[ZesePreodaNed]

Then why is heterosexuality spoken about so often by the Buddha? All of the suttas that mention sexuality (at least those that I've read) are quite heterosexually focused. To give a couple of examples:



There is no equivalent example given regarding homosexuals. Why this omission?



So why the attention payed to heterosexual conduct, yet none to homosexual conduct? Why speak of husband and wife and not of the equally legitimate expression of love between same-sex couples?

I can think of various possible reasons why there appears to be such omissions and as it is not possible to know for sure, I see that the fact that there appears to be such an omission is not what is important.

Ajahn Brahm offers a thought about this in the video Aloka - D gave us the link to. He suggests that the intention of Buddhist teachers, writings, books etc. is to direct us on how to think about issues not what to actually think.

[Galsteinbok]

I am interested to see where Dalai Lama actually made that comment and in what context. It is pretty amusing that he would make such an irrational statement.

[raskrutkaseo]

I am interested to see where Dalai Lama actually made that comment and in what context. It is pretty amusing that he would make such an irrational statement.

Hi Deshy,

This is from 1997:


The religious leader said at the press conference that he had previously been asked his views on gay marriage, and said that such social sanction of gay relationships "has to be judged in the context of the society itself and the laws and social norms."

During the 45-minute meeting, the Nobel peace laureate and Buddhist religious leader voiced his support for the full recognition of human rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.

Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual sexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand. Buddhist proscriptions also forbid sex at certain times - such as during full and half moon days, the daytime, and during a wife's menstrual period or pregnancy - or near shrines or temples. Adultery is considered sexual misconduct, but the hiring of a female prostitute for penile-vaginal sex is not, unless one pays a third party to procure the person.

From a "Buddhist point of view," lesbian and gay sex "is generally considered sexual misconduct," the Dalai Lama told reporters at a press conference a day earlier.

However, such proscriptions are for members of the Buddhist faith - and from "society's viewpoint," homosexual sexual relations can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable, and harmless," according to the Dalai Lama.

http://www.quietmountain.org/links/t...s/gayrites.htm


The part about orifices, hands, time of day etc etc is according to Tibetan Buddhist culture from Tibet (rather than anything mentioned by the Buddha in the suttas.)

[nasdfrdg]

And the tibetans doing alright - they tolerate it, but they know about the karma what will be created for gay sex.
It is only a very important help when they declare not to do.

[standaman]

Even living in today's Australian society and culture I see that being " gay " would be extremely difficult. I see being a heterosexual male as being the choice - if one was to be made.

[Ruilnasr]

And the tibetans doing alright - they tolerate it, but they know about the karma what will be created for gay sex.
It is only a very important help when they declare not to do.

Sorry Meffi, but I'm not very clear about what you're saying in your post.


.

[sposicke]

I am interested to see where Dalai Lama actually made that comment and in what context. It is pretty amusing that he would make such an irrational statement.

I dont see the Dalai Lama's statement as irrational! The "natural law" theory in ethics has been supported by geniuses such as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas so calling it irrational is a bit harsh in my opinion.

The most popular theory in ethics among westerners these days is "consequentialism" but that does not make other theories such as "deontological ethics" or "natural law" absurd in my opinion!!!

The title of this thread "why buddhists should support marriage equality" raises the following question: "why should a Buddhist bother supporting or opposing same sex marriage"??!!

The whole issue is not related to Buddhism as i understand it (maybe this is why the Buddha has not addressed the issue) and it can be a distraction and even an attachment to views in my opinion.

Regards,
Bundokji

[Maserati]

I dont see the Dalai Lama's statement as irrational!The "natural law" theory in ethics has been supported by geniuses such as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas so calling it irrational is a bit harsh in my opinion.

The most popular theory in ethics among westerners these days is "consequentialism" but that does not make other theories such as "deontological ethics" or "natural law" absurd in my opinion!!!

In my view it is natural for humans to be attracted to the same sex at some time in their lives (as it is for some of the other species on the planet) whether they remain predominantly heterosexual, homosexual or both - and also to be able to enjoy sex with a partner without having procreation in mind.

Aristotle and Aquinas, western 'consequentionalism' and 'deontological ethics' have nothing to do with Buddhism, so I don't quite see how they are relevant to your quoted comment from Deshy which was refering to the following statement from Ajahn Sujato's blog:


His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose.

[Endatrybeeddy]

The title of this thread "why buddhists should support marriage equality" raises the following question: "why should a Buddhist bother supporting or opposing same sex marriage"??!!

The whole issue is not related to Buddhism as i understand it (maybe this is why the Buddha has not addressed the issue) and it can be a distraction and even an attachment to views in my opinion.

Expressing "my opinion" x 4 in #27 of this thread could also perhaps be seen as "attachment to views" !

[MoreEndotte]

His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose. The above sums up the "natural law" theory in ethics. Maybe the same position has been adopted by some medieval Indian scholars as mentioned in Ajahn Sujato's blog.

Natural law operates on the premise that nature is good, and Christian theologists has been using it to explain why they are against gay marriage, masturbation, the use of contraception...etc

Deshy said:

It is pretty amusing that he would make such an irrational statement. I dont think that BWB is the right place to discuss different ethical systems, i only invite dear Deshy to have a look at it (if she is interested) so that she might not find the postion of the Dalia Lama as non-sensical or irrational as she has described it.

Regards,
Bundokji

[ttoothh]

i only invite dear Deshy to have a look at it (if she is interested) so that she might not find the postion of the Dalia Lama as non-sensical or irrational as she has described it.

Ok - well perhaps I should tell you that I completely disagree with what the Dalai Lama said myself. Its also worth noting that he is not the head of world Buddhism just because he gets a lot of media attention (nor is he the head of Tibetan Buddhism)

I also think that its not the business of religious leaders or theologians in general to comment in a negative, judgemental, and controlling way on non-harming sexual relationships between consenting adults, or about peoples use of contraception.

Anyway, moving on, I agree with Ajahn Sujato when he concludes:

Supporting marriage equality is not to introduce something new, but simply to abolish laws that discriminate. The injustice is already in place. The harm is being done. The change is merely to remove the harmful influence of discriminatory laws, which should never have been there in the first place.

People are people, regardless of their gender, colour, nationality, or sexual orientation. The Buddha taught ‘for one who feels’. That’s the only requirement for Buddhist practice: one who feels. In the past our society decreed that marriage should not be between people of a different race, or a different colour, or a different religion, or a different nationality. Over time, we decided that these rules were harmful, and we abolished them.

Catastrophes were predicted: they didn’t come true.

What has happened, rather, is that we have become a little more open minded, and a little more aware of the suffering of others. The test of our generation is whether we can continue this move towards a more accepting and loving way of living, or whether we are to regress to a meaner, hard-hearted place.

My society, my culture, the one that I’m proud of and want to belong to, is this one. The society that is kind, questioning, accepting. Let us take up the best aspects of our own cultures, whether they be Buddhist or modern cultures, and discard all that is unjust, discriminatory, and harmful. Let us give our full support for marriage equality, for if we do not we are betraying the best part of our humanity.

However, I appreciate that it is very different for you, Bundokji, because the society and culture spoken of by Ajahn Sujato is a western one and you live in the middle east.


with kind wishes


Aloka

[ignonsoli]

I dont see the Dalai Lama's statement as irrational! The "natural law" theory in ethics has been supported by geniuses such as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas so calling it irrational is a bit harsh in my opinion.

Well, I think his quote is irrational according to natural law. If you know please quote where the said geniuses are saying that sexual organs exist merely for the purpose of reproduction please?

Natural law has various interpretations. A tool like that can be twisted and distorted to set boundaries to natural human behaviour. It is natural human behaviour to use sexual organs for the purpose of pleasure. Don't believe me; just observe nature. Some philosophical theorists seem to suggest that heterosexuals union merely for the purpose of reproduction. Saying so is denying nature considering the amount of birth control, abortions and unwanted pregnancy issues among heterosexuals. People don't seem to have sex to have babies. They in fact don't want to have babies every time they have sex. The natural tendency of a vast majority (aka a big part of nature) seems to be "sex for pleasure". Pleasure seeking is just the way things are in nature. Reproduction is just a result of pleasure seeking, at least in most cases.

Now, saying one form of unharmful pleasure seeking is ethically acceptable and the other is not, is in fact distorting the spirit of natural law imo. Such ethical boundaries fall into the realm of man-made laws; not natural laws.

Applying natural law in ethical or political administering is for the purpose of this:

The Natural Law Party brings to politics the knowledge through which human life can be raised to the same level of perfection with which Natural Law eternally governs the entire universe. Every individual and every area of society can enjoy the effortless skill in action that characterises Natural Law itself. As I see it, applying natural law theories to ethics or politics is for the purpose of streamlining man-made laws in harmony with nature and society's natural tendencies and behaviours; not to promote separatism or oppress one part of the population.

[vaalmerruutel]

Natural law operates on the premise that nature is good, and Christian theologists has been using it to explain why they are against gay marriage, masturbation, the use of contraception...etc

Christian theologists are obviously not watching nature. I think they should take a vacation to rest and observe nature, how beings are constantly driven by pleasure seeking instincts, how human behavior is so diversified and how nature is a collection of complicated varieties of species. This IS nature.

[plalleste]

I am also shocked that certain Buddhist "authorities" feel it is their place to remark on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of private sexual matters between laypeople who are consenting adults in a mutually caring relationship. I was just reading this earlier today:

Male Homosexuality and Transgenderism in the Thai Buddhist Tradition by Peter A. Jackson

Excerpted from the book "QUEER DHARMA: VOICES OF GAY BUDDHISTS" edited by Winston Leyland, ISBN: 0940567229

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 (ibid. :25).

Phra Buddhadasa calls on laypeople to be mindful and establish spiritually informed intelligence (Pali: sati-panna) and to have sex only for reproduction.

http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana...haJackson.html Here, Buddhadasa makes statements akin to those made by the Dalai Lama, asserting that sex is for reproduction only. According to him, using contraception and having sex without being engaged in the work of reproduction causes nervous disorders, madness and physical deformities. It naturally follows that homosexual practices are impermissible as well. This is absurd to me.

[bp9QxekG]

Here, Buddhadasa makes statements akin to those made by the Dalai Lama, asserting that sex is for reproduction only. According to him, using contraception and having sex without being engaged in the work of reproduction causes nervous disorders, madness and physical deformities. It naturally follows that homosexual practices are impermissible as well. This is absurd to me.

The Dalai Lama and the late Bhikkhu Buddhadasa are speaking about lay matters from the point of view of celibate monks, which is perhaps why they became extreme in their views. I wonder where the evidence is that the Buddha said any of that.

[NumsAmenniams]

Here are some additional comments on gender, sex, and marriage from Bhikkhu Buddhadasa:

TWO KINDS OF LANGUAGE: Everyday Language & Dhamma language

FEMALE & MALE

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.

http://what-buddha-taught.net/Books2...0OF%20LANGUAGE What about those partnerships that exist between same-sex couples? Buddhadasa seems to be implying that these relationships would necessarily be lacking, as they involve no division of "duties" between male and female.

MARRIAGE

From this we'll move on to "marriage". In everyday language, everyone understands this word to mean the ceremony that joins a woman and man according to social customs. That's marriage in worldly terms. However, in Pali, the language of Dhamma, the word "marriage" is samarasa,which translates as "having equal (sama) flavor, taste, duty, or function (rasa)" through Dhamma or in Dhamma. This means that two people with correct wants and needs are united as one. Physical contact between them is unnecessary, though there may be other forms of contact, such as letter writing.

Marriage is possible even though the skin and flesh of the two partners never touch. This is because their wants are the same and their responsibilities are equal. For example, both genuinely want to transcend dukkha using the same principles of practice. Both persons are satisfied in the unified Dhamma practice and in the fruits mutually desired. This is what we call "having equal flavor" which is marriage in Dhamma language and in Pali. The meanings of words in Dhamma language are always as clean and pure as in this example.

http://what-buddha-taught.net/Books2...0OF%20LANGUAGE I am a bit confused about how Bhikkhu Buddhadasa on the one hand encourages reproductive sex ("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"), but in the next paragraph claims that marriage should be without sex.

These sections seem to entirely exclude homosexual couples.

[strongjannabiz]

more Buddhadasa

Nowadays, we educate the girls to refuse being women and mothers, and the boys to be unable as men and fathers. The modern education causes men and women to compete for each other's work, under the banner of human rights, so that everybody ends up sexless or neutered. Among married couples, there are the most ridiculous arguments over who will be the elephant’s front legs (leader) and who the hind legs (follower). This problem did not exist among our ancestors who ate the single bowl of sauce. They left matters in accordance with idappaccayata, the law of interdependent conditionality; each family could agree on who was most suitable to play which role.

We must have the kind of education that does not lead to men and women taking work from each other. Let women have the livelihood of mothers and men the livelihood of fathers. The father takes on the burden of providing for the family so that the mother does not have to work outside the home. If she has some income generating work, she does it at home. This enables her to take care of the children fully, bringing them up to be good human beings and good citizens who will not bring tears to their parents’ eyes. The world, then, will have peace because its citizenry is fitting. The children will be brought up correctly, so that both the boys and the girls are unselfish. There will be no sexually stimulating and provocative activities, such as the sexually oriented beauty contests that encourage shamelessness among both contestants and spectators. Such activities represents the worst kind of selfishness, for it erodes morality and trains young people to become slaves of defilement, thus becoming a menace to society and harming themselves in the process.

A Single Bowl of Sauce Solves All the World’s Problems

[Pyuvjzwf]

Christian theologists are obviously not watching nature. I think they should take a vacation to rest and observe nature, how beings are constantly driven by pleasure seeking instincts, how human behavior is so diversified and how nature is a collection of complicated varieties of species. This IS nature.

....having sex without being engaged in the work of reproduction causes nervous disorders, madness and physical deformities. It naturally follows that homosexual practices are impermissible as well. This is absurd to me.

Yes, it is absurd, as the following sutta excerpt shows:

I am a bit confused about how Bhikkhu Buddhadasa on the one hand encourages reproductive sex ("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"), but in the next paragraph claims that marriage should be without sex.

hi Abhaya

i would not get overly "confused" or concerned about Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, who seemed to be personally interested in some kind of creationist and/or mahayana ethos of creating a perfect society. imo, the following statement is also absurd:

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 although i personally regard Bhikkhu Buddhadasa as the best explainer of core Buddhist principles, he often departed into irrelevent areas, such as other religions, social/political systems, etc

however, when i listened to Bhikkhu Buddhadasa speak live, i do recall him teaching once that sexuality was a "pressure" that nature places upon beings & therefore human beings should make "arrangements" to "manage" the sexual pressure, i.e., "marriage"

therefore, despite many seemingly idiosyncratic statements, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa did comment on sexuality & marriage, at least on one occassion, in a manner relevent to homosexual human beings

regards

[Esmeralfaf]

The Dalai Lama and the late Bhikkhu Buddhadasa are speaking about lay matters from the point of view of celibate monks...

personally, i would regard their views as "idiosyncratic" rather than from the point view of celibate monks

Sujato is a celibate monk and obviously does not share the same point of view

[LoveTTatall]

Hello Deshy,

The natural law theory of ethics distinguish between "efficient causes" and "final causes". An efficient cause is what gets things done, a final cause is the end product. If i take a piece of wood and crave it into a statue, the efficient cause is the knife that i use, but the final cause is the image that i seek to create. According to this theory, its the "final cause" that determines what is "good".

You asked me to look at nature and it seems to me that we have a very different view on nature. When i look at nature, i see most other animals make sex during the mating season , most animals take only what is necessary for their survival, only modern humans (unfortunately) are the ones who take more than what is necessary (even in sex) hence our planet is in a big danger!! And i dont think nature has given us the sexual desire to go and sleep around seeking pleasure, but for the survival of our species, hence the sexual act itself is the efficient cause and breeding is the final cause. I thought our purpose on the planet from a purely biological perspective is to pass on our genes!!!

You described the sexual pleasures of homosexuals as harmless. However, on the physical level, homosexuals are more vulnerable to STDs. In addition, some homosexual activities such as "anal intercourse" are not healthy and can cause diseases and bacterial infections.

In my opinion, there are many things in life that cannot be understood if its taken our of its emotional and socail context. For example, when you invite a friend for dinner, you are doing so because you want to boost her protien level!! You do it because it has an emotional/socail meaning. Same thing can be said about sexual relationships. If you date someone and you dont sleep with him/her is totally different when sex becomes involved. In most cases, it takes the whole relationship to a new level:

1- It might create expectatons (of fidelity for example) and what is suffering but the gap between expectations and reality
2- It causes attachment
3- It causes possessivness

The abovementioned feelings of expectations, attachments and possessivness are causes of suffering. However, its given to us by nature so that we make families. The existence of families is necessary for the well being of childerns and the development of society. In a hetrosexual relationship all this suffering can lead to something positive which is the birth of a new human being (as you know, the human realm is the only one where you get the chance to be liberated). However, in a homosexual relationship its only suffering with nothing in return!!!

Finally, please note that all the above does not necessarily reflect my personal point of view, i am only trying to show that the Dalia Lama's point of view is not as irrational as some people think, thats all.

Regards,
Bundokji