Having a gay old time...
It's the hot topic at the moment, and it's not going away.
There are a lot of comments on this site, and I've been in email correspondence with several people. I'll keep you up to date on that.
One essential issue is this: is homosexuality simply a behaviour (karma), or is it an identity (guna)?
Amara das weighs in at pariprasnena.com:
> Isn't homosexuality something that needs to be stopped, like meat-eating?In spiritual life homosexual behavior certainly needs to be stopped, but we cannot stop people from having homosexual orientation. It is just a fact of nature that some people are born this way, and they have their usefulness and value in society just like all other varieties of people.
Ultimately all material sexuality needs to be stopped. When householders are through having children, their heterosexuality needs to be stopped. In ascetic Vaishnavism, achieving liberation requires the abandonment of all material attachments and desires, the strongest of which is said to be the bond between woman and man. Srila Prabhupada's statement to Syamasundara regarding his homosexual orientation is especially pertinent in this regard ("What is the difference if a person is held in this material world by a gold chain, or by a silver chain...").
Gay people are definitely useful. I have always had some on staff as fashion advisors. In Wellington, before I would leave the ashram for the Sunday Feast I would always consult with our resident fashion guru. The other day I had to buy some clothes and a watch for my trip to the States. The guy who helped Param Satya and I decide on, and sold me the watch definitely had a tad too much fashion sense to be on the home team, and those are the kind of people that I seek out to help me making my sartorial purchasing decisions.
(I know, it's a hackneyed stereotype, but I happen to think it's true...)
Another important issue, related, is this. The regulative principle is "No Illicit Sex", not "Be Heterosexual". Having illicit sex can be said to be "wrong", but can we categorize "being" a particular sexual orientation in the same way? Illicit sex is wrong, but is there anything wrong with a celibate gay? Some of my best friends are celibate gays.
Amalagaura mixes it up, and shows how conversations in ISKCON commonly mix guna and karma - homosexuality and homosex - when discussing this issue:
Amalagaura said:"If our neighbor in a community of devotees was cooking chicken you can be sure it would not float well. So can or should devotees be comfortable with homosexual neighbors in a devotee community? I think Prabhupada did not want that."
Sitapati says: Prabhu, I think you have this wrong. The question should be: "Should devotees be comfortable with neighbours who are having illicit sex in a devotee community."
"No Illicit Sex" is the regulative principle, not: "Be Heterosexual".
The practical manifestation of this mix-up is that it seems we are more comfortable with neighbours who are heterosexual and having illicit sex, than with neighbours who are gay and celibate.
Isn't there something wrong with that, philosophically?
public-private distinction
Sitapati prabhu and others,
Hare Krsna. I couldn't register here from my workplace, so I posted the following comment on pariprashnena instead, following a link from your site. But I don't visit there, so I wanted to re-post here, with a few modifications. Your insights provoked a few thoughts, and I couldn't resist piping in. :)
I am fully in favour of supporting all kinds of people in their attempts to take up sAdhana according to their guNa and karma. The health of our own sAdhana depends on fostering this kind of attitude towards all living entities.
I agree with your comments on distinguishing between guNa and karma in the case of homosexuality also. But speaking of "acceptance" is different from speaking of "public rights" within a Society, and the institutionalization of certain arrangements and conventions.
Using philosophical frames of reference as you did, wouldn't those individuals for whom homosexual tendencies are a result of inborn guNa form a separate class? In which case, there ought to be "segregation" from the general body of other male (or female) devotees, in the sense that their interactions within the body politic are regulated according to that guNa's relationship with other guNas. Just like the segregation or recognition of different rights, roles and limits of interaction between the 4 varNas, 4 Ashramas, men women and children, etc in Vedic society.
Cohabitation within brahmacAri Ashramas is one example. I have several very close female friends whom I treat like mothers or sisters, but that doesn't mean I can accept the proposal of cohabitation or indiscriminate mixing of unmarried sAdhakas of opposite sex(uality). In the case of homosexual males, I think I would gladly support the idea of separate brahmacarya facilities for male-natured GLBTs.
Marriage is another good example. As per philosophically derived sociological regulations within VaiSNava society, can gay marriage be solemnized within a Vedic temple? I don't know, but I lean towards a "no". This is only because there is some evidence that not all homosexual behaviour is based only on material "guNa", and that socialization and psychological factors do play a role. Institutionalizing homosexual marriage in the Vedic context even though it is "the undesirable option" in that class of cases is untenable.
For those brethren who are really homosexual by guNa, and who need to have a supporting relationship with a fellow homosexual, one sugggestion is that they may do so with the full moral support of other devotees, but without demanding that it be publicly sanctified, for the sake of the general Society and the sanity of its ideals. Just like heterosexuals cannot demand that excessive sexual gratification within marriage, which is common, can be philosophically justified by the sAtvata VaiSNava standard in any way (such as in the name of, say, "tantra", marital health and "intimacy", and the like).
To summarize my point -- I think a lot of this discussion about "acceptability", "rights" and "individual reality" should devolve on the philosophy of the separation between "public" and "private" in VaiSNava Society. I've heard a truism that, speaking in terms of the different guNa-s of religion itself, a Vedic man "is VaiSNava in public, Shaiva in the home, and a ShAkta in private." Whatever that means, I guess the point is that the individual's sAdhana is to aspire for the VaiSNava standard in this birth or the next, and since we have a common viewpoint of a continuous sAdhana over many lifetimes, discussing the distinction between public convention and private life is not inappropriate -- assuming that it is all held together by the collective sincerity of Society members, rather than individual or collective hypocrisy. So I would suggest that the "acceptance" of GLBT brethren should ideally transition toward Societal "arrangements" with that common understanding, and in the spirit of supporting the clarity of individual and collective ideals.
thank you :)
Hare Krsna! Gracias por las felicitaciones. I see you are traveling a lot these days so I hope that you have a safe jouney. Waiting for that videos!
My obeisances to the atma team, specially to Param Satya Mataji and Prahlad.
ys, Sol :)
Re: Having a gay old time...
Hare Krsna! Great insights, prabhu, and very encouraging to read. I wish more devotees had your grasp of this issue...