Text 45394: 21-May-94 21:23 /62 lines/ Jayadvaita Swami (BTG)
Comment on: Text 43735 by com: Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Berkeley - USA)
Receiver: Philosophical Exchange (Global) <156>
Subject: Gay devotees, discrimination etc.
Sorry to be slow in responding to texts. I've been busy elsewhere. (JAS)

You (Madhusudani Radha) say:

     Surely you could not have been seriously suggesting that
     homosexual feelings are the same as zoophilia, pedophilia,
     necrophilia.   Even the US govt. and the American
     Psychiatric Association recognize this. The reason this
     homosexuality is different from the other categories you
     mentioned . . . is that it involves CONSENSUAL interactions
     between two adults!

(JAS) Yes, I *am* seriously suggesting that homosexual acts and feelings are "the same" as those of zoophilia, etc. They are not identical, any more than murder, theft, and arson are identical. But just as murder, theft, and arson are all criminal, acts of homosexuality, zoophilia, pedophilia, and necrophilia are all sinful.

The participants in a sin may be adults who both agree to do it. Does that exempt it from being a sin? No. In fact, that they are adult means they are supposed to be responsible and accountable for what they do.

Two military people may use their military car as, for example, a site for sexual intercourse. But the consensual nature of their act doesn't excuse them from having misused the government's car. So also, two adults may consent to get together and misuse their bodies. But those bodies belong to Krsna. And the fact of consensus provides no excuse for abusing what Krsna has given them.

(By the way, although in necrophilia the element of consensus is absent, so too is the party who might have been harmed by lack of consent. Once we're dead, whatever happens to our bodies can no longer hurt us. So necrophilia, arguably, can be quite harmless. And the dear animals who serve as partners in zoophilia presumably undergo no physical or emotional trauma, so zoophilia can be pretty harmless too. So let's see: Pedophilia is probably pretty bad, but zoophilia is a lot less bad because it involves merely animals, and necrophilia is still better because it harms no other living entities at all. And in homosexuality all involved are agreeable, so--hey--what's the problem?)

You say:

     The  issue is that we should not discriminate against [etc.
     etc.] Who of us is perfect? Isn't the most important thing
     that we are all trying our best?

Well, our movement follows Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the ideal teacher. And we are told of several instances in which, for Him, that argument simply didn't fly. (Junior Haridasa comes to mind, and also the brahmana Krsna Dasa who fell down with the Battaharis.)

Srila Prabhupada too, as another member of this conference has noted, was not unlimitedly acquiescent and accommodating. The Srila Prabhupada of Unlimited Understanding and Accommodation is a product of post-1977 mythology.

Hare Krsna.
(Text 45394) -----------------------------------------------