clarify - when I say "reason with religious people" I definitely do not imply converting them to non-religious beliefs. To each their own and live and let live, so long as we are all getting by on our own lanes.

The reasoning I refer to involves issues that go across belief systems affecting everyone else by imposing their belief systems. Take the case of this thread's topic as well. I'm sure most Abrahamic and even many of the Dharmic religious people will deny gay people their rights because it is not consistent with their belief systems.

 

[Technics 1210]

So Hinduism is better than Abrahmic faiths when it comes to rights?

If it wasn't for Abrahmic faith there'd be no difference between human society and animal behaviour. Perhaps this explains why animals have more rights in a Hindu majority nation than humans.

 

[Napa]

So Hinduism is better than Abrahmic faiths when it comes to rights?

If it wasn't for Abrahmic faith there'd be no difference between human society and animal behaviour. Perhaps this explains why animals have more rights in a Hindu majority nation than humans.

On the contrary, giving rights to animals is one of the ways humans are superior to animals which follow the principle of "might is right".

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Well, the "Oracle" I use is the oracle of common sense, something that seems to elude the "my way or the highway" type religious crew (be it of any faith).

Where to draw the line - believe it or not, this is a good question because at surface level many of these things seem to be subjective and so how does one create a standard that could be applicable for everyone.

The answer to the above that also intersects with the oracle of common sense is the logic of two consenting legal adults. So long as any act involves two consenting legal adults, it is nobody else's business.

You comparing LGBTQ type relationships with bestiality or pedophilia shows a very shallow logic. None of those other true evils (by my definition) involve two legal consenting adults. But gay and trans lifestyle does involve that. What two consenting adults do in their lives (public or behind closed doors) is no business of mine and neither should it be yours.

This is my oracle and this is where I draw the line. Not some 1000s of year old book or preaching or my subjective interpretations.

Just to pick up on your point about two consenting adults. Let’s say the law of the land changes and now the legal age of consent changes from 18 to 14, would you oppose a 40 year old man sleeping with his 14 year old daughter? After all, it’s two consenting legal adults.

Your views on morality will always remain inconsistent because it relies on the law of the land. For example, you may be in support of the law where anyone under 18 cannot drink alcohol, but if that law changed then legally you would have to be ok with your child drinking at the age of 15. And, if you go against it then you’re not very “open”, are you?

 

[Robert]

This is just another example of Abrahamic partisans believing that morality is based on their religions and not something humans can arrive at by their humanity. Hence, prior to their religions there must have been no morality.

Unfortunately, the morality track record of the Abrahamic religions with their constant wars is rather poor.

Sure. They have only been around 4000 years in the oldest iteration, and only got big in the last 1500 years. Civilisation is at least 7000 years old and the human species much older than that.

 

[mustang]

Just to pick up on your point about two consenting adults. Let’s say the law of the land changes and now the legal age of consent changes from 18 to 14, would you oppose a 40 year old man sleeping with his 14 year old daughter? After all, it’s two consenting legal adults.

Your views on morality will always remain inconsistent because it relies on the law of the land. For example, you may be in support of the law where anyone under 18 cannot drink alcohol, but if that law changed then legally you would have to be ok with your child drinking at the age of 15. And, if you go against it then you’re not very “open”, are you?

OK I will bite ...

I have heard such logic before, from some of my own extended family members. The core of this argument has consistent flaws and let me try to explain. All I'm requesting from you is that you don't see this as a non-muslim or a non-religious person trying to score a point against you because that is really not the case, and for you to see my point with an open mind. Fair enough? I will extend you the same courtesy of course.

Let's say there are two solutions - religious solution (yours) and humanitarian solution (mine).

Flaw #1 - Perfection Flaw
Whenever we are presented with an opposing theories, especially when it contradicts an entrenched or an emotive opinion, we seek perfection in the other choice to be incentive enough for us to switch over (emotional switching cost?) knowing full well at our subconscious level that no choice is perfect including our own. We see this prominently in election type scenarios where in my own country most people knowingly voted for a clown in 2016 even though they were not fully vested because the candidate of "the other party" was not perfect enough for them to switch. I see opinions on things like gay rights along the same lines when those opinions are formed as a result of emotive religious beliefs. You consciously or subconsciously know that no option is perfect, including your own religious solution (banning nominal rights for all law abiding normal gay people that form the fat part of the statistical bell curve) yet you seek perfection in order to be convinced by the "other choice". We both know that every choice has pros and cons. Thus the ideal scenario would be weight pros and cons and choosing the least expensive option (not waiting for the perfect option). Granted you could claim the same for me, right? But my contention is that I have no emotional stake in this at all (not religious, not gay), I do not seek to establish a certain lifestyle or belief system upon others and I'm looking at only as the best objective choice. If you claim your religious solution is better from an objective and data based standpoint, I'm open to listening and even changing over. Can you say the same for most religious based solution suggesters?

Flaw #2 - Extremist Flaw
This is possibly an offshoot as the emotional high switching cost for adopting something other than your own emotive belief. In order to create better comfort level with your own choice (all human brains love echo chambers), your mind is comparing an extreme corner case of the "other choice" with best case scenarios of your own choice. Hence your question about 40 year olds with 15 year olds. Your mind implicitly or explicitly is comparing best case scenarios of religious solution with lower probability worst case scenarios of humanitarian solution. Our societies have evolved to a great degree of human and personal freedom with significant studies in human mental development. I would say the age of 18 is set for almost all adult decisions in most places because it is an evidence based data point for the minimum time for a human to be held accountable for his/her decision. Bear in mind that human mind is not a binary switch and we do not flip from kid to adult. It is a gradual process and there are studies showing human brain continues to develop until 30. But as we know, treating everyone under 30 as a kid is not realistic given the current lifespans and social constructs. Thus 18 years gives a high enough percentage of development especially because this is not linear by age but exponential. Given these studies, the legal age being changed to a number lower than 18 is near impossible in almost all countries with normal civil laws (not considering places like Afghanistan or Somalia).

Directly to your question - Lets say IF that happens - if legal age is lowered and 40 year olds are predating on 15 year olds, then I will happily switch over to asking for banning it because this is backed by evidence based data. I will not blindly support it just because it is legal.

You implicitly said something important and I strongly agree with that - "What is legal may not be what is right"

200 years ago legally women were burned with husbands, my own forefathers died from Spanish inquisitions. 100 years ago legally most of us were under some form of slavery. 50 years ago legally most of us cannot have access to proper education due to skin color. So, I do agree with your core point. But the positioning of your point and why you position it so seem to be flawed in this context.

Given the above, yes, I will stand with you with enough scientific and evidence based data. But can you say the same for your stance? With enough evidence based data from recent medical/social studies, will you be open to supporting gay rights? Or will your mind want to search for extreme future hypotheticals to seek the echo chamber comfort of current choice?

Sad truth is even when I present such an argument with some of my family folks they only resort to another level of extrapolating hypotheticals under the guise of convincing me with evidence based data when there is no factual stance for their argument.

Thanks to anyone who has read through this long post.

 

[KingKhanWC]

This shows that ancient cultures were fine with freedom of sexuality between consenting adults. The world was largely at peace and the gods were aspects of human behaviour.

Then Abrahamism turned up and banned a lot of sexual expression, causing much harm to humanity in terms or war and dominator culture.

Homosexuality has never been the norm in any way of life.

You are simply lying here.

Atheists remain a tiny minority to this day while Abrahamic faiths have been the majority throughout the world. This is the simple reason for causing more harm but also they have caused more goodness than atheists ever have. Yet another weak argument.

As for the topic.

Can any Hindus explain these...

1. How many Gods are there in total?

2. How many are gay?

3. Why would a god need to have some sort of sexuality?

 

[Robert]

Homosexuality has never been the norm in any way of life.

You are simply lying here.

Atheists remain a tiny minority to this day while Abrahamic faiths have been the majority throughout the world. This is the simple reason for causing more harm but also they have caused more goodness than atheists ever have. Yet another weak argument.

As for the topic.

Can any Hindus explain these...

1. How many Gods are there in total?

2. How many are gay?

3. Why would a god need to have some sort of sexuality?

One: don’t you ever call me a liar. Your ignorance of history does not make others liars.

Two: why are you bringing atheism into this? We are talking about ancient Hindus with their gay gods. The ancient Egyptians were tolerant of homosexuality. And the pagan ancient Greeks were fine with homosexuality, indeed they encouraged it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

One: don’t you ever call me a liar. Your ignorance of history does not make others liars.

Two: why are you bringing atheism into this? We are talking about ancient Hindus with their gay gods. The ancient Egyptians were tolerant of homosexuality. And the pagan ancient Greeks were fine with homosexuality, indeed they encouraged it.

1. That's exactly what you did. To make a claim Abrahamic religions are somehow the root of all evil is simply a lie.

2. Its a simple point. Atheists are and always have been a tiny minority, so its daft to say atheists haven't done so much bad etc. Its like saying midgets have done less harm than normal sized humans.

If you indulge in it, you will of course be fine with it. Greeks and Egyptians enjoyed these abnormal desires.

 

[Robert]

1. That's exactly what you did. To make a claim Abrahamic religions are somehow the root of all evil is simply a lie.

2. Its a simple point. Atheists are and always have been a tiny minority, so its daft to say atheists haven't done so much bad etc. Its like saying midgets have done less harm than normal sized humans.

If you indulge in it, you will of course be fine with it. Greeks and Egyptians enjoyed these abnormal desires.

1. But I didn’t say that Abrahamism is “the root of all evil”, did I? You made that up, and attributed it to me.

I can only conclude that you deliberately and wilfully misunderstand what I post, in order to avoid having to think about your beliefs.

2. Here’s more on homosexuality in ancient cultures which were all theist, where it was equivalent to heterosexuality, and indeed was considered the same thing.

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1790/lgbtq-in-the-ancient-world/

 

[KingKhanWC]

1. But I didn’t say that Abrahamism is “the root of all evil”, did I? You made that up, and attributed it to me.

I can only conclude that you deliberately and wilfully misunderstand what I post, in order to avoid having to think about your beliefs.

2. Here’s more on homosexuality in ancient cultures which were all theist, where it was equivalent to heterosexuality, and indeed was considered the same thing.

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1790/lgbtq-in-the-ancient-world/

1. You have asserted this in numerous posts. The topic I about Hindu Gods. I can defend my beliefs against any anti-religious nutjob who attacks them on the internet.

2. Im not reading your links. Homosexuality is not the norm, never has been and never will be. The same as incest. Yet you pick and choose what you think is ok and isn't. In Islam we are clear and not confused like self proclaimed liberals.

 

[Napa]

Can any Hindus explain these...

1. How many Gods are there in total?

<b> Many </b>

2. How many are gay?

<b> No idea. </b>

3. Why would a god need to have some sort of sexuality?

<b> Because man made God in his image. You are intellectually too weak to comprehend,but God was invented by man. </b>

 

[Justcrazy]

Homosexuality has never been the norm in any way of life.

You are simply lying here.

Atheists remain a tiny minority to this day while Abrahamic faiths have been the majority throughout the world. This is the simple reason for causing more harm but also they have caused more goodness than atheists ever have. Yet another weak argument.

As for the topic.

Can any Hindus explain these...

1. How many Gods are there in total?

2. How many are gay?

3. Why would a god need to have some sort of sexuality?

1. 33 kinds of Gods , some say only one true GOD with capital G . Rest are with small g .

2. I do not think there is essentially any Gay God , may be they take avtar in form of transsexual.

3. From Hindu perspective God does such things to know there creation better.

 

[IndoorCricket]

The ultimate reality is Brahman (GOD). Brahman is nirguna (distinctionless) people realize brahman by attributing some qualities making it saguṇa (God like Shiva, Bhramha, Rama, Krishna etc).

 

[SpiritOf1903]

This shows that ancient cultures were fine with freedom of sexuality between consenting adults. The world was largely at peace and the gods were aspects of human behaviour.

Then Abrahamism turned up and banned a lot of sexual expression, causing much harm to humanity in terms or war and dominator culture.

So again you're conveniently ignoring the world's oldest organised religion, Zoroastrianism?.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Probably? Have you any evidence for this?

I used the word probably because I wasn't coming with evidence, but reasoning that the world was less civilised, and we know that slavery existed, and people were generally abused freely. Just take the birth of Judaism for example, wasn't it true that the Pharaoh enslaved the Hebrews and killed their first born males due to the prophecy about Moses?

Were Hindu women not expected to jump on their husband's funeral pyres upon his death? Was the caste system in India invented by Abrahamic rulers?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This is an attempted mix of apples and oranges to dilute gay rights.

LGBTQ - consensual relations between two legal and mature adults

Bestiality and Pedophilia - Non-consenting adults/humans where one is exploiting the other.

Two vastly different situations.

Why would I want to dilute gay rights in India? It's none of my business, that is why I was asking for Indian insights about the topic.

My impression from the small amount of Indian media I have been exposed to is that LGBTQ rights are still far behind western norms, so I was just trying to get a handle on why this might be so.

 

[street cricketer]

Btw Hindu Gods are not "gay" in the modern definition of sexuality, atleast that I know of.

They have avatars (which are worldly manifestations of the divine) in different genders, which I suppose is classified under the LGBTQ category by the western author.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Btw Hindu Gods are not "gay" in the modern definition of sexuality, atleast that I know of.

They have avatars (which are worldly manifestations of the divine) in different genders, which I suppose is classified under the LGBTQ category by the western author.

From the article:

Hinduism, unlike most Western faiths, historically treats homosexuality as a natural behavior, one documented in folk tale and religious text alike. Behold, this incomplete list of Hindu deities and divine descendants who defied gender and sexual norms back in the day

So the western author is actually giving credit to Hinduism for treating homosexuality as natural behaviour, although he does offer the somewhat confusing counterpoint that Hindu deities were defying gender and sexual norms of the time, so seems even back then homosexuality was not viewed favourably in India.

 

[street cricketer]

From the article:

Hinduism, unlike most Western faiths, historically treats homosexuality as a natural behavior, one documented in folk tale and religious text alike. Behold, this incomplete list of Hindu deities and divine descendants who defied gender and sexual norms back in the day

So the western author is actually giving credit to Hinduism for treating homosexuality as natural behaviour, although he does offer the somewhat confusing counterpoint that Hindu deities were defying gender and sexual norms of the time, so seems even back then homosexuality was not viewed favourably in India.

Homosexuality probably existed since time immemorial and will exist long into the future. Human behaviour cannot be absolute. If there are a 7 billion people on Earth, you can't expect everyone of them to be attracted to the opposite gender/heterosexual. A few would be homosexual, a few would be asexual, and so on. The difference comes in morality, and morality is known to differ from culture to culture.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Homosexuality probably existed since time immemorial and will exist long into the future. Human behaviour cannot be absolute. If there are a 7 billion people on Earth, you can't expect everyone of them to be attracted to the opposite gender/heterosexual. A few would be homosexual, a few would be asexual, and so on. The difference comes in morality, and morality is known to differ from culture to culture.

Agreed. I think issues arise when attempts are made to force an identikit morality across the board for that very reason.

 

[mustang]

Why would I want to dilute gay rights in India? It's none of my business, that is why I was asking for Indian insights about the topic.

My impression from the small amount of Indian media I have been exposed to is that LGBTQ rights are still far behind western norms, so I was just trying to get a handle on why this might be so.

I know it's a touchy subject, but the world was probably fine with incest, bestiality and paedophilia before Abrahamism. Why wouldn't it be?

I have no idea about your true intentions but your message is consistent with the usual anti-gay far right groups' positioning. Mix up gay people with taboo extremes like pedophile and bestiality to dilute their rights.

Why even bring up bestiality and pedophilia into this thread when it is not even relevant? What was your intention?

LGBTQ - consensual relations between two legal and mature adults

Bestiality and Pedophilia - Non-consenting adults/humans where one is exploiting the other.


Can you reason for the above two statements to be true and can you infer the clear difference between the two cases? If you can, then why did you unnecessarily bring up bestiality and pedophilia into the topic here?

 

[mustang]

From the article:

Hinduism, unlike most Western faiths, historically treats homosexuality as a natural behavior, one documented in folk tale and religious text alike. Behold, this incomplete list of Hindu deities and divine descendants who defied gender and sexual norms back in the day

So the western author is actually giving credit to Hinduism for treating homosexuality as natural behaviour, although he does offer the somewhat confusing counterpoint that Hindu deities were defying gender and sexual norms of the time, so seems even back then homosexuality was not viewed favourably in India.

This is interesting to read and I'm glad you shared this. I for one am happy that at least some religions are showing positive traits for being accepting of homosexuality.

 

[Robert]

1. You have asserted this in numerous posts. The topic I about Hindu Gods. I can defend my beliefs against any anti-religious nutjob who attacks them on the internet.

2. Im not reading your links. Homosexuality is not the norm, never has been and never will be. The same as incest. Yet you pick and choose what you think is ok and isn't. In Islam we are clear and not confused like self proclaimed liberals.

“I’m not listening, I’m not listening!” )

 

[Robert]

So again you're conveniently ignoring the world's oldest organised religion, Zoroastrianism?.

What’s your point? The Zoroastrian position on homosexuality has no bearing on the positions taken in ancient Egypt, China, Mesopotamia and India.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I have no idea about your true intentions but your message is consistent with the usual anti-gay far right groups' positioning. Mix up gay people with taboo extremes like pedophile and bestiality to dilute their rights.

Why even bring up bestiality and pedophilia into this thread when it is not even relevant? What was your intention?

LGBTQ - consensual relations between two legal and mature adults

Bestiality and Pedophilia - Non-consenting adults/humans where one is exploiting the other.


Can you reason for the above two statements to be true and can you infer the clear difference between the two cases? If you can, then why did you unnecessarily bring up bestiality and pedophilia into the topic here?

Because the medieval world and prior was quite a brutal place. I could just as well have brought up wife bashing, rape or child slavery.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This is interesting to read and I'm glad you shared this. I for one am happy that at least some religions are showing positive traits for being accepting of homosexuality.

Good. This shows a genuine desire to accept homosexuality in a religious or cultural cradle. It is the only honest way to embrace any values, throwing them back at others only signifies shame which makes no sense if you are defending or promoting a way of life.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

What’s your point? The Zoroastrian position on homosexuality has no bearing on the positions taken in ancient Egypt, China, Mesopotamia and India.

Yet directly conflicts your view of the Abrahamic take, non?.

 

[KingKhanWC]

“I’m not listening, I’m not listening!” )

We are here to debate, anyone can post links. I can use google.

Can you explain why two men related have such relations is wrong in your view?

Remeber CONSENT is an important liberal value. If there consent in any adult relationship, why are you then bothered as a non-religous person?

Looking forward to another link .... )

 

[Napa]

Because the medieval world and prior was quite a brutal place. I could just as well have brought up wife bashing, rape or child slavery.

And when do you think the world became better than the medieval world?

"The mouth and teeth are inspected, and afterwards every part of the body in succession, not even excepting the breasts, etc, of the girls, many of whom I have seen examined in the most indecent manner in the public market by the purchasers...The slave is then made to walk or run a little way to show that there is no defect about the feet; after which, if the price is agreed to, they are stripped of their finery and delivered over to their future master. I have frequently counted twenty or thirty of these files in the market at one time...Women with children newly born hanging at their breasts and others so old they can scarcely walk, are sometimes seen dragged about in this manner. They had in general a very dejected look; some groups appeared so ill fed that their bones seemed as if ready to penetrate the skin".

...

Every year, about 40,000-50,000 slaves were taken to Zanzibar.[12] About a third went to work on clove and coconut plantations of Zanzibar and Pemba while the rest were exported to Persia, Arabia, the Ottoman Empire and Egypt.[12] Conditions on the plantations were so harsh that about 30% of the male slaves died every year, thus necessitating the need to import another batch of slaves.

...

The Omani Arabs who ruled Zanzibar had in the words of the American diplomat Donald Petterson a "culture of violence" where brute force was the preferred solution to problems and outlandish cruelty was a virtue.[13] The ruling al-Busaid family was characterized by fratricidal quarrels as it was common for brother to murder brother, and this was typical of the Arab aristocracy, where it was acceptable for family members to murder one another to gain land, wealth, titles and slaves.[13] Visitors to Zanzibar often mentioned the "shocking brutality" which the Arab masters treated their slaves, who were so cowed into submission that there was never a slave revolt attempted on Zanzibar.[12] The cruelty which the Arab masters treated their slaves left behind a legacy of hate, which exploded in the revolution of 1964.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zanzibar#Zanzibar_Sultanate

 

[Robert]

Yet directly conflicts your view of the Abrahamic take, non?.

I don’t believe so. Judaism is the basis of Abrahamism surely? Zoroastrianism is outside this tradition. Still not getting your point.

 

[Robert]

We are here to debate, anyone can post links. I can use google.

Can you explain why two men related have such relations is wrong in your view?

Remeber CONSENT is an important liberal value. If there consent in any adult relationship, why are you then bothered as a non-religous person?

Looking forward to another link .... )

Because ever since our ancestors identified the principles of animal husbandry, we know that siblings tend to produce offspring with birth defects. Hence the ban on incest.

You’ve cleverly worded your question to avoid the offspring issue, and in fact sex between adult brothers is not illegal in UK. but I reject the conflation of homosexuality with incest. It’s apples and oranges.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

And when do you think the world became better than the medieval world?

I knew even before I read it that your article would be selected carefully in order to portray Islamic civilisation in a barbaric light, that's no surprise considering your background, but I would just repeat that I am not trying to make this about Hinduism vs Islam, one of the reasons I suggested that brutality was more widespread in earlier civilisations was to take a broader view of history down the ages.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

I don’t believe so. Judaism is the basis of Abrahamism surely? Zoroastrianism is outside this tradition. Still not getting your point.

Zoroastrianism is as old if not older than Judaism.

 

[Robert]

Zoroastrianism is as old if not older than Judaism.

Ok but it isn’t the basis of Abrahamism, as Judaism does not draw on it. One originated in Persia and the other in Israel / Judah at about the same time.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Ok but it isn’t the basis of Abrahamism, as Judaism does not draw on it. One originated in Persia and the other in Israel / Judah at about the same time.

So an aversion to homosexuality isn't specific to Abrahamic religions, is it?.

 

[Robert]

So an aversion to homosexuality isn't specific to Abrahamic religions, is it?.

Didn’t claim that it was. Claimed that it was normal in many ancient cultures. Then Abrahamism exploded out of the ME and overran much of the world and outlawed it.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Didn’t claim that it was. Claimed that it was normal in many ancient cultures. Then Abrahamism exploded out of the ME and overran much of the world and outlawed it.

So you've got an irrational dislike of, shall we say, Abrahamism.

 

[Robert]

So you've got an irrational dislike of, shall we say, Abrahamism.

Weird conclusion to draw. I merely made observations based on historical record.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Weird conclusion to draw. I merely made observations based on historical record.

You've been consistently bashing Abrahamic faiths as being solely responsible fir homophobia.

 

[Robert]

You've been consistently bashing Abrahamic faiths as being solely responsible fir homophobia.

Well, aren’t they?

 

[Napa]

I knew even before I read it that your article would be selected carefully in order to portray Islamic civilisation in a barbaric light, that's no surprise considering your background, but I would just repeat that I am not trying to make this about Hinduism vs Islam, one of the reasons I suggested that brutality was more widespread in earlier civilisations was to take a broader view of history down the ages.

Nothing carefully selected, slavery was sanctioned.

You need to sources for opinions like "I suggested that brutality was more widespread in earlier civilisations was to take a broader view of history down the ages". In my extensive reading of history, I have found that Islamic societies have been in a constant state of war which continues to the present day, with atrocities like locking people in a truck to die (Taliban) or organized slavery and rape (ISIS). I find no evidence that brutality was more widespread earlier.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Then Abrahamism turned up and banned a lot of sexual expression, causing much harm to humanity in terms or war and dominator culture.

THIS...

The world became a much more turbulent place when the Abrahamic faiths gained steam..

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Nothing carefully selected, slavery was sanctioned.

You need to sources for opinions like "I suggested that brutality was more widespread in earlier civilisations was to take a broader view of history down the ages". In my extensive reading of history, I have found that Islamic societies have been in a constant state of war which continues to the present day, with atrocities like locking people in a truck to die (Taliban) or organized slavery and rape (ISIS). I find no evidence that brutality was more widespread earlier.

Slavery was sanctioned prior to Islam as well, if anything at least Islam provided a way out for slaves, that is precisely why I said that your predictably myopic stats were meaningless. And of course you still won't come out of that narrow focus for reasons which are obvious to all.

 

[Technics 1210]

Slavery was sanctioned prior to Islam as well, if anything at least Islam provided a way out for slaves, that is precisely why I said that your predictably myopic stats were meaningless. And of course you still won't come out of that narrow focus for reasons which are obvious to all.

Good point. Slavery was also sanctioned by Amreeka, where Napa resides. No problem since his ilk are benefiting from capitalism (modern day slavery) away from 'Incredible India', So really he doesn't care about slavery, but is obsessed with Islam even though it means exposing his hatered, hypocrisy, and love for all that opposes India. You couldn't really make it up, then again, you could being born in the wrong caste.

 

[Napa]

Slavery was sanctioned prior to Islam as well, if anything at least Islam provided a way out for slaves, that is precisely why I said that your predictably myopic stats were meaningless. And of course you still won't come out of that narrow focus for reasons which are obvious to all.

Slaves were also set free according to the owners desires in earlier cultures, for example in Rome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Emancipation

A sanction of slavery means that it was no better than whatever preceded it. So what is your point?

 

[srh]

https://www.advocate.com/religion/2016/9/06/19-lgbt-hindu-gods


Fascinating insight from an Indian POV. Would be interesting to hear views from our Indian posters how they relate.

Hinduism is not really a religion. It is basically a mythology so it has no boundaries and anything can be presented as part of it.

 

[Robert]

Good point. Slavery was also sanctioned by Amreeka, where Napa resides. No problem since his ilk are benefiting from capitalism (modern day slavery) away from 'Incredible India', So really he doesn't care about slavery, but is obsessed with Islam even though it means exposing his hatered, hypocrisy, and love for all that opposes India. You couldn't really make it up, then again, you could being born in the wrong caste.

It does seem to be a feature of one-god cultures. European Christian states were phasing it out by the early 1800s, USA by 1865, Brazil and the Ottomans by WW1.

The Caliphates didn’t operate slave plantations over multiple generations like the Europeans and Americans. Slavery was more in terms of decades of indentured service and harems. A slave could eventually join a household and have some autonomy. But they still stole tens of millions of Europeans and Africans - including several thousand Celts from Cornwall taken by the Barbary Corsairs. President Jefferson put a stop to that by burning the Corsair ports (while still running his own plantation at Monticello including his personal African baby mamma).