Moving Forward on Contemporary Gay Issues
By Amara Das Wilhelm

As Hinduism moves into the twenty-first century, it will be important for this great religion (the world’s third largest, after Christianity and Islam) to address contemporary issues and problems in ways that are both compassionate and spiritually progressive. In regard to gay and third-gender issues, Hinduism would do well to disregard the foreign influence of recent centuries and look instead into its distant past. Here are some of the third-gender issues that Hinduism will need to address in the years to come:

Gays in the Ashrama

Gay and other third-gender devotees commonly face serious prejudice and alienation when living in temples that are not open and accepting of them, and this problem is further compounded when they are young and going through adolescence. As a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, I have lived in the ashrama as a celibate gay devotee with no serious problems for over twenty years. I also know of many others who have done the same, both in the past and at present. I gained a lot of spiritual association and merit by living in the temple that I would not have otherwise if I had simply remained outside. I therefore feel quite strongly that it is unfair and dangerous to suggest, as some people do, that gays and lesbians are best served not to join the ashrama. Srila Prabhupada had many gay disciples who were very close to him, and he never made any suggestion like that to them. Everyone was always welcome to join the temple and ashrama as long as they promised to practice celibacy.

Gay devotees living in the ashrama and practicing celibacy is not comparable to men and women living together. In a men’s ashrama, for instance, most of the men are heterosexual and not attracted to other men. Therefore even if a gay devotee feels some attraction toward a straight man, it is easy for him to check his passions since the attraction is not reciprocated, much more than it would be between a mutually attracted man and woman. If any devotee is too agitated, he or she can easily move outside the temple, or practical arrangements can be made such as having one’s own room, sharing a room with an elderly person, etc., but as long as there is no difficulty following celibate vows, there should be no reason to deny gays the advantages of ashrama living. Authorities should not subject them to exclusionary policies simply because of misconceptions about them or how “awkward or difficult” their situation is imagined to be. After all, gay people are accustomed to living and associating with heterosexual men and women and have been doing so throughout their lives.

This whole issue is very similar to the “gays in the military” controversy. In an open society, heterosexuals need to learn to live side by side with the gay population. Any potential problems can be easily resolved as long as genuine fellowship and inclusiveness is there. In America during the 1940s, for instance, many people believed that Blacks and Whites would never be able to live and serve together in the military. This was eventually proven to be untrue, and military units in countries like Israel, Canada, the United Kingdom, and others have demonstrated that heterosexuals and gays can live together and serve side by side without detrimental effects. The same is undoubtedly true for ashrama living; in fact, it should even be easier since spiritual aspirants are supposed to be cultivating bodily transcendence. Some problems will always be present when people interact, but discouraging gay people from joining the ashrama or making them pretend they are straight will not resolve the problem. Rather, it will only continue to foster prejudicial attitudes and encourage dishonesty and pretense. This would be at odds with spiritual concepts of compassion and truthfulness, and even contrary to modern social values that are increasingly becoming more open and tolerant of people of the third sex and human diversity in general.

Gay-Oriented Religious Organizations

Within the Gaudiya Vaishnava mission, we have recently formed GALVA-108, the Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association, in order to address the concerns of gay, lesbian, and other third-gender practitioners of Vaishnavism, one of the largest branches of Hinduism.

One of the most frequently asked questions I receive about GALVA is, “What is the necessity for a Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association? If devotees are supposed to be transcendental to all bodily designations, then why should any particular group of Vaishnavas or Hindus have a special need to associate and organize?”

The answer to this question is twofold. First of all, many religious communities are not as spiritually advanced or transcendental as we would hope, and therefore they unfortunately discriminate against or sometimes even mistreat and exclude fellow Vaishnavas who happen to be in gay or third-gender bodies. As long as such people (gay males, lesbians, transgenders, bisexuals, the intersexed, etc.) are stigmatized and marginalized within Gaudiya Vaishnava or any other Hindu society, there will be a special need for them to organize in order to specifically address such artificially created problems of discrimination.

People questioning the purpose of organizations like GALVA may not even be aware of the serious problems that gay and lesbian devotees face within their respective institutions and faiths each day. In some cases, they are outright denied entry and participation in the temples, and in others, they are so socially ostracized or stifled that it is harmful to their emotional and spiritual well-being. All such forms of discrimination and mistreatment are completely against the teachings and spirit of Hinduism and require immediate attention.

Secondly, even if the religion or temple were to be totally open and accepting of gays, it is still human nature that people of similar types will want to associate together. Srila Prabhupada has stated that “birds of the same feather flock together,” and he also specifically mentions that people of the third sex were allowed in Vedic culture to keep their own societies. There is nothing wrong with this—it is completely natural.

Female devotees will naturally like to associate among themselves, and so will male devotees. A person living in a foreign country will naturally take pleasure in meeting someone from his own homeland, and the same is true for people of the third sex—even more so if they are being socially isolated or ostracized. Third-gender people make up a small minority and it is often difficult for them to find friends and associate together. One of the biggest problems facing third-gender Vaishnavas and Hindus is the isolation and loneliness they often experience. It is actually quite natural and even helpful for these types of devotees to associate together, and as long as Krsna or God remains in the center, such good association helps to strengthen the devotee’s commitment to spiritual life.

Finally, it is important to judge an organization by its results. During the few brief years of GALVA’s existence, I have literally received hundreds of letters and e-mails from devotees all over the world, both gay and straight, expressing their appreciation and gratitude for the resources and help it provides. Many have stated that their spiritual lives were rejuvenated, and others mentioned that they were better able to understand, love, and accept their third-gender relatives, friends, and peers. For all of these reasons and more, GALVA has become one more effective tool for spreading the message of Gaudiya Vaishnavism throughout the world and to all people.

The Question of Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a very important issue that is likely to be debated for years to come. It is probably the last and most critical concern in regard to the fair treatment of homosexuals within society. Hindus will have to decide how to engage people of the third sex who cannot strictly follow celibacy. Should they be encouraged to form committed same-sex partnerships and marry; should they be encouraged to attempt heterosexual marriage; or should they just be abandoned and allowed to become promiscuous? What will be best for the individual, and what will be best for society as a whole?

We know that at least on the secular level, gay marriage was acknowledged to have existed in Vedic times. As stated in the Kama Sutra:

There are also third-sexed citizens, sometimes greatly attached to each other and with complete faith in one another, who get married together. (Kama Sutra 2.9.36)

This would be expected, of course, since people of the third sex are human beings and experience the same need for love, intimacy and companionship that heterosexual people do. Whether we allow it or not, gay people are going to fall in love and couple; the real question is whether or not we can overcome our own prejudice in order to practically encourage such people in spiritual life.

Many Hindus suggest that marriage is intended only for procreation and rearing children, but is this really true? Do people marry only to beget children, or does the need for human intimacy and relationships play a larger role? We see that many Hindu organizations have no qualms about marrying heterosexual couples who are hopelessly sterile, or beyond their procreative years in age, because they understand and identify with the human requirement for love and companionship. Should homosexual people, who are nonprocreative by nature, be taken any differently, or is not allowing them to marry simply discrimination?

While marriage may not be relevant for sterile, intersex or same-sex couples in terms of procreation, it is still highly relevant for them in terms of sense control (committing to a single partner), human intimacy and companionship, and in some instances, child-rearing (through adoption). For these reasons, I strongly believe that all people should be encouraged to marry whenever they cannot follow strict celibacy, especially in spiritual life.

We have seen the disastrous consequences of coerced celibacy and artificial renunciation within Hinduism and many other world religions. During the normal course of life, the householder stage is almost always required, especially in this age. Srila Prabhupada states, “This practice [celibacy] is very essential for the student’s advancement in spiritual life, but at the moment such brahmacari (unmarried celibate) life is not at all possible. The social construction of the world has changed so much that there is no possibility of one’s practicing celibacy from the beginning of student life.” (Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, 8.11, purport)

This statement is just as true for sterile, intersex or homosexual people as it is for others. We certainly encourage celibacy in spiritual life, but for those who cannot maintain this esteemed platform, the next best thing will obviously be marriage, a practice that must also be encouraged. Sense control is advisable whenever possible and to whatever extent the person is able to achieve. There is no question that faithfully committing oneself to a single partner in marriage is far better socially, morally, and spiritually than reckless sexual abandon. No one should ever be faced with the ultimatum of “celibacy…or nothing!” Such an extreme policy is sure to produce bad results on many different levels, and the dire consequences of not promoting (or even allowing) monogamy and marriage among the gay community in modern society are clearly evident. We can only imagine how much more promiscuous heterosexual people would be if they were not encouraged or allowed to marry!

Since sterile, intersex and homosexual people make up less than 10 percent of any given population, there is no basis for the fear that allowing them to marry will detrimentally affect or “ruin” normal heterosexual marriage in any way. More likely, it would strengthen the institution by encouraging it equally across the board. There are always exceptions to the general rule, and we see that even in Vedic times there were many different levels of marriage including religious (brahma-vivaha), civil (gandharva-vivaha), and forbidden or barbaric (asura-vivaha). We should not be so rigid or inflexible in our definition of marriage that we withdraw its benefits from those who vary from the “norm” or do not meet our ideal standards and beliefs. For many different types of people, marriage is an important step in sense control, morality, and spiritual life. This is true whether they are Eastern or Western, religious or agnostic, civilized or aboriginal, black or white, gay or straight, intersexed or anatomically normal, etc. Marriage and other means of temperance should always be universally encouraged and promoted, and this will ultimately be conducive for the progression of both society and religion.

The idea of homosexually married priests may present a more difficult problem, especially within the Vaishnava and Brahmavada traditions. Brahmanas and priests are almost always required to practice celibacy within these groups and even heterosexual couples are expected to engage in sexual intercourse only for the purpose of begetting children. It is highly unlikely that homosexual couples would be allowed to serve as priests in these instances unless they were entirely celibate.

As religions and societies continue to move forward in addressing these important topics, so Hinduism will also have to. In one sense this is all really “much ado about nothing.” The largest hurdle that most people have to overcome is their own prejudice and unfamiliarity with homosexual, transgender and intersex people in general.