[97dYA9L3]

I was sitting up thinking about this subject, or rather one which was related to it. You have to realize that I don't have much of a life these days, which is why i'm so active on the forum at this time.

Maybe to understand how buddhism really relates, we have to take a look at what buddhism says on love. I hope it doesn't sound like i'm blogging in relation to my personal life. If I am, I can't help it. Or won't.

I know now from memory that the experience of love for someone of the same gender can be a powerful thing in it's own right. The morality of sexual expression in that context ceases to be a concern because morality is always a dualistic enterprise. judgements placed on the values of actions- wholesome or unwholesome. The kind of love that we are ideally discussing is non-dual. it doesn't imply attatchment to the other person as a subject, though the experience gives one a sense of wellbeing and pleasure.

Even for people who choose to identify themselves as homosexuals might not have this refined of a concept of the process in question, but i see it to be true. IMHO it is unfortunate that the experience of being identified as persons "belonging to" an alienated sub-culture often prevents homosexuals themselves from feeling confident in their ability to know "what love is."

I'll elaborate by turning the focus of this post towards the old stereotype that gay men are slutty and incapable of commitment.

Now, I think to a certain extent minorities take on, identify with and begin to emulate the projections society forces onto them. Perhaps subliminally, gay men are told that committed love is inaccessable to them. Juxtapose this to the philosopher plato (a gay man), who argued the "true" love can only be shared by members of the same sex.

[edit: I know from time to time I quote western philosophers. I hope I am forgiven for this sin.]