[WaicurtaitfuT]

Interesting article here on Thai Theravada Buddhist attitudes towards homosexuality and transgenderism. It seems there are several distinct perspectives, some quite puritanical, others more open.

http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana...haJackson.html

This is an area where I have difficulty accepting the views of Ajahn Buddhadasa. His stance appears to have been similar to the Dalai Lama's, in that he believed sex was only for reproduction.

Buddhadasa,an influential reformist thinker, calls reproduction "an activity that is distasteful, dirty and tiring" (Buddhadasa 1987:24) and says that sexual desire is a defilement (Pali: kilesa) that arises from ignorance (Pali: avijja), which Buddhist doctrine generally describes as the source of human suffering. Phra Buddhadasa says that in the past people were "employed" or "engaged" (Thai: jang) by nature in the "work" (Thai: ngan) of reproducing the species, but people now "cheat" nature by using contraception and having sex without being engaged in the work of reproduction. He maintains that this "cheating," i.e. engaging in sex for pleasure rather than reproduction, is "paid back" because it causes problems such as nervous disorders, madness and physical deformities.

Phra Buddhadasa calls on laypeople to be mindful and establish spiritually informed intelligence (Pali: sati-panna) and to have sex only for reproduction. Furthermore, he maintains that the highest ideal in marriage is to live together without sex, describing the solitary life dedicated to the achievement of nibbana as a higher ideal than married life (ibid. :35) ... He provides an example from the Tipitaka (no source cited) of ten year old children in the Buddha's time becoming arahants, perfected beings who have achieved nibbana, and maintains that this would be possible today if children were educated in Buddhist principles and led to see the truth revealed by Buddhism. Phra Buddhadasa adds that as adults such children would have no interest in sex because of their high spiritual status. In "Two Kinds of Language," Buddhadasa writes:

Now, let us look at the words “female” and “male”. In everyday, worldly language, these words mean the two sexes – the female sex and the male sex. In Dhamma language, however, they refer to the distinguishing marks and signs of certain duties which Nature has assigned to human beings: duties which must be performed co-operatively, in partnership. Female and male have nothing to do with the exchange and consumption of sexual flavors. Rather, they point to the fact that human being must exist in the world and that the species must not become extinct. This means that the human race must be preserved through the duty of reproduction for as long a time as is necessary for humanity to realize the highest Dhamma – nibbana. The duties called for by this necessity must be divided between the female and male. Once the female and male exist, they help each other to lighten their burdens by dividing their everyday responsibilities and work, which, when done correctly, is Dhamma practice.

In Dhamma language, the signs of the duties which Nature has stipulated in this way are known as “female” and “male”. This isn’t the lowly meaning assumed in everyday language. We shouldn’t think of female and male solely in terms of an instinctual animal activity. Rather, we ought to think of them as signs of the division of those duties which can be carried out properly only in co-operation. There doesn't seem to be any room here for sex as an expression of intimacy between partners, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual. Consensual sexuality between LGBT partners would appear, in Buddhadasa's view, to be "cheating nature" -- i.e., ruled out because it is non-reproductive and simply amounts to "the exchange and consumption of sexual flavors" or cultivation of emotional attachment.