I was personally very impressed and moved by President Obama's decision to come out openly and vocally in support of same-sex marriage. For all the guff we throw at him, and not withstanding the obvious political calculations that came along with the decision, his move was a courageous and truly historic gesture befitting the expectations that came along with his ascendancy to the presidency.
The cultural waters in terms of gay rights continue to move and shift in profound and irreversible ways. I see this as well in the religious communities that I am part of. Recently, my friend Bowie Snodgrass, who is one of the executive directors of the excellent Interfaith community Faith House here in Manhattan, presented a sampling of the liturgy, song, and scripture she and others in the Episcopal Church have been developing for a same-gender blessings marriage ceremony. (For more information, click here to visit the Episcopal Church's "Same-Gender Blessings Project")
Still, within my own tradition (the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition of Hinduism), and within its contemporary cultural expressions, I feel a certain hesitancy to be so supportive of gay rights. Within my own heart and conviction, there is no conflict. But I wonder how I will be perceived by my immediate and extended religious community. Nevertheless, I use this platform on The Huffington Post to bring this conflict into a brighter light, because I think it is part of the larger question of establishing and defining the relevancy of my tradition in the world today.
It is an unfortunate aspect of my experience within the Vaisnava tradition that I have experienced prejudice towards the gay community. Some of this prejudice has been overt, some of it simply a matter of cultural conditioning and unfamiliarity, but in either case, it has always made me quite uncomfortable. I had many gay and lesbian friends when I was an undergrad at the University of Michigan. I imagine I will have many gay and lesbian friends when I began grad school at Union Theological Seminary in the fall. I am naturally comfortable with people of this sexual persuasion, because of the simple fact that, beyond sexual preference, I see no difference between them and me. Therefore when I encounter prejudice against gay people and gay culture, even if it is not with the intent of malice, it feels abhorrent in the fiber of my being and spirituality.
I feel comforted knowing there are many people of faith who feel the same way I do, and who are trying to come to grips and understand why the prejudice of homophobia can never be supported in any kind of genuine spiritual way. As always, I look to support from the timeless scriptures of the Vedas, the fount of universal wisdom. For example, in the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna states:
The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (outcaste).
One may make an argument that gay marriage is not supported by scripture or tradition, but is homophobia ever supported by scripture or tradition? Forgive my ignorance per se if this kind of prejudicial support exists, but even within the scriptural evidence of Hindu antiquity there is plenty to support a nuanced and inclusive culture towards people of same-sex persuasion. To explore such an example, I suggest taking some time to read an excerpt from the book "Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex-Understanding Homosexuality, Transgender Identity and Intersex Conditions Through Hinduism" by Amara Das Wilhelm, which is available at the website of GALVA (The Gay And Lesbian Vaisnava Association).
In his book, Wilhelm explores the reality of the "third sex" (tritiya-prakriti) and its various permutations as we know them today in the LGBTQ community. He reveals how individuals of the "third sex" naturally fit into traditional Hindu/Vedic culture, and how they were not excluded from traditional social customs like marriage and religious customs as well. It was an enlightening read for me, and I imagine it might be for you as well.
In future editions of this blog, I want to continue to explore the issue of prejudice against the LGBTQ community within my own tradition, and how these issues relate to and expand outwards within the spiritual quilt of our humanity. I do no want to shy away from this conflict as I see it, even if it brings upon me misunderstandings and doubts from others.
Follow Chris Fici on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@ChrisFici
This is not a 'Hindu' response Mr. Chris Fici, as being a convert from the Judea-Christian tradition you hold an anti-Hindu bias of which you are not even aware of.
Just because you say you are a 'Hindu writer' doesn't really make you one. You need to have more in depth knowledge of the Hindu tradition and experience in order for you to call yourself a Hindu writer.
And by the way why (if you are a Hindu as you say you are) are you still a 'Chris Fici' ?
The birth of Ayyappa to Shiva and Vishnu is one.
More curios is is the characterization of Rama, the hero of Ramayana. In the days when kings are known to take multiple wives, his father Dasharatha supposedly had wives in the hundreds; Rama is famous of being loyal to Sita. However he had a habit of making very close bonds with male companions whom he affectionately calls his ‘brothers’. Starting with Guha, who just gave him a boat ride across river ganges, Sukreeva, the king of Vanaras (who turned against him own brother to be a ‘brother’ of Rama to Vibeeshna another instance of someone who deserved his own brother Ravana, to be Rama’s ‘brother’.
Is Valmiki subtly hinting that Rama is more interested in men than women? If that is so it will be the most liberated character in all of the ancient texts.
I for one certainly hope so.
Vali turned his back on dharma and went toward the dark side whilst Sugreeva tried to convince his brother not to stray. Vibeeshana was the ONLY one of the 3 brothers who was the wise, calm, peaceful one. Ravana and Kumbakarna were the complete opposite and were put on this earth to be killed at the hands of the Lord because of their tamasic souls. So no, Vibeeshana definitely did not "deserve" to be in teh company of his evil brothers. He was trying to encourage them to submit to God, but they refused.
As for the great sage, Valmiki was describing the larger situation at the time - Ravana embodies evil and Rama embodies dharma. Just as there are Christians who believe Christ, as God, walked the earth, Hindus believe that with Lord Rama. People are willing to believe "miracle" stories from other faiths, so to speak, but will view Hinduism throught the lense of myths and sexuality.
Mr. Chris Fici - Please provide the details for the above translated verse that you say is quoted in Bhagavad Gita. The Chapter no. ,verse and the translation that you have taken it from.
What difference does it make now? Now that you have the chapter and verse, are you more inclined to agree with the author's comments?
If Billy Graham --the religious zealot-- had been stolen from his parents in North Carolina at the age of 2 years, and then had he been taken to Algeria to be raised by a devoutly moslem family, today The Right Reverend Billy Graham would be reciting verses from the Koran and praising Allah.
In other words, for the vast marjority of believers, the religion to which they zealously adhere is nothing more than a function having been brainwashed into a creed --like a cult-- and not having the intellectual prowess to stand back as an adult and to understand that the substance of their beliefs is predicated on having been brainwashed into believing those beliefs.
I appreciate your enlightened view. It's refreshing, coming from a religious standpoint.
My only gripe (& this is every time I see it) is the use of the term, "gay rights". Rights have no gender nor sexuality.
What the LGBT community are fighting for is EQUALITY. Plain & simple equality for all consenting adults. That's it. Without equality, LGBT people will never be viewed with the status or respect that has become taken for granted by the hetero-community.
It would be nice to see this in a post title more often.
My friend also told me today that using the term "preference" to describe one's sexuality also doesn't quite cut it. Most people can't just choose what type of sexuality they prefer. It's pretty hard-wired and natural for most of us which way we go, some experimentation here or there.
So plenty to learn for me in terms of the right use of language when it comes to this debate
We just say, non-hetero. Really. If "hetero" = absolutely no interest or attraction outside of opposite-sex- then "non-hetero" would encompass every possible ID outside of 100% heterosexuality.
The reality? Society wants to dictate. But, a lot of society doesn't fit that "dictate".
It seems that our sexuality is a big issue. I have no idea why. I don't wonder or worry about other people- yet they worry about me?
All I can surmise is that people have personal issues with their chosen sexuality? Or, that they have trouble expressing it?
One person's sexuality can never change another person. If it does, it means you are not str8.
You try to make "sex is sex" as some attack on what your ability not to accept you sexual relatinships as NORMAL
MOVE on, overcome SEX (man/women) and Sexual Relationships (Man/Women, Man/Man, Women/Women, Women now man or Man now women with Man/Women/Man now women/Women now Man. SEX IS SEX get over it and byond it
You are stuck in EGO and the physical material. Become SPIRIT, BE Spirit and let earthly things belong to the earth. YOU are GOD and his righteousness not the body and its flesh
Hinduism's directive encourages liberation from the mistaken identification of the self with temporary material circumstances.
The self is fundamentally unchanging, whereas our body, mind and various social roles are changing continually. Hence I am always me, I never become you or anyone else; yet at different times our body may be that of a child or of an old person, we may be happy or sad, a student or a retiree, etc.
Because the self is not the body, no material situation can ever satisfy it, just as the attention given to a car are insufficient to satisfy the driver. The self is understood to be in an eternal loving relationship with God, or Krsna, but we are not presently situated in our natural position. Spiritual practices are to wean us from falsely identifying with matter and reestablishing our self-awareness as spirit souls, naturally eternally blissful.
Hinduism encourages us to attend to a single partner and work together to control the impulses of lust, freeing us from the urge to wander everywhere in search of new sex-partners so we may focus on spiritual practices. This is the point: does our marriage or civil union, either straight or gay, actually encourage my spiritual growth?
The questions to me are hardly difficult ones, but then, I don't have to wrestle with faith.
What does compassion tell you to do? Kindness? Acceptance? Good manners? Respect?Are gay people hurting you? Are they hurting other people? Right wing propaganda aside, are they hurting themselves?
Is it the truth? Is it kind? Is it necessary? Is your logic consistent, or merely used to justify your own prejudices?Is god being used to justify what cannot be justified by any other means? Do antigay attitudes make the world a better place? For straight people? For gay people?
Not difficult questions at all.
Personally, I have never heard a single reason that attempts to justify antigay prejudice that does doesn't boil down to one of these four things: 1) I hate gays. 2) My religion tells me to hate gays. Bonus points for calling it love and ignoring the reality of how it is experienced by gay people. 3) I hate that I might be gay. 4) Anything about sex scares the hell out of me, and I don't want to know why.
On the other hand, despite all the bad press it gets, I am part of an organized religion and a community surrounding that religion, and I am trying to explore the difficult questions surrounding LGBT issues in relation to my community. Something I can't avoid, that I choose not to avoid, and that indeed will be challenging for me in perhaps more than a few circumstances.