An open letter
This open letter is in response to a submission by the National Sikh Council of Australia Inc in response to the Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill supported by Bawa Singh Jagdev, Secretary.
The overwhelming principle of Sikhism is to consider all of human race as equal without exception. This consideration does not conflict in any way our faith’s commitment to a family life which is an essential social unit in Sikhism. Sarbat will refute major points made in the letter as following in addition to asking for further clarification from NSCA.
Point 1: It defies the meanings of the marriage which is a union of a man and ad a woman.
Response from Sarbat : A marriage in Sikhism is seen as a union of two genderless souls, with the outwards appearance of human beings (which is a temporary state) to God. The Laavan (the four sacred hymns forming the Anand Karaj or the Sikh wedding ceremony) mentions no gender and is seen as a spiritual journey to achieving happiness through committing to the Sikh faith.
Point 2: God created man and women for the propagation of human race otherwise he could have created only men or women, but He didn’t. The marriage is for the procreation and raising children in a caring and loving family environment is called marriage. And the union of two men or two women do not produce any offspring.
Response from Sarbat: We would like to ask NSCA what would be their take on heterosexual Sikh couples who do not wish to have (out of choice or necessity) or aren’t able to have children. Additionally is NSCA suggesting that only children of married couples grow up in a ‘caring and loving family environment’?
Sikhism is about dealing with contemporary and every day problems faced by humans living in the present. We feel that point 2 is an antithesis of that.
Point 3: Imagine for a moment if the progeny of Adam and Eve had decided to be homosexual no one of us, including the proponents and those supporting the Bill, would be here today to discuss what we are debating because the union of two homosexuals, does not and cannot produce anything. What the proponents of the Bill are proposing and supporting is against the law of Nature. God created humans on this planet to propagate the human race and not to destroy it. This bill will destroy the whole human race.
Response from Sarbat: This point isn’t entirely clear, is it being suggested that all men and women are naturally predisposed to form same sex relationships? Scientific evidence suggests that anything between 1 – 5 percent of human population is not heterosexual. So any concerns that the writer may have about the ‘destruction of the whole human race’ are unfounded and cannot be taken seriously.
Point 4 : Union of two Gay or Lesbian is not a union for love but merely for the unnatural sexual gratification for themselves and in no way is going to help any society advancement. Gay and Lesbian, under the Human Rights, can exercise their right to live the way they want to live and tie the knot of union but that union of two same sex cannot be called a marriage. A new term shall have to be coined for that union. In human society a father is always a male and mother is a female and although there won’t be any babies born out of the union of two homosexual yet if they find and adopt one, between two homosexual men who would the child call father and to whom the mother and the same applies to two lesbians. So new terms for father and mother shall have to coined.
Response from Sarbat: Many same sex couples with children that we have come across use different terms for the two different same sex parents. e.g. ‘Papa’ and ‘Daddy’. Is the writer of the original submission just concerned about semantics of the English language or is it something deeper than that?
We would like to have an open debate with National Sikh Council of Australia and would like to hear from you here, on facebook
or via email to info (a) sarbat dot net.
Issued without prejudice