1) So in your belief anyone can achieve this 'saayujyam' - Your god (remember it is your concept and that of other Vaishnavites as you have stated) will grant that Saayujyam for all serious devotees. Is this God a male?
2) But this God seem to make a distinction. If it is a female devotee, He grants this Saayujyam and also makes her a Consort though he already has a few. If it is a male devotee, he cannot become a Consort. Let us leave out sexual aspect of hetro and homo for the moment. So the God picks who can be a Consort based on their Gender and takes himself to be a Male ! But Homosexual attraction in nature is created by Him. No Gay person chose that attraction. So this God is biased because there is distinction between how he treats Homos and women both of whom are attracted to him without physical sex aspect. That raises the question of consort status which seem to be an add-on to Saayujyam status. Is there a partiality? If it is not, show why not.
3) There is another point. Long ago (I remember your posts) you made a big thing about how sexual union of male and female is written by poets in describing this union (Saayujyam). Now you can correct me, but you hold belief that sex is sacred (as in Lord Krishna and Radha being a Gopi?? if that rings a bell). Now if sex is sacred why is homo and lesbian sex is not?
"yadhA vAcha nivartante, apprApya manasA saha" -- Please meditate/ruminate on this from the vedas.
I have not seen God and so I do not know what is his form and whether he is a He or a She or anything else that I know.
So I am sorry I can not give you a satisfactory direct answer. But I can narrate my experiences and explain the path I travelled to find an answer. As my mind struggles and grapples with the task (It is in my nature as a human being) to know him and as my anxiety due to repeated failures increases, I find the problem to be intractable and situation becomes hopeless. So I decide on a solution personal
to me. Instead of looking for and finding a God with a form and name, I give God a form and a name. I call him Sriman Narayana and imagine him to be a kalyana gunArnavam (a repository of all good attributes/qualities). And considering his greatness and my smallness and after exploring a lot many of other things, I decide to just love and surrender to him. And what more!! I am happy that I have found a practical and correct solution to the problem that was tormenting me for long -- like it is perhaps tormenting you now.
And as I look around, I find there are many others too in the vast humanity, who have followed the same method as I did and have arrived at similar solutions. Thus I find a whole society accepting the God entity, giving it a form and a name including Sriman Narayana to objectify that entity for convenience. I have for company a large number of people in this world-people who are capable of thinking deeply, people who are not fools. Among them I find people who give the form of a woman to their God entity, there are those who give the form of a man, a child, a successful warrior, a good monarch, even a man-lion composit form etc., I have no quarrel with them because I understand their thought processes as they do understand me. I do not ask them why this form and why not that form. I do not ask them why their form is not a transsexual or a homosexual because I understand it is silly to ask such a question. It is they including me who have chosen the form and it is not the form assumed by God entity.
God as a male warrior-king, with queens by the side (yes the plural form of queen is deliberate), as a naughty boy indulging in lovable pranks, as a turtle, a man-lion composite form, a woman parasakthi, a mother who is mercy personified, a fierce looking Kali, a Maadan with mush extremely fierce-looking with sharp weapons in hand, all these forms with number of various consorts-men and women. The whole lot of all this is just the form given by human beings to the formless, nameless indeterminable entity called God. So I do not enter into any argument with anyone about why some one is part of the socalled consort while some one else is not etc., It is all the mental constructs of humans. There can be reasons or no reasons. It is a waste of time arguing over these.
I also understand that this God entity pervades everything in the creation and that includes me too. I understand there are people in this world, who stress this pervading aspect and choose to believe God exists in this kind of consciousness itself. I have no quarrel with them either. There are also those who have struggled grappling with the search in their mind and are unable to cut out the active alternative path of solution that I and many other like minded people have chosen. They wait indefinitely for newer tools and newer capabilities to come to the human beings when they think they will finally get the answer to the nagging question. So they choose to refute God entity and call it just the creation by the society of believers and nothing more. They strictly go by cause and effect and proof physical. I am unable to go with their reasoning and I choose to remain what I am –a believer.
So the answer to your question is “I do not know” qualified by all that has been written in the above paragraphs..
I can write more on this topic. But that would presume a certain familiarity with Epistemology and Ontology. Moreover that would need a lot of self-effacement and genuine burning desire to know on the part of the participant in dialogue. I am not sure about that here. I am not interested in discussing this further here. So I stop with this. Thanks.