[Z3s9vQZj]

A bit of context here. From http://www.existentialbuddhist.com/tag/misconduct/

"The fourth-century Abhidharma-kośa-bhāsya included the use of “unsuitable” orifices, places, or times. The Upāsaka-śīla-sūtra included frequenting brothels and the use of “instruments.” Gampopa’s (1079-1153) Jewel Ornament of Liberation included overly frequent sex (more than five successive times!) and homosexuality, whereas Patrul Rinpoche (1808-1887) proscribed masturbation in his Kuzang Lama’i Shelung. Buddhaghosa and Śāntideva both considered homosexual behavior to be a violation of the third precept, but homosexuality was tolerated and accepted in Japan, even as part of monastic life." The Abhidharma orifice restriction (vaginal, only) makes male homosexuality an improper behavior, that is, if you believe that what's in the Abhidharma Kosha should govern your life.

I don't. I see dependence on sex as a means of achieving happiness to be a negative mental state that should be overcome. I can't even imagine that there is any qualitative difference for a gay man with a long term monogamous partner, who is a Buddhist practitioner and his straight married (monogamous) friend who does the same practice.

I see homosexual behavior in a different context from Vasabandu or Gampopa or Shantideva, and I'd further assert that, were they alive today, they would agree with me by and large. HHDL has specifically stated, in fact, that the orifice restriction would not seem to apply to male homosexuals and that further, there are certainly homosexual couples who have a loving and committed monogamous relationship, and that the doctrine with respect to this needs to be re-examined. His stating a mere fact ---that's it's traditionally been considered to be misconduct, is in no way at odds with any of his other statements. It is technically misconduct within the Tibetan lineage merely due to statements in old texts. These statements do need to be reexamined in light of what we now know about homosexuality. He's said just that.

Homosexuals are recognized today, by most educated people, at least, as genetically distinct from heterosexuals. They are phyically attracted to others of the same sex. Back in the day when these prohibitions were authored and commented upon, homosexuality was (at least I posit this to be so) viewed as an excess of sexual desire, or a desire for more unusual types of sex (reflecting craving for sex), etc. People were not seen as being homosexual or heterosexual; they were seen as being married and faithful or unfaithful, promiscuous or non-promiscuous, having a craving for sex or not having one.

Homosexuality, I would argue, was viewed more as behavior engaged in by those who were (choose one or more of the following) unfaithful, promiscuous, and sex-craving than as the means of expression between two people of the same sex who love each other and whose also had mutual sexual desire. The additional overlay, as stated by Gampopa, is that homosexual men had been females in prior births and they took with them their sexual orientation when they took rebirth as men. (so this may be seen as a type of clinging as well, since Gampopa may have (wrongly) assumed that, being born as a man one is able to have satisfactory sex with women). Reading the literature from back then there's absolutely no discussion and seemingly no understanding of biological differences between gay and straight. (I have read Gampopa's Lam Rim text and Shantideva's Guide and a small part of the "Kosha".