[TimoDass]

I read this recent entry on Ajahn Sujato's blog (He's abbot of Santi Forest Monastery Australia)and wondered if anyone had any comments on this subject.

Why Buddhists Should Support Marriage Equality
Marriage equality is one of the key social and legal issues of our time. I’d like to offer a Buddhist perspective.

As with so many ethical and social questions, especially those that involve sexuality, we find that religion wants to be at the core of things. The conservative Christian churches are leading the opposition to marriage equality. We can’t generalise on the basis of religion, though. Many Christians believe that Christ’s message of compassion and love, and the fact that he never made any statement on homosexuality, provide a basis for support of marriage equality.

In Australia there was an interesting exchange between the highly conservative Catholic leader Cardinal George Pell and the group Australian Marriage Equality. The AME asked to meet Cardinal Pell, and he consented to do so as long as the AME agreed that not all opposition to same-sex marriage was a result of homophobia or discrimination. The AME agreed, and came out with the following statement:


‘Just as we acknowledge that it is possible to oppose marriage equality without hating homosexuals, so we ask those who differ with us on this important issue to acknowledge that it is possible to support marriage equality without seeking to undermine, marriage, family, or religion.’

That’s a great starting point, and an all-too-rare example of dialogue as it should be.

But what of Buddhism? As with any issue, you’ll find a variety of positions; and as with any issue – and I apologise if this sounds cynical – most of those positions have little to do with anything the Buddha himself said or did.

In some cases we find Buddhist leaders who state the ethical case plainly. Ajahn Brahm has been very forward in supporting the gay community for many years, both in Australia and overseas. Master Hsin Yun, the leader of the international Fo Guang Shan order, said:


‘People often ask me what I think about homosexuality. They wonder, is it right, is it wrong? The answer is, it is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that people do. If people are not harming each other, their private lives are their own business; we should be tolerant of them and not reject them.’ On the other hand, the Dalai Lama has repeatedly maintained that homosexual acts are a violation against the precepts. At the same time, he insists on compassion and full human rights for all. His stance is solely concerned with what is appropriate behaviour for a Buddhist practitioner, not what should be made law.

His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose. So any form of sex that is not for procreation is out.

This is, to my mind, an extreme and unrealistic position. The Dalai Lama says it is based on certain medieval Indian scholars (Vasubandhu, Asanga – but I have never seen the passages myself). It certainly has no basis in the Suttas. On the contrary, the Suttas freely acknowledge that sex is for pleasure, and they never make a problem out of that. Buddhism is not a fertility religion, so why we should insist that sex be for procreation is beyond me.


Continued:http://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/1430/

[abouthotels]

His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose He said that? Lol

[kabelshik]

I'm very pro-gay rights. The way I see it, anything that doesn't infringe on other people's rights should be fair game. Murder and rape, for instance, clearly infringe on other's rights. When two men or two women get married, however...nobody is hurt.
To be honest, I worry that the focus being put on something as harmless as gay marriage is really taking attention away from things we should focus on (war, famine, etc.).

[wgX44EEn]

I must agree there, Johnny. The agenda of politics often raises insignificant issues that appeal to the voter's prejudices

[EvaQWmrm]

Yes, I agree also ... most Australian politics is about doing this, of course.

Simply put there is no ethical problem with marriage - gay or otherwise and Buddhism would not seem to have a view on it ... as Ajahn Sujato discusses in his blog nothing harmful is done therefore there is no position to take ( I would like to remember to look into his blog site as the two times I have been directed there I have found it informative).

[durootrium]

You are right Johnny, that's the problem with wedge issues. They are used to distract people from the real problems such as war, poverty, corruption, etc. Instead of debating economic policy or a way to end the various wars in the U.S. our politics are dominated by culture wars such as abortion, gay marriage, god, and guns. It's really stupid.

[feedcomnet]

Same-sex marriage is not a trivial issue. Certainly there are more wide-reaching problems to be addressed in the world, but that does not diminish the importance of equal rights for all people, regardless of demographic factors such as sexual orientation.

As this thread is about why Buddhists should support marriage equality, I would be interested in hearing others' comments on this question: In his ~45+ years of speaking to laypeople, the Buddha would surely have come across at least one homosexual householder or couple, so why does there appear to be absolutely no explicit mention of homosexuality in the canonical texts?

[BakerBonce]

To my understanding, the issues around sexuality have very little to do with gender when it comes to ethical matters - much of what is constructed legally is from social and cultural understandings and conditioning. I have friends who are practising Catholics who support changes to allow " gay marriage " on ethical grounds as they see marriage as ethically sound.

[Sellorect]

Abhaya,

When I implied gay marriage wasn't something worth talking about, I meant because the answer should (from my viewpoint) be obvious. Arguing about if a couple in love should be allowed to get married would be like arguing about if the sky is blue. Arguing that gov't should legislate something like that seems akin to arguing that gov't should legislate your favorite color or fast food resteraunt. It isn't really anybody elses business.
And, actually, that's sort of why I always felt same-sex relationships didn't get brought up by The Buddha. Combined with teachings about love, equality and compassion it would be weird to have switched up on the issue of homosexuality.
Of course, that's all just one man's opinion.

Edit: Of course, people do argue about it, so we do have to have the fight regardless. I'm not suggesting we roll over on it. That would be ludicrous.

[DF9sLGSU]

As this thread is about why Buddhists should support marriage equality, I would be interested in hearing others' comments on this question: In his ~45+ years of speaking to laypeople, the Buddha would surely have come across at least one homosexual householder or couple, so why does there appear to be absolutely no explicit mention of homosexuality in the canonical texts?

I guess one answer -- and this seems to be Ajahn Sujato's view -- is that the Buddha didn't see homosexuality as an ethical/moral problem and therefore there was no reason for him to single it out for discussion.

[RIjdrVs3]

Combined with teachings about love, equality and compassion it would be weird to have switched up on the issue of homosexuality.

I guess one answer -- and this seems to be Ajahn Sujato's view -- is that the Buddha didn't see homosexuality as an ethical/moral problem and therefore there was no reason for him to single it out for discussion.

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:

Saññoga Sutta: Bondage (AN 7.48)

The Blessed One said: "A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.

"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....048.than.html There is no equivalent example given regarding homosexuals. Why this omission?

Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31)

"In five ways, young householder, should a wife as the West be ministered to by a husband:

(i) by being courteous to her,
(ii) by not despising her,
(iii) by being faithful to her,
(iv) by handing over authority to her,
(v) by providing her with adornments.

"The wife thus ministered to as the West by her husband shows her compassion to her husband in five ways:

(i) she performs her duties well,
(ii) she is hospitable to relations and attendants[10]
(iii) she is faithful,
(iv) she protects what he brings,
(v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.

"In these five ways does the wife show her compassion to her husband who ministers to her as the West. Thus is the West covered by him and made safe and secure."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...31.0.nara.html 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?

[Janarealiti]

Well, looking over these two sutta passages, one thing I notice is that neither is really about sexuality per se. The first is about gender roles, and it seems to be mostly about those who are stuck in them (i.e. identify themselves in terms of their masculinity or femininity).

The second is about marriage as a social institution. My guess is that, in the Buddha's time, marriage was defined in terms of heterosexuality and gay marriage simply didn't exist.

It would be nice if a sutta could be found in which the Buddha advised a same-sex couple to be true and respectful to each other and cultivate dhamma together, but unfortuntately none has surfaced, and probably the best one can do is extrapolate from his advice to couples in general.

It's sort of a glass half-empty/half-full situation, I think. Yes, it could be seen as an omission. On the other hand, given that many religions (including some segments of Mahayana Buddhism) make a point of condemning homosexuality, it seems to me significant that the Buddha declined to do so.

[Extipletape]

Maybe instead of saying "why" it should be said "How Buddhists Should Support Marriage Equality".

[Golotop]

The Saññoga Sutta, with its mention of women "in bondage with reference to men" and men "in bondage with reference to women" seems to be addressing attraction ("wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond") of the heterosexual variety. Furthermore, what is meant by "feminine desires" and "masculine desires"? I think an argument can be made that this sutta is about more than gender roles, and touches upon sexuality amongst heterosexual laypeople.

From my perspective, the suttas that make any reference to gender all appear to be of a heteronormative bent. Take for instance...

Saleyyaka Sutta (MN 41)

"He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal."

[...]

"Abandoning misconduct in sexual desires, he becomes one who abstains from misconduct in sexual desires: he does not have intercourse with such women as are protected by mother, father, (father and mother), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also those that are garlanded in token of betrothal."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....041.nymo.html Is it implied that a man should not have intercourse with men who are protected by their mother, father,...,who have a wife, etc.? It would be a bit of a stretch to assume this is what was meant.

I am merely curious as to why the Buddha did not state "men and women" where only "women" is stated, or otherwise append these teachings to address what is meant by misconduct for those who fall outside of the so-called standard male-female coupling. It is not as if homosexuality was non-existent.

[fluistulkn]

Maybe instead of saying "why" it should be said "How Buddhists Should Support Marriage Equality".

Hi Esho - nice to see you. I agree this is a good question - especially a good one to consider for the benefit of the countries and societies we live in at this time.

[Hodstcopter]

Further to this thought is this understanding - “How” is always more important than “what.” See if you can give much more attention to the doing than to the result that you want to achieve through it.
Carl Jung

[AlekseyZubkov]

This is a video of a talk given by Ajahn Brahm "Gay Marriage, Why Not?"

[Liaiskelile]

Lots of good ideas about marriage there from Ajahn Brahm. I see also that the role of religion is to offer spiritual input and uplift to the difficult task of being married. Most importantly recognition of the commitment being of a spiritual nature as well as legal and social in nature ... it clearly is not about gender. The discrimination and judgement around gender ( and other factors ) is about social control.

I also agree with Ajahn Brahm's idea that getting married is a lot about letting go of idea of a self - it becomes about the " us " created by the marriage. That is how it works best in my experience - the both involved renouncing " me " for moving forward to facing everything faced in life as " us " .

[2swasseneons]

Regarding gay marriage, I like Ajahn Brahm's comment in the video:

"Buddhism does allow you - the government is the one who is standing in opposition "

.

[Npbfamgt]

Yes, and as Ajahn Brahm also says groups, like Buddhists speaking out about how they understand the issue of same sex marriage will put the right type of pressure to allow for changes needed - it is not about control and power. As he also discusses, the legal meaning of a word and legal definitions often need to change to allow for inclusion and to disregard the discrimination and control which has existed.