Talk:Hinduism and LGBT topics

message: I'm thinking of removing the link to the personal weblog Being a gay Hindu.  I think it is questionable whether it belongs linked in the article as it seems rather personal and somewhat off the topic for the page other then the title of the blog.  Please discuss and re-add the link if you disagree.
I would like to suggest adding a link to the following website, which provides a lot of further information regarding homosexuality and Hinduism:
"The Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association" (GALVA-108)
http://www.galva108.org
The main article, "Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex," is especially informative for those wishing to dive more deeply into this subject.
Hey I'm new to Wikipedia and discussions, I have no intention to edit anything but I had a question about sources missing on a statement. Under the heading 'Hindu texts' 3rd para it states that "Other Indologists assert that homosexuality was not approved for brahmanas or the twice-born but accepted among other castes." I would like a source for this as it would help provide credibility in an article I have been writing. Thank you in advance. ~ellometa  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellometa (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: As of July 2011 this article does not show the vast Hindu literature disapproving of homosexuality. It also mistakenly takes the treatment of Gods as tenderness to further a bias.
This article is not showing the vast literature in Hinduism that disapproves of Homosexuality. An anonymous editor removed a portion containing such information brushing it aside as contextual. Clear references are given. Please reinsert the following: 
Homosexuality is specifically condemned in a number of Hindu texts including the Mahabharatha "Foolish and evil men engage in all forms of sexual intercourse without a female womb, forcing themselves upon other men. They are born again without their organs as neuters." (Mahabharata 13.145.52). It is also condemned in the Garuda Purana as Vajrakandaka. Finally marriage in Hinduism is said to fulfill three functions: Prajaa, Dharma, and Rati. In marriage, Prajaa is progeny for perpetuation of one's family, Dharma is fulfillment of responsibilities, and Rati is companionship as friends and mutual pleasure as lovers. Therefore it can only be between a man and a woman.
Bias on hot topic issues should not be tolerated on wikipedia. We should present both sides fairly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.79.113 (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It was even more unbalanced a few weeks ago when I came across this article. I made some changes to the lead section but clearly it needs more work. By the way, there was no outcry at my changes, so the way is clear for you to go ahead and revise/expand the article as you suggest. ntennis 07:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no expert on Hinduism.  While I am willing to do research, I have added the POV-check template, so that some expert will hopefully aid us in rescuing this article from POV.Singlewordedpoem 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is SOOO biased. It does not cover the anti-homosexuality clauses from the constitution. It "ASSUMES" that all the third type of men are homosexuals and transexuals. And how the hell is it even covering Arjuna as a homosexual when he was clearly an enuch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.140.139.203 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV! 

message: ...That's really all I have to say.  :) Singlewordedpoem 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey thanks! ^_^ I've just been tinkering really. More to come. ntennis 05:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, thanks for participating in Be Nice To Ntennis Week. This is is single best compliment I've yet received! To both of you, it really makes a difference getting encouragement like this. ntennis 01:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ntennis, nice edits! 

message: Looking through the history of this article, I can see that it started well, but was derailed by some probably well-meaning anonymous editors. eg. , , , . It appears that no wikipedians were reviewing these edits. I'll keep the page on my watchlist and fact-check any future changes, and I encourage all interested parties to do the same. For now, I've overhauled the article, removing large sections of unsourced speculation and opinions. ntennis 03:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How this article got so messed up... 

message: I really think it should be mentioned that the Manu smriti is a marginal book at best, most Hindus are not even aware of its contents. The book was espoused by the British as embodying Hinduism, which is as far from the truth as possible. Even if this argument is turned down, the Smriti itself has been cast in several interpretation by various holy men and people like Dayanand Saraswati have tried and portrayed it in good light. I'm not trying to argue that we must look at only the good, but am expounding that the scripture in itself is open to varied interpretations. Mainstream hinduism has always been based on life as described in the vedas and upanishads, the Manusmriti cannot be categorized as either. I think a fact as important as this ought to be mentioned. I'm new to wikipedia and as must be apparent already, am unfamiliar with protocol. Any offence is deeply regretted. Am I required to present anything as proof for the entry? 128.122.180.118 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your thoughts. Your contributions are welcome! Why not sign up so you can keep track of your contributions, and get a user page. It's free and very quick to do. You can read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by clicking on the blue link. The three most important principles are that contributions should be verifiable, have a neutral point of view (NPOV) and not be original research. In reference to your suggestion above, this means that it's best to quote a notable authority such as a scholar of Hinduism, and cite the source. It would be really useful to have a neutral independent scholar's assessment of the relative significance of various texts such as the Manu Smriti. Your view of the Manusmriti as "a marginal book at best" does seem to contradict other accounts, such as the Dharmaśāstra article which defines the Manusmriti as a "principal text" of the Dharmaśāstra. ntennis 04:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jayant. I do not know what research on Hinduism says, but what I do know is that I have never referenced the Manu smriti, nor have I ever heard of anyone referencing it in my life. We regard the Vedas/Upanishads/Brahmasutras and the Bhagavad Gita as important texts, but not the Manu smriti. No priest I know of has even mentioned the Manu smriti. While I knew that something called the Manu smriti existed, it meant nothing to me till I read about it on the internet. Like Jayant says, most people are not even aware of what the Manu smriti says. That in itself is not surprising, because a smriti, by definition, is only meant for the age  it was composed in, and the people who composed it. While it may have meant something around the time it was composed, no one lives by the Manu smriti today. Of course, I am more than willing to reconsider if research on Hinduism tells me what I believe in. (Sorry, couldn't resist that.) Saileshganesh 02:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While many people do not know of Manu Smriti, many of the diktats believed by "Hindus" are from that book. But we need more data to show which ones exactly. Also note I use the term "Hindus" within quotes because as any person looking beyond facades one should- Hinduism and Hindus are too many different things. In that sense it is better to talk of all opposing viewpoints to remain neutral. Adding a clear commentary that there are opposing views also helps clarify.RajibAditya (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Manusmriti

message: A recent anonymous contributor made several additions. I moved this one here for now, as it looks as if it contains interesting information. However, it's unsourced, and I am not sure that the phrase "third-gender men" is a very helpful, as a third gender person is - by definition - not a man. I'm also quite sure that several ancient Hindu texts do not refer to "homosexuals", although they undoubtedly refer to people drawn to particular acts that a modern reader would perceive as homosexual. Can anyone provide sources for these claims?
Several Hindu texts list the various types of third-gender men, including Sabda-Kalpa-Druma, Narada-smriti, Sushruta-samhita, Smriti-ratnavali and Kamatantra. In these lists, up to twenty different types of men who are impotent with women are described and include intersexed hermaphrodites, men who behave like women, homosexuals, castrated men, men that are shy or impotent with women, sterile, unable to have an erection, and so on.
Thanks, ntennis 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different third gender types 

message: I haven't been watching the article but I urge interested wikipedians to do so. It is consistently changed by an anonymous editor who disagrees with the published material on this subject. I also urge the anonymous editor to register with wikipedia and engage in dialog and collaboration. ntennis 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please watch this article 

message: Please note that an important Hindu/Indian book of laws written by Kautilya criminalized homosexuality. Refer to Arthashastra (4.13.236). Arthashastra imposes a fine for homosexual act. This certainly means that it was deemed a criminal act by ancient Hindus.  This needs to be mentioned in the article.--130.101.152.33 (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This Mahabharatha verse is about rape. It even clearly uses the words "forcing themselves upon". You must read it in the context of the parva. 117.204.95.55 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Hindu text Arthashastrha criminalized homosexuality 

message: Homosexuality and gender variance are two different things. The article is completely disjointed and enough material exists on both subjects to justify two articles. The topic of homosexuality is almost completely neglected. Some editors don't seem to be aware that homosexuality is not a gender variance, as in the offensive line "Homosexual and transgender Hindus commonly identify with and worship the various Hindu deities connected with gender diversity"--masculine homosexual men don't. The merged articles are not useful or practical: People interested in homosexuality and Hinduism should have a simple reference and not have to sift through all the extra stuff. Should we merge Car and Airplane into one article?! Wikipedia doesn't have space constraints, the topics only partially overlap, and there is significant information on both. Also note that ALL of the other Wikipedias have titles that translate to "Homosexuality and Hinduism". 75.132.142.26 (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This should be split into two articles

message: *, , , , and  are a few. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked the 2013 edition of the book. The page numbers are dramatically different from 2003 edition, which is surprising. Page numbers hardly move by a few numbers in editions of a book. Sakhi-Bekhi was supposed to be on 51; but was on 134-135. The section was removed as it was a virtual copy paste from the book. I am removed a few copyvio. Page numbers do not correspond in any instance. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  10:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Amara

message: The article is based on primary sources at places. References include literal translations/the texts themselves of the Manu Smriti, the Kamasutra, Narada Smriti, Mahanirvana Tantra, Arthashastra; which do not have commentaries in them. We need to replace them with secondary references. The Hindu texts section is plagued by this problem. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  10:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:LGBT in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 12:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on LGBT topics and Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090116211632/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/photo.cms? to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/photo.cms
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hinduism and LGBT topics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726045115/http://www.faithandthecity.org/issues/social/articles/Discussions_on_Dharma%20.shtml to http://www.faithandthecity.org/issues/social/articles/Discussions_on_Dharma%20.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306041528/http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=bc24b62d8bece96593d6041cc48a3f54 to http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=bc24b62d8bece96593d6041cc48a3f54
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hinduism and LGBT topics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100313043325/http://www.kamashastra.com/kama209.htm to http://www.kamashastra.com/kama209.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section "Difference between Western and Hindu views of male sexuality" has been removed. It was written entirely by a single user  whose content I have dealt with several times before and whose purpose appears to have been to propagate personal fringe theories about masculinity.  His writing as a rule makes unsupported assertions, uses poor sources, and makes statements that are not in the alleged sources. In this instance, an examination makes clear that once again, the sources do not support the statements made. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed fringe original research section 

message: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti
"It is believed that the original form of Manusmriti was changed as many things written in the manuscript contradict each other."
How can such a contradictory book used as a source?
As for Arthshastra, its wiki article clearly calls it is significant only on economic and military subjects. Should such a book really be used as a source.
Kama Sutra, which deals exclusively with sex, supports LGBTQ and this must be at top of the page. Manusmriti and Arthshastra don't even deal with sexuality, so why take their opinion on it? Abcdfgh2 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because WP:Secondary sources treat it as significant. Crossroads -talk- 00:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthshastra is not Hind book, and Manusmriti text is notpopular andnit original 

message: This article is about Hiduism. Mentioning Indian courts in this article gives the wrong idea that Hinduism and Indian judiciary are the same. If our intention is to create awareness about current legal status of LGBTQIA+ rights in India, can we not do this with a mention of another Wikipedia article - LGBT rights in India. Abhiithbalan (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of court rulings and laws in an article about religion