Homosexuality:
Pandora’s Box

By Yugal Kishor dasa

Posted Mar. 31, 2005

It has been a while now that in our Krishna Consciousness Movement several individuals have been grappling with the issue of homosexuality. Some have posed the idea that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality and thus attempt to accommodate or justify homosexuality within the ranks of ISKCON asramas (whether grhastha asrama or brahmacarya, and perhaps even sannyasa).

Others have expressed their opposing convictions on the matter with full force. Still others stand in the middle. No matter how you look at this topic, one thing is sure: it is a highly unpleasant one. Pandora’s box has been opened.

The different views have been posted on various web sites: Chakra.org represents those who hold liberal views on the matter, while pamho.net and dipika.org are avenues for the conservatives. Those who stand in the middle of the issue participate in various forums and think-tanks, all with the intention of learning how to deal with it.

The liberal view is advocating compassion for homosexuals, above and beyond any other type of compassionate treatment that ISKCON already provides for all human beings, a special type of compassionate treatment, call it what you will.

The conservatives see this move as yet another threat to further erode or water down the regulative principles, knowingly or unknowingly. Those who are in the middle have misgivings about the affair; hence they can’t make up their minds. They are unsure about where to lend their support.

A very probable outcome of this ongoing discussion or debate is that it may very well further divide ISKCON. Our movement has been already divided in many ways, at least philosophically and pragmatically. A lot of resources (human included) have been wasted as a result of these divisions. ISKCON members have been drained (as well as substantial financial and property assets) into other camps: the Sridhara Swami camp, the ritvik camp, the Narayana Maharaja camp, the Harikesha camp in Russia, etc. Well, in the near future, we may have the homosexual camp, further eroding an already semi-crippled ISKCON.

We have to answer several questions ourselves, at least those who do care about the outcome of the homosexual issue: Are we concerned about it because we feel the pressure from the secular world to do so? Or is there any other reason why should we bother with it, and thus risk further division in our ranks? We should bear in mind that the homosexual agenda has existed for a long while. Why are we so concerned about it today? Is it because the liberal media, the educational systems, and other spheres of our secular societies are experiencing the same problem? Are we going to bother with it because the world outside of ISKCON is grappling with it? Are we mirroring them?

It is no secret that the homosexual movement and agenda have been at the forefront of the secular world, particularly in democratic nations (the West). You will not find the same phenomena –at least not with the same intensity – occurring in other, more conservative, parts of the world. ISKCON functions in all worlds, the West and in the rest.

Can we say then that the homosexual agenda is being pushed from the West to the rest of the ISKCON world? If and when ISKCON leadership decides to embrace the homosexual movement, are they to impose it upon the conservative nations wherein ISKCON functions as well? Or will an accommodating policy for homosexuals be put into practice only in democratic nations?

What will happen when, in a given temple in democratic nations, the congregation and/or its management decides not to go for such a policy? Will they be punished or sanctioned by the leadership? How – without causing further division and erosion – can such a policy be imposed or implemented in temples where it is not welcome?

The refusal of a homosexual-accommodating policy is not just a hypothetical one. Many grhasthas in ISKCON have children. And many, if not most of them, will object to bringing their children to a temple wherein yet another erosion of morals is palpable in its milieu. There was a time when promiscuity became quite visible and permissible in our temples (at least in the West). Many of us – grhasthas with children – became very uneasy about bringing our children to temples where some devotees engaged visibly in promiscuous ways, changing wives and husbands like changing bed sheets. It became an issue because, as we all know, children tend to imitate and learn from grown-ups, particularly if those grown-ups are temple worshipers, who are supposed to be exemplary in character.

Promiscuous behavior is a bad example for children, just as homosexual behavior is a bad example for children. Many homosexuals are not born. They are made (at least that is another theory circulating in psychology circles). So, many of us will be apprehensive about our children getting unnecessary exposure to homosexuality in the temples. It is already bad enough that our children have to put up with it in their regular schools and the media. Why should we allow such exposure in the temples, which are supposed to be sanctuaries, where all the dirt of the material world is left outside?

The homosexual movement has made major strides in the secular world, in the socio-economic sphere, in the political arena, and now in the religious organizations of the West. It has created divisions, especially in the religious area of society. They were not contempt with simple gains. Today they want everything.

We wonder whether a similar approach will be used in entering the ranks of ISKCON. Will they be satisfied with simple social acceptance, or will they one day demand the right to become GBCs, leaders, teachers, and even institutionally-appointed gurus? Where do we draw the line?

Another important question to be answered is what are the specific identifiable benefits that will accrue to ISKCON, as a whole or in part, in accommodating homosexuals? Some devotees are advocating the idea that embracing the homosexual agenda in ISKCON is beneficial for the society. How so?

In deciding whether to embrace or reject such policies, our leaders had better make sure that they take into consideration all the pros and cons, not just the cons. Will the damages that will surely result from such implementation outweigh the benefits?

Moreover, to do justice to everyone and not just to homosexuals, conduct a survey. And don’t forget the grhasthas. Surely, brahmacaries and sannyasis, who don’t have family commitments or dependents to worry about, may have nothing at stake. That’s not the case with grhasthas. Don’t further alienate the grhasthas. Before making this type of decision, ask them how they would feel about it. Conduct a survey. Get a feel of what your followers are thinking about this issue.

We hope that our readers will not take us for advocates of hate speech. We also live by the rule that all living entities have a God-given right to become Krishna-bhaktas, but we also strongly believe that we ought to adhere to the old Hare Krishna Movement’s tenets.

What we gather from the writings and lectures of our founder acharya is that the Krishna Consciousness Movement is supposed to be a society of first-class brahmanas (at the very least), so that eventually we may get to the point of becoming Vaishnavas. Is the policy of accommodating homosexuals in accordance with this tenet?

Sex-katha is nasty. Homosexuality is probably even nastier. And now that its Pandora’s box has been opened, let’s vent our ideas and concerns and decide which way our movement is heading.

Your servant,
Yugala Kishora dasa
Gainesville, FL

© dipika.org Mar. 31, 2005