Buddhism's Perspective On Homosexuality & Gay Marriage (Compiled)

[Guest Balance]

8. Fo Guang San Master Xing Yun's Teaching

This means, at least from his perspective, it is already already wrong for one to cause trouble to gays by preventing them to be married.

One who thinks gay sex is wrong should not go out of his way to make others to think the same way

Who is preventing gay from getting married? No. We didn’t. What have your married to do with me ? I’m not marrying you, am I ? ;-)

But we do not support and you are asking us to support but we do not support….I can repeat this over and over again. By asking Buddhist (which covers all traditions and including the Dalai Lama, etc) to support, should you be the party to reflect on this quote ?

I also do not go out of the way to make others think like me. In defense, I am responding to your lobbying.

And the Master continues with the example of homosexuality (where again, people likes to interfere with others' lives saying thngs like "you should not engage in gay sex"

Buddhist should not tell people “you should not engage in gay sex”. And if I did, I am sorry. What we are taught is: only 2 people can tell others what to do. One is the parents, the other is the teacher. And as friends, if we know somebody is hurting himself, eg smoking too much, we will persuade. And if the persuasion does not work 1 or 2 times, we have to leave it. But being human, we do make mistake. And if I did, I am sorry.

“The same analysis can be applied to homosexuality. 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. However, it will still take some time for the world to fully accept homosexuality. "

Take note of the last sentence in Xing Yun's quote. His expectation is for the world to move towards the FULL ACCEPTANCE of homosexuality. The whole tone of the passages suggests that the Master's "tolerance" includes acceptance of homosexuality and not just mere tolerance.

The quote is not complete. I don’t have the book but I found this in wikipedia:

The same analysis can be applied to homosexuality. 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.

However, it will still take some time for the world to fully accept homosexuality. All of us must learn to tolerate the behavior of others. Just as we hope to expand our minds to include all of the universe, so we should also seek to expand our minds to include all of the many forms of human behavior.

Tolerance is a form of generosity and it is a form of wisdom. There is nothing anywhere in the Dharma that should ever lead anyone to become intolerant. Our goal as Buddhists is to learn to accept all kinds of people and to help all kinds of people discover the wisdom of the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.

While the statement does say “accept homosexuality”, if you read on, it is talking about accepting homosexuals – the person…. “All of us must learn to tolerate the behaviour of others”… “we should also seek to expand our minds to include all of the many forms of human behavior”… “Our goal as Buddhists is to learn to accept all kinds of people”. It is not referring to the homosexual act.

You can say… Balance, you are speculating. How can you tell ? I can tell cause Master Hsing Yun is a Mahayana. And we follow the Upasaka Sutta. It is written in our scripture that dah-dah-dah… I won’t say lah… later you say I start telling you are wrong… So Master Hsing Yun could not have accepted the Homosexual Act. He only tahan it.

Master Xing Yun would not say what he said about homosexuality for things such as murder, rape, robberly and theft. He would not said "let us tolerate murder and rape, it will take some time before the world can fully accept murder and rape".

Yes, Master Hsing Yun will say the same for murderers, rapist, robbers and thieves. You see, we are something the like what Mahatma Gandhi said “Hate the sin, love the sinner”. But we don’t hate the sin either. So not only Master Hsing Yun, I will accept anyone regardless of the crime from a Buddhist perspective.

[Guest Balance]

By the way, please don't keep editing your post.

First post at 3pm. At 8pm, still editing. I need a firm copy to reply to you.

[Guest Balance]

6. Teachings of Gotama Buddha can be discerned only from the Tipitaka (and at most the earliest writings outside the Tipitaka)

Please ignore the formatting, I can't get rid of the bold which I didn't intend.

Those who accept those very late writings as part of Buddhist scripture should respect those Buddhists who do not accept the late writings (such as those late Tibetan writings) as Buddhist scripture and do not agree with some things in such late writings.

Do we not respect Theravada scriptures ? How can we Mahayana not respect Theravada teachings ? We are taught “不先学小乘，后学大乘者，非佛弟子” meaning if we don’t build a foundation in Theravada but go straight to practicing Mahayana, we are not disciples of the Buddha. How do we dare not respect Theravada scriptures or the Theravada Buddhist leh ?

And I think you have got it the other way around. You lobby for Buddhist (that would be everybody in the Buddhist world and that includes Mahayana and every buddhist, inc the Dalai Lama ?) to support gay marriage. We cannot because we follow our scriptures and it stated dah-dah-dah…. But you want us to support gay marriage. This effectively is asking us to reject the teachings we follow. Let me request that you respect those who follow the “late writings”.

Late writings can be considered when they do not contradict the original writings, when they are clearly an elaboration or extension of the teachings contained in the Tipitaka, and ALSO when they do not impose unnecesarily burden (such as having sex only at certain time, at certain place, using only certain organs etc) on other Buddhists.

I don’t agree with you on this. And you also do not understand Buddhism. Even in early or late writings, there will be contradictions. Our views are limited by our delusion. So who is to say which is right? We have to let the contradiction coexist with an open mind and accept that we do not know for now. We need to practice for the wisdom to understand and appreciate the contradictions.

I try to recall the lecture by Ajahm Brahm and if there are any errors, please pardon me. I think his stand is that homosexuality does not break the 3rd precepts and the Buddha does not outright oppose homosexuality. Buddhist should be compassion for gays and we should support their marriage… something like that.

I do not accept building a case on what the Buddha did not say so strongly and make it a gospel truth. There may be reasons we do not know why he did not say. And not saying does not make the opposite the “truth”.

Now, Ajahn Brahm supports questioning. Since there is a contradiction between the early and late writing, should more investigations be done instead of outright rejection ?

What if the late writing is true ?

Let do some modeling … I’m not trying to say who is right and who is wrong.. just be a bit hypothetical for a minute.

If you are right and I am wrong. What is the harm done ? I have been a hindrance to many gays in Singapore to live the lives they want. To get HDB benefits. To get tax relief, or may be adopt a child and so on. OK, I may have been a bit stingy here. You can add on to the list.

And if I am right and you are wrong. The retribution for these people are tremendous! I'm not talking the animal realm… I won’t go further.

Now, who has more compassion? Buddhist compassion is to relief suffering. What is the "suffering" here and now compared to the suffering below ?

You can say they are not buddhist and hell does not apply to them ! Fine. I still do not support gay marriage. That is my choice, my dear. And if I go out to ask all late writing followers not to support, you cannot say I'm not compassionate.

We could both be wrong and dah-dah-dah...

I’m not forcing you to accept this: I believe, if there is uncertainty, err on the safe side. And I’m not going out to tell gays you should not whatever… I just do not want to support gay marriage.

It is important to differentiate between Gotama Buddha's teaching from many other Buddhist teachers' teachings. Gotama Buddha is enlightened and gave enlightened views, while we cannot say the same for the other Buddhist teachers who might now and then give mistaken views (such as wrongly thinking that sex is only for pro-creation, and wrongly thinking that the tongue cannot serve to lick a dick or lick a clitoris/vagina).

Agree, we do not know who are the enlighten ones. I’m not sure if you understand what I’m saying. Buddha is not the only enlightening being. Along the way, there will be enlightened beings, like Master Hui Neng. Your neighbour staying next to you could be a Buddha just that we don’t know.

My position on this is that we should take into consideration of what is written, whether they are early, late or even now. Reason is that I am not enlightened and I cannot tell whether they are right or wrong, for sure.

But my position is not relevant. I’m not forcing you to accept the late writings. But you are the one who is asking me to reject them by asking me to support the gay marriage.

[Guest Balance]

4. The Implication of "Listening to the Buddha Within"

4. The Implication of "Listening to the Buddha Within"

Balance, on 26 April 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

The important thing here is when one arrives at such a situation where we cannot tell what is "right" or "wrong", we should focus on our practice and listen to the Buddha from within.

Listening to the Buddha within means that it is ok for one Buddhist to say "gay sex is wrong" while another Buddhist to say "it is ok for lay Buddhists to engage in gay sex". It means that those Buddhists (e.g. "Balance") who thinks that gay sex is wrong should not oppose other Budhists who think that "it is ok for lay Buddhists to have gay sex" and who think that lay Buddhists should support gay marriage. Let each practice in accordance to each's own Buddha within. If one thinks that it is wrong to do gay sex, then he just avoids doing it. He should respect others who think differently; he should respect others whose Buddha within them says "it is ok to do gay sex for lay Buddhists".

That’s not what it means lah !!!

If we listen to the Buddha within, we should all get the same answer, cause there is only 1 buddha nature. If we see conflicting views, and we cannot decide, no point using our brains to think and think, the answer would not come. We should practice and develop the wisdom to understand.

Alamak… where got “each’s own Buddha within” !!! You need reinforcement lah ! Get Ajahn Brahm to help you... he's coming to SG soon.

… sorry… couldn’t help it !!! really.. sorry... hee hee hee.

[Guest Ironrod]

After reading so much.....I just wanna say "it's the thought" of any action which arises from evil root including lust will lead u to the lower path. The difference between us and animals is very obvious. We mediate to focus our mind, control our instinct for one sole purpose that is to walk the middle path and not going to extremes.

Any sex which arises from pure lust or indulgence is not encouraged.

Let me share with you my thoughts.

I always hear ppl say gay sex is wrong becos it doesn't pro-create. The fact is not everyone fxxk with the objective to make babies.

A lot of ppl fxxk becos of lust, be it of indulgence , they enjoy the feeling and they want it again and again ......just like a kid whom wanted sweets. If you engage any form of sex due to that "thought" , you form the animal instinct and chances of you going to animal realm is higher.

The basic law of pro-creation is love, when 2 person in love they want to unite with their body and soul that "thought" can be so pure. how can it be "wrong" or even "evil".

Your intention leads you to hell or heaven.

Once a believer ask the "地藏" since he vows to save all from hell why did he allow hell to exist and punishment to go on? 地藏 simple say "heaven or hell is your own creation, just like there is no luck or fortune to pray but ppl still seeks it"

[Guest Guest]

After reading thru, i just want to say that I'm leaning more towards trusting permanent-guest's understanding of buddhism. Balance come across as condescending and egoistic, which is not something i'm expecting from a supposedly practising, learned buddhist.

[Guest Balance]

I want to say that I'm not here to lobby for anti-gay marriage.

I also am not targeting my message at all "early writing" buddhist. I'm focus on clarifying certain with Permanent-Guest

.

I hear you. I'm sorry. My tone is incorrect, my choice of words is incorrect. I'm "condescending and egoistic". I admit my shortcomings as a Buddhist and as a person.

I will change from now on. I will also want to improve. Thanks for the comment.

And unreservedly I apologise.

After reading thru, i just want to say that I'm leaning more towards trusting permanent-guest's understanding of buddhism. Balance come across as condescending and egoistic, which is not something i'm expecting from a supposedly practising, learned buddhist.

[permanent-guest]

I do not have time to address the various posts of Balance all at once within this one post, so I shall deal with Balance’s reasoning and ideas regarding Master Xing Yun’s statements, and Balance’s mistaken accusations of me (I guess due to a misreading or misunderstanding of some of my posts). I will try to find time within the next few days to respond to Balance’s comments on my Point 6 regarding “Teachings of Gotama Buddha can be discerned only from the Tipitaka”.

To Balance: I suggest you do not respond within 6 hours of my posting in case I have to do some editing when I re-read my post.

Who is preventing gay from getting married? No. We didn’t. What have your married to do with me ? I’m not marrying you, am I ? ;-)

Up to now, in all my previous posts, I did not accuse you of that.

But we do not support and you are asking us to support but we do not support….I can repeat this over and over again. By asking Buddhist (which covers all traditions and including the Dalai Lama, etc) to support, should you be the party to reflect on this quote ?

I believe you have misunderstood some of my posts. So let me list out the relevant things:

So far, up to this point in time, I have not said all Buddhists ought to support gay marriage. Ajahn Sujato was the one who said Buddhists should support gay marriage.

In addition, it may be useful to note that all the things said under the heading of Master Xing Yun’s teaching (Point 8 of my previous post) are basically explaining Master Xing Yun’s perspective and teaching and explaining the implications based on his perspective. Up to this point in time I have not stated my own view regarding the various teachings of Master Xing Yun. I listed him as one example of a prominent monk who said there is NOTHING WRONG with homosexual act and that homosexuality is not a right or wrong issue.

Hence I am “not the party to reflect on this quote” and I suggest we focus on ideas and reasoning behind those ideas, so that it is less iikely for us to fall into a situation of doing any form of “attack” on persons (i.e. I suggest we stay away from saying who should do self-reflection on what). (In my previous posts I also did not say that you are the one that needs to reflect on that quote of Master Xing Yun - just in case you misread me to be saying that)

Next Issue: A Careful Reading of Master Xing Yun’s Text

Master Xing Yun’s text:

“The same analysis can be applied to homosexuality. 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. However, it will still take some time for the world to fully accept homosexuality. All of us must learn to tolerate the behavior of others. Just as we hope to expand our minds to include all of the universe, so we should also seek to expand our minds to include all of the many forms of human behavior. Tolerance is a form of generosity and it is a form of wisdom. There is nothing anywhere in the Dharma that should ever lead anyone to become intolerant. Our goal as Buddhists is to learn to accept all kinds of people and to help all kinds of people discover the wisdom of the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.”

While the statement does say “accept homosexuality”, if you read on, it is talking about accepting homosexuals – the person…. “All of us must learn to tolerate the behaviour of others”… “we should also seek to expand our minds to include all of the many forms of human behavior”… “Our goal as Buddhists is to learn to accept all kinds of people”. It is not referring to the homosexual act.

The above interpretation given by Balance is mistaken in the sense it is a mistake to say that Master Xing Yun was not referring to the homosexual act. Let me explain why it is mistaken:

Master Xing Yun was talking about BOTH homosexual behavior [homosexual act] and the homosexual person. It is not just about the person only. While there are parts that referred to tolerating and accepting the homosexual person, this does not eliminate the fact that in other parts of those sentences Master Xing Yun also did talk about tolerating and accepting homosexual behavior (homosexual act).

Master Xing Yun did refer to behavior and this can been seen here:

“All of us must learn to tolerate the BEHAVIOR of others”

“…we should also seek to expand our minds to include all of the many forms of human BEHAVIOR”

“It is just something that people DO [ the word “do” means it is referring to behavior]

[note: behavior inevitably includes “homosexual act” or gay sex as its main component – because what is most distinctive about homosexual behavior is gay sex]

Taking the above contextual sentences into consideration, it is sufficiently clear that behavior is referred to in the sentences “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….”

So while Master Xing Yun did talk about tolerating and accepting the homosexual person, one ought not to deny that Master Xing Yun also talked about tolerating and accepting homosexual act.

In summary, the passage contains these ideas said by Master Xing Yun:

1. As long as people are doing something that is not harming others, then it is up to them to continue doing that.

2. Homosexual act is not something that harms others; it is not a moral issue [“it is neither right or wrong” – unlike other actions such as murder and rape that causes harm].

3. Eventually the world will probably be able to FULLY ACCEPT homosexuality [“it will still take some time for the world to FULLY ACCEPT HOMOSEXUALITY”]

Next Issue: Master Xing Yun Does Not Tolerate or Accept the action of Murder and the action of Rape

In my previous post under Point 8, I said that

“… Master Xing Yun would not say what he said about homosexuality for things such as murder, rape, robberly and theft. He would not said "let us tolerate murder and rape, it will take some time before the world can fully accept murder and rape"…”

In response, Balance said:

Yes, Master Hsing Yun will say the same for murderers, rapist, robbers and thieves. You see, we are something the like what Mahatma Gandhi said “Hate the sin, love the sinner”. But we don’t hate the sin either. So not only Master Hsing Yun, I will accept anyone regardless of the crime from a Buddhist perspective.

I believe Master Xing Yun would show compassion to murderers and rapists, but as I said in Point 8 of my previous post, Master Xing Yun would not say “let us tolerate muder and rape, it will take some time before the world can fully accept murder and rape”. Master Xing Yun’s stated condition for tolerating or accepting actions and behaviours is this: “if people are not harming each other” . For rape and murder, people are clearly harming others, and hence it toleration or acceptance of the action of rape and the action of murder is no longer applicable.

Master Xing Yun would not say “Rape and murder are neither right nor wrong. Let us tolerate murder and rape. It will take some time for the world to fully accept murder and rape.”

(Because homosexual behavior meets the Master Xing Yun’s criteria of “not causing harm”, that is why he said homosexuality is neither right or wrong, that homosexuals’ private lives are their own business, and with the expectation that the world would one day come to fully accept homosexuality even though that would still take some time.)

Next Issue: Balance's Mistaken Accusations of Me (perhaps due to Balance's misreading of my posts?)

You lobby for Buddhist (that would be everybody in the Buddhist world and that includes Mahayana and every buddhist, inc the Dalai Lama ?) to support gay marriage.

But you want us to support gay marriage.

I still do not support gay marriage. That is my choice, my dear.

To Balance,

Perhaps due to your mis-reading and misunderstanding of what I have written, you have wrongly accused me of

a. lobbying for all Buddhists to support gay marriage

b. not respecting your choice not to support gay marriage

If you read all my previous posts very very very very very carefully (sorry I need to emphasize this), you should find that I did not do such things. What I did was I re-produced one monk’s arguments for Buddhists to support gay marriage, without saying which part of that monk’s article I may agree with, or which parts I may have yet come to agreement with, or which parts I may not agree with. Even if I agree with the majority of his arguments, it does not mean that I agree with every single point in his article. When people said that a Buddhist monk should not be involved in the world’s affairs, I address that separate sub-topic on why it is not wrong for a Buddhist monk to be involved in the world’s affairs such as this. When you presented your reasoning why you think that gay sex would lead to rebirth in a lower realm, I only showed why your line of reasoning is mistaken or contains problematic implications (for example, my previous posts argued that base on your line of reasoning it would mean one ought to do the same thing for straight sex to be consistent: if one supports straight sex, one should support gay sex; if one does not support gay marriage, one should also not support straight marriage, base on that line of reasoning provided by you). At no point did I say you or other Buddhists ought to abandon your current beliefs about gay sex and to come together to support gay marriage. So I suspect you may have mis-read some of my writings. I hope you can re-read my previous postings and perhaps that can help to clarify any misunderstanding in the light of what I just said.

Edited April 30, 2012 by permanent-guest

[Guest Balance]

Next Issue: A Careful Reading of Master Xing Yun’s Text

Master Xing Yun’s text:

“The same analysis can be applied to homosexuality. 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. However, it will still take some time for the world to fully accept homosexuality. All of us must learn to tolerate the behavior of others. Just as we hope to expand our minds to include all of the universe, so we should also seek to expand our minds to include all of the many forms of human behavior. Tolerance is a form of generosity and it is a form of wisdom. There is nothing anywhere in the Dharma that should ever lead anyone to become intolerant. Our goal as Buddhists is to learn to accept all kinds of people and to help all kinds of people discover the wisdom of the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.”

The above interpretation given by Balance is mistaken in the sense it is a mistake to say that Master Xing Yun was not referring to the homosexual act. Let me explain why it is mistaken:

Master Xing Yun was talking about BOTH homosexual behavior [homosexual act] and the homosexual person. It is not just about the person only. While there are parts that referred to tolerating and accepting the homosexual person, this does not eliminate the fact that in other parts of those sentences Master Xing Yun also did talk about tolerating and accepting homosexual behavior (homosexual act).

Master Xing Yun did refer to behavior and this can been seen here:

“All of us must learn to tolerate the BEHAVIOR of others”

“…we should also seek to expand our minds to include all of the many forms of human BEHAVIOR”

“It is just something that people DO [ the word “do” means it is referring to behavior]

[note: behavior inevitably includes “homosexual act” or gay sex as its main component – because what is most distinctive about homosexual behavior is gay sex]

Taking the above contextual sentences into consideration, it is sufficiently clear that behavior is referred to in the sentences “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….”

So while Master Xing Yun did talk about tolerating and accepting the homosexual person, one ought not to deny that Master Xing Yun also talked about tolerating and accepting homosexual act.

In summary, the passage contains these ideas said by Master Xing Yun:

1. As long as people are doing something that is not harming others, then it is up to them to continue doing that.

2. Homosexual act is not something that harms others; it is not a moral issue [“it is neither right or wrong” – unlike other actions such as murder and rape that causes harm].

3. Eventually the world will probably be able to FULLY ACCEPT homosexuality [“it will still take some time for the world to FULLY ACCEPT HOMOSEXUALITY”]

Next Issue: Master Xing Yun Does Not Tolerate or Accept the action of Murder and the action of Rape

In my previous post under Point 8, I said that

“… Master Xing Yun would not say what he said about homosexuality for things such as murder, rape, robberly and theft. He would not said "let us tolerate murder and rape, it will take some time before the world can fully accept murder and rape"…”

In response, Balance said:

I believe Master Xing Yun would show compassion to murderers and rapists, but as I said in Point 8 of my previous post, Master Xing Yun would not say “let us tolerate muder and rape, it will take some time before the world can fully accept murder and rape”. Master Xing Yun’s stated condition for tolerating or accepting actions and behaviours is this: “if people are not harming each other” . For rape and murder, people are clearly harming others, and hence it toleration or acceptance of the action of rape and the action of murder is no longer applicable.

Master Xing Yun would not say “Rape and murder are neither right nor wrong. Let us tolerate murder and rape. It will take some time for the world to fully accept murder and rape.”

(Because homosexual behavior meets the Master Xing Yun’s criteria of “not causing harm”, that is why he said homosexuality is neither right or wrong, that homosexuals’ private lives are their own business, and with the expectation that the world would one day come to fully accept homosexuality even though that would still take some time.)

One wonder why when 2 persons interpret the same passage, the 2 persons come to a different conclusion: The first interprets literally as the words are written while the second interprets with a religious slant. As the passage is translated into English, it is also possible that the translator might have mis-translated or added his/her personal bias into the translation thus causing undue differences in opinions.

There is no point in further deliberating on the words we have at hand since there is no meeting of the mind. A better alternative is to look for the original text and/or to look for further quotes from Master Hsing Yun, in an attempt to understand not the words but the actual thoughts of Master Hsing Yun, for after all, the objective is to uncover the Master’s position on homosexuality:

- does he accept the person AND NOT the act

- or does he accept the person AND the act ?

Efforts to search for the original text prove to be fruitless, given the limited time. However, on internet, there is a write up on an interview with the Master where a question on homosexuality was posed and below is the text.

http://www.zhfgwh.co...ew/23214_9.html

人物周刊：很多社会问题，都是在佛陀时代无法想象的，比如克隆人、丁克

家庭，包括同性恋现象，相信近一二十年来很多人向您求问。昨晚您说同性恋

“不正常”，会不会遭来批评？

星云大师：同性恋的人也不会一生吧。这个对儿女人伦、社会观感、自然的

人性，不正常。不过这句“不正常”，在西方会引来同性恋者的反击，他们的势

力很大，大家都不敢说。我在台湾敢说。

In the Master’s response to the interviewer, he says that “自然的人性，不正常”, to human nature, homosexuality is not normal. Permanent-Guest, could I safely assume that Master Hsing Yun does not accept the homosexual act from this response ? May I have your thoughts on this ?

[Guest tut tut]

Poor is the man

Whose pleasures depend

On the permission of another

from Madonna 's old song that has a very disturbing music video.

I can see what is she trying to convey,

just think about it do we need a Buddhist monks point of view to justify your homosexual love,

just think of it realistically, in the current social taste , do you think the old monk will would jeapardise his monthly income and contributions from faithful followers who give a donation to the temples donation boxes, he lives a peaceful life, he gets by without financial stress , he soothes the soul of the majorrity of faithful followers , would he stick his neck out for 3% of a general population that has these same sex urges.

I bloody doubt so

[Guest Balance]

Point 3: There is no one single fixed purpose of sex - sex is not just for procreation

There is no one fixed single purpose for such bodily organs including sexual organs. What an organ can be used for is SITUATIONAL. While the mouth is usually used for talking, eating, drinking and kissing, there is nothing wrong with using the mouth to hold a brush to do painting (especially so in the SITUATION of people without arms). In the SITUATION of gays (actually among some straights too), the purpose of mouth could include oral sex, the purpose of anus could include anal sex, the purpose of sex could include several things such as the mutual giving of pleasure, the building of bond among couples.

The feet is typically used for walking but this is also situational - in the SITUATION of someone without arms, his feet could take up the purpose of holding a pen to write.

I really spend quite a bit of time to ponder: Why would anyone want to argue against “the use of organ is situational”? As it is presented, It sounds very right and very true. If organ use is not “SITUATIONAL”, then we would end up with a very ridiculous situation where we can either pee and not have sex or have sex and not pee! But somehow, I feel something amiss and that the argument requires further refinement to truly reflect the issue being discussed. I hope Permanent-Guest does not feel offended by this and I hope he will see that if I were to refine the argument, it will be easier for the reader to appreciate the point being presented.

First of all, we need to separate the organ from the PURPOSE. They are not synonymous. Using an organ for a PURPOSE does not imply that the organ is designed for the purpose. There would be cases where it is and there would be cases where it isn’t.

Case 1 - It does: Mouth for eating. There are teeth inside for chewing and there is an esophagus for the food to exit the mouth. All in all, it does seem that the mouth is designed for eating. And how else could a person eat without a mouth?

Case 2 - It doesn’t: Mouth for opening bottle caps. Yes, there are people who do this.

.

Is the mouth designed for opening bottle caps? NO! I guess there is no need to debate this or you can check with any dentist to verify the validity of this point.

There is no argument whether the organ can be FIXED-FUNCTION or MULTI-FUNCTION. If an organ is designed for FIXED-FUNCTION, so be it. And if an organ is designed for MULTI-FUNCTION, so be it.

The fallacy committed in the “SITUATIONAL” argument is that, so long as the organ can perform a function, it is designed for that function or it should be used for that function. In the above example, it illustrates that this is not correct.

I am curious if anyone can give good reasoning to show that it is wrong to use the feet to hold a pen to write, that it is wrong to use the mouth for oral sex, or that it is wrong to use the mouth to do painting, or that it is wrong to use a penis to fxxk water melon and so on. I have read many professional philosophers' articles and books on sex and so far no one has provided good reasons to oppose gay sex, oral sex or anal sex. Any purpose of any such bodily organs is SITUATIONAL. Many times, something like mouth, the hands, the feet etc has no inherent fixed single purpose. In addition, in Buddhism, there is no Creator/Designer to determine the purpose of such organs. The basic thing for lay Buddhist is not to use such organs to cause harm (e.g. not to use our hands to rob/steal and not to use our mind to plan a murder)

This is the consequence of the “SITUATIONAL” fallacy by focusing on the FUNCTION as all encompassing and not the FUNCTION-PURPOSE MATCH. The PURPOSE of sex as spoken by the Dalai Lama is for procreation and the organ is to perform this FUNCTION. To support this reasoning, consider the following:

- when a gay couple mate, the male top will eject sperm. Is there a way to stop this from happening? Is the male top able to prevent this? We all know the answer is “No”. The male top has totally no control over his ejaculation. Why do gay have sperm in the first place and why does he HAVE TO ejaculate it during gay sex? It’s such a trouble to have to be cleaned up and it does not seem to serve any useful purpose in gay sex. “Mother nature” has it that this ACT of sex and the spontaneous ejaculation of sperm, is to fertilise the egg of his female partner. This is a strong signal from “mother nature” that the ACT of sex is for procreation

- when the woman is sexually aroused, without conscious deliberation, the woman virginal self-lubricate. The anus of the gay bottom does not. Again, “mother nature” is telling us that one of the function of the woman virginal is to receive the penis. The anus does not share this ability

Obviously, nobody can tell for sure why “mother nature” chooses to make both straight and gay man this way. We do not understand and we probably will never know the reason. But, not knowing the reason does not equate to there are no reasons - just that we do not know.

Anybody can suggest that the sex ACT can be anything other than procreation and firmly believes in it. However, from the above, it does seem like the penis is designed to enter the virginal and not the anus.

The signs from dear “mother nature” are pointing in the Dalai Lama’s favour.

[Guest Balance]

5. Certain Tibetan Rules on Sex Are At Most True Only For Those who Choose to Come Under Tibetan Rules

I have heard such rules which you mentioned above spoken by certain lineage of Tibetan Buddhists (not all Tibetan lineages, only certain ones). At most, it is applicable to those Buddhists who belong to those particular lineages. Unless such rules are shown to be taught by Gotama Buddha, all other Buddhists (i.e. those not under those Tibetan lineages) can doubt the truthfulness of such rules. Such rules are written in scriptures not recognised by Buddhist of other traditions. These rules are written many many hundreds of years and do not reflect the teachings of Gotama Buddha. So Buddhists of other traditions can reject the validity of such ideas.

Fairness to all. Let’s not impose our beliefs on anyone, Buddhist or non-Buddhist.

Fairness to all. Let’s not impose our disbeliefs on anyone. Buddhist or non-Buddhist.

It’s all right for the “early writing” followers not to believe in the “late writings”. And vice versa.

It’s not all right for the “early writing” followers to argue a cause and have the “late writing” followers reject their own beliefs. It is not an imposition of the “late writing” followers beliefs on the “early writing” followers, when the “late writing” followers explain why they cannot support the cause using the “late writings”

Fairness to all.

Acceptable to Permanent-Guest?

[superflawless]

In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama clarified his personal opinion on the matter by saying, “If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask ‘What is your companion’s opinion?’. If you both agree, then I think I would say, ‘If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.

 

 

Basically, what he's saying is, as long as it is consensual, it is all that matters. 

Edited September 11, 2013 by superflawless

[superflawless]

In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he described a traditional Buddhist definition of an appropriate sexual act as follows: “A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else… Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact.”

[superflawless]

Dalai Lama urges 'respect, compassion, and full human rights for all,' including gays


"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."

 

Source:

http://quietmountain.org/links/teachings/gayrites.htm

Edited September 11, 2013 by superflawless

[superflawless]

In an interview with Wikinews, Tashi Wangdi, representative to the Dalai Lama, further elaborated his perspective on these views.

 

If a person was to engage in homosexuality, "a person would not be considered as following all the precepts of Buddhist principles. People don’t follow all the principles. Very few people can claim they follow all the principles. For instance, telling a lie. In any religion, if you ask if telling a lie is a sin — say Christian — they will say yes. But you find very few people who don’t at some point tell a lie. Homosexuality is one act, but you can’t say [a person who is homosexual is] not a Buddhist. Or someone who tells a lie is not a Buddhist. Or someone who kills an insect is not a Buddhist, because there’s a strong injunction against that."

[Guest gosh!]

Poor is the man

Whose pleasures depend

On the permission of another

from Madonna 's old song that has a very disturbing music video.

I can see what is she trying to convey,

just think about it do we need a Buddhist monks point of view to justify your homosexual love,

just think of it realistically, in the current social taste , do you think the old monk will would jeapardise his monthly income and contributions from faithful followers who give a donation to the temples donation boxes, he lives a peaceful life, he gets by without financial stress , he soothes the soul of the majorrity of faithful followers , would he stick his neck out for 3% of a general population that has these same sex urges.

I bloody doubt so

For you, to Justify My Love... my love... Justify My Love

The MV was very tastefully done, disturbing meh?

Gays are really difficult to please. A pastor spoke against gay lifestyle, they kao beh kao bu, now a monk spoke FOR gay marriage, they also have lots of flaming stuff to say. Sigh.

[Guest Guest]

Religions , though they try to appear to be knowledgable. do not have answers for all the unanswered questions.

 

worst of all, religions always make square pegs fit into round hole, if it does not fit fit they will sand the corners of the square to fit the round hole, or round pegs fit  into square holes,

 

meng meng . it does not fit , the logic does not fit , then they will come up with some expanation that god this and god that, the best things , is everybody lead their own life, do things that make you happy, eat , sleep , shit, have sex, have delicious food whenever you want, have the sex you want , work , get salary, go on holiday, make love have sex, then eat and sleep.

 

all these religions and the people who runs them need believers and the money believers give to them to survive,

 

If one day everyone say, I will stop giving the money, the religious heads just have to work to feed themselves, see the world change quick ,quick,

 

tell the religious head to ask their god to feed them, if it so powerful.

 

then we will see the true color of religion. LOL

[Guest Who me ?]

Buddhism does not condemn gay or same sex love.

But Buddhism does say that same sex act is not right.

 

So if 2 man loves each other but do not have sex, no problem.

But if 2 man loves each other and have sex, that's a different story.

 

This is a very delicate issue.  Buddhism says 随缘 but by 随缘 does not make it right.  And if the world is separated on this issue, the best is for the Buddhist to make a stand but not force it.  Mahayana Buddhist will deems sexual acts between man as a misconduct.  That's a stand.  And if there is a referendum on this, that's how they would vote.  But they are not going out to condemn anyone on this issue.

 

[Guest Guest]

All of us had been straight, gay, woman, man, if you believe in reincarnation.

Just look at the petals of a flower, they are all different.

But they still radiate from the centre and goes back to it.

 

Sexual identity is a physical manifestation.

Sexual preference is a choice.

Whatever we choose to experience has already been planned, if you believe in the Akashic Records.

What is more important is at the core - one's spirituality.

 

Disease, deformities, calamities and sexual diversification are teaching us to be accepting and learn to

love unconditionally(which is a difficult, on-going learning process).

 

The is the first step.

 

If you are kind, loving and have compassion for all living things, does it matter whether you are straight or gay?

 

Marriage is only a man-made term. There are many others (straight or gay) who are 'married' to each other without signing on the dotted line. It is a sacred and beautiful arrangement between 2 soul mates.

Period.

[Guest Who me ?]

If you ask: "If you are kind, loving and have compassion for all living things, does it matter whether you are straight or gay ?"

No.

But if you ask "Does it matter if you engage in gay sex ?"

Yes.

 

"All of us had been straight, gay, woman, man, if you believe in reincarnation"

The important question to ask is: why are we still in the six realms? Not to use reincarnation as a form of justification.

 

Empathising with people who participate in gay sex is NOT compassion.  It is a misplaced compassion.

Compassion is to help the sentient beings out of the six realm.

While not all beings would aspire to exit the six realm; helping them sink deeper into the six realms is NOT compassion.

Gay sex would help to deepen the roots and more firmly plant us in the samsara world.

 

While I'm not a Hinayana buddhist, my opinion is that it is very unfortunate that some would interpret the lack of mention of gay sex in the Hinayana sutra as a form of unspoken approval for gay sex, without looking at Buddhism in totality.

 

All of us had been straight, gay, woman, man, if you believe in reincarnation.

Just look at the petals of a flower, they are all different.

But they still radiate from the centre and goes back to it.

 

Sexual identity is a physical manifestation.

Sexual preference is a choice.

Whatever we choose to experience has already been planned, if you believe in the Akashic Records.

What is more important is at the core - one's spirituality.

 

Disease, deformities, calamities and sexual diversification are teaching us to be accepting and learn to

love unconditionally(which is a difficult, on-going learning process).

 

The is the first step.

 

If you are kind, loving and have compassion for all living things, does it matter whether you are straight or gay?

 

Marriage is only a man-made term. There are many others (straight or gay) who are 'married' to each other without signing on the dotted line. It is a sacred and beautiful arrangement between 2 soul mates.

Period.

 

[Guest Guest]

If you ask: "If you are kind, loving and have compassion for all living things, does it matter whether you are straight or gay ?"

No.

But if you ask "Does it matter if you engage in gay sex ?"

Yes.

 

"All of us had been straight, gay, woman, man, if you believe in reincarnation"

The important question to ask is: why are we still in the six realms? Not to use reincarnation as a form of justification.

 

Empathising with people who participate in gay sex is NOT compassion.  It is a misplaced compassion.

Compassion is to help the sentient beings out of the six realm.

While not all beings would aspire to exit the six realm; helping them sink deeper into the six realms is NOT compassion.

Gay sex would help to deepen the roots and more firmly plant us in the samsara world.

 

While I'm not a Hinayana buddhist, my opinion is that it is very unfortunate that some would interpret the lack of mention of gay sex in the Hinayana sutra as a form of unspoken approval for gay sex, without looking at Buddhism in totality.

okay, spiritual mata, no sex,

okay? happy now?

But can self-sex or not? DIY?

[Guest Who me ?]

okay, spiritual mata, no sex,

okay? happy now?

But can self-sex or not? DIY?

 

I want to retract something.  I assumed gay love and straight love is the same, that's why wrote:

 

If you ask: "If you are kind, loving and have compassion for all living things, does it matter whether you are straight or gay ?"

No.

 

But I am not 100% it's the same.  So I would like to change it to:

 

If you ask: "If you are kind, loving and have compassion for all living things, does it matter whether you are straight or gay ?"

I don't know.

 

As for DIY, my understanding is it's not allowed.  Wrong use of organ.

[Guest Guest]

I want to retract something.  I assumed gay love and straight love is the same, that's why wrote:

 

If you ask: "If you are kind, loving and have compassion for all living things, does it matter whether you are straight or gay ?"

No.

 

But I am not 100% it's the same.  So I would like to change it to:

 

If you ask: "If you are kind, loving and have compassion for all living things, does it matter whether you are straight or gay ?"

I don't know.

 

As for DIY, my understanding is it's not allowed.  Wrong use of organ.

Aiyah, aiyah..... The penis is a useless organ.

 

[Guest Who me ?]

Aiyah, aiyah..... The penis is a useless organ.

 

You might consider chopping off the useless organ ;-)

[Guest Guest]

You might consider chopping off the useless organ ;-)

I am reserving it to enlighten you

[Guest Who me ?]

I am reserving it to enlighten you

 

Don't anyhow say... watch your karma.

[Guest Guest]

Don't anyhow say... watch your karma.

Don't anyhow potong .......... my karma and your karma already intertwined.

Yuan Qin Zai Ju....... sigh

[Guest Who me ?]

Don't anyhow potong .......... my karma and your karma already intertwined.

Yuan Qin Zai Ju....... sigh

 

there is only 1 Karma that is shared by all,

There is no self.  Delusion separate set us apart.

[Guest Guest]

there is only 1 Karma that is shared by all,

There is no self.  Delusion separate set us apart.

Aiya, Fa Hai ,

I hope you are not posting this from Shao Lin Temple

Okay, I am going to talk to Kuan Yin because she used to be a guy(I saw on TV 45 yrs ago).

I think she understands.

O Ni Tow Hu

[Guest Who me ?]

Aiya, Fa Hai ,

I hope you are not posting this from Shao Lin Temple

Okay, I am going to talk to Kuan Yin because she used to be a guy(I saw on TV 45 yrs ago).

I think she understands.

O Ni Tow Hu

 

You so old meh ?

阿弥陀佛 too.

[Guest Guest]

You so old meh ?

阿弥陀佛 too.

Oops, much much older. but I practise the magic like mdm white snake

Good heart makes one look young

[Guest Guest]

If you ask: "If you are kind, loving and have compassion for all living things, does it matter whether you are straight or gay ?"

No.

But if you ask "Does it matter if you engage in gay sex ?"

Yes.

"All of us had been straight, gay, woman, man, if you believe in reincarnation"

The important question to ask is: why are we still in the six realms? Not to use reincarnation as a form of justification.

Empathising with people who participate in gay sex is NOT compassion. It is a misplaced compassion.

Compassion is to help the sentient beings out of the six realm.

While not all beings would aspire to exit the six realm; helping them sink deeper into the six realms is NOT compassion.

Gay sex would help to deepen the roots and more firmly plant us in the samsara world.

While I'm not a Hinayana buddhist, my opinion is that it is very unfortunate that some would interpret the lack of mention of gay sex in the Hinayana sutra as a form of unspoken approval for gay sex, without looking at Buddhism in totality.

I am not a Buddhist but interested in Buddhism and its teaching. Just want to find out more if you can help? What makes gay sex not undesirable in the eye of Buddhism? Is it the act of anal sex? If it is, how about straight couple who practice it?

I thought the main teaching of Buddhism and on achieving enlightenment is detachment. Detachment in term of sexual act like not being addicted to sex which leads to deterioration of your spiritual life and well being.

If a gay couple engage sex out of pure love for each other, be a upright loving human being is still not acceptable?

But you can say that enlightened being might not need sex at all, empty from desire, whether straight or gay.

[Guest Guest]

"Gay sex would help to deepen the roots and more firmly plant us in the samsara world"

.. based on your concept and logic, does it mean that all straight ppl will soon evolve and left with only gay in the world? That will be heaven on earth for gay!

[Guest Guest]

I am not a Buddhist but interested in Buddhism and its teaching. Just want to find out more if you can help? What makes gay sex not undesirable in the eye of Buddhism? Is it the act of anal sex? If it is, how about straight couple who practice it?

I thought the main teaching of Buddhism and on achieving enlightenment is detachment. Detachment in term of sexual act like not being addicted to sex which leads to deterioration of your spiritual life and well being.

If a gay couple engage sex out of pure love for each other, be a upright loving human being is still not acceptable?

But you can say that enlightened being might not need sex at all, empty from desire, whether straight or gay.

I know of a str Buddhist couple and they are not into sex. strange?

Sex can be very spiritual and beautiful, I am a lot of people experience that.

Aliens also like to have sex lei.

[Guest Guest]

"Gay sex would help to deepen the roots and more firmly plant us in the samsara world"

.. based on your concept and logic, does it mean that all straight ppl will soon evolve and left with only gay in the world? That will be heaven on earth for gay!

I feel that gay people are more accepting and loving because of pain and rejection.

They are more spiritually evolved because they have both the yin and yang energy inside.

[Guest Why me ?]

Anal sex between straight couples is not allowed in Buddhism.  There are strict rules such as the place, time, etc.  eg. Place - must be on the bed and not the sofa, kitchen, grandpiano top, etc.  

 

I think you need to understand detachment better.  If you are thinking of detachment from an object, desire, etc, yes you are right to a certain extent.  But hear this - if you are detach from sex, you are still attached cause you have the notion of sex. Try to read more about non-permanence in Buddhism.

 

I think I have said, the ultimate objective is to exit the six realms and also be enlightened.  But how many people aspire to be enlightened  ?  The majority of the people think that loving someone as we understand it today is "natural".  In Buddhism, we don't talk about love, we talk about compassion.  But again, many people misunderstand compassion.

 

Gay love is acceptable or not acceptable ?  I advise you to listen to sutra lectures.  You will get the answer yourself.  If you are newbie, you probably have to listen a year or so to the right masters.

 

"But you can say that enlightened being might not need sex at all, empty from desire, whether straight or gay."  Yes but I think you are still not getting it yet.  From your statement, what you get is a VOID.  This is still existence, not non-permanence. 

 

Sorry, I cannot help much over forum like this. I advise you to listen to sutra lectures.  You can leave your email here, I can email the url where you can start.

 

 

I am not a Buddhist but interested in Buddhism and its teaching. Just want to find out more if you can help? What makes gay sex not undesirable in the eye of Buddhism? Is it the act of anal sex? If it is, how about straight couple who practice it?

I thought the main teaching of Buddhism and on achieving enlightenment is detachment. Detachment in term of sexual act like not being addicted to sex which leads to deterioration of your spiritual life and well being.

If a gay couple engage sex out of pure love for each other, be a upright loving human being is still not acceptable?

But you can say that enlightened being might not need sex at all, empty from desire, whether straight or gay.

 

[Guest Why me ?]

No. Being straight alone does not get one out of Samsara, but if their sex live does not give rise to sexual misconduct, then they will at least not fall into the lower realms in their next live due to the sexual misconduct.

 

Only gay in the world ?  I think you are thinking of the human realm ?  I think probably will not reincarnate in the human realm... I think.  Sorry, I have said Buddhist don't condemn and I don't mean to condemn anyone here.  Just my understanding.

 

"Gay sex would help to deepen the roots and more firmly plant us in the samsara world"

.. based on your concept and logic, does it mean that all straight ppl will soon evolve and left with only gay in the world? That will be heaven on earth for gay!

 

[Guest Why me ?]

No. Being straight alone does not get one out of Samsara, but if their sex live does not give rise to sexual misconduct, then they will at least not fall into the lower realms in their next live due to the sexual misconduct.

 

Only gay in the world ?  I think you are thinking of the human realm ?  I think probably will not reincarnate in the human realm... I think.  Sorry, I have said Buddhist don't condemn and I don't mean to condemn anyone here.  Just my understanding.

 

"Gay sex would help to deepen the roots and more firmly plant us in the samsara world"

.. based on your concept and logic, does it mean that all straight ppl will soon evolve and left with only gay in the world? That will be heaven on earth for gay!

 

[Guest society]

Here is a refreshing voice in contrast to the type of Christianity promoted by Lawrence Khong.

 

Read this:

 

http://dareyoutothinkagain.blogspot.sg/2014/06/a-buddhist-perspective-why.html

 

 

In the above link, a monk said, "Occasionally someone, usually a young man but sometimes a young women or an older man or women, will approach me and after a few minutes of hesitation or beating around the bush, ask me what the Buddhist position on homosexuality is. When they do I tell then that..."

 

 

Share the above link around, so that others know that no all religions are against homosexuality.

(Some Christian fundies say "All religions teach that homosexuality is immoral and that shows clearly that it is wrong." We must let people know that this is not true.)

[Guest society]

below is an extracted from http://dareyoutothinkagain.blogspot.sg/2014/06/a-buddhist-perspective-why.html

 

 

"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.’

 

[ezzeq]

It is a still a sin in Buddhism.

[heroman]

Why is homosexual considered a sin in Buddhism?

Based on the literature I read and the workshops attended, there is no mention of the homosexual as a sin in Buddhist teaching.

 

 

5 Precepts

1. abstain from killing

2. abstain from taking that which is not given.

3. abstain from sexual misconduct

4. abstain from false speech

5. abstain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

 

It is a still a sin in Buddhism.

[Guest Guest]

From the above posted sources, well-known buddhist monks (of theravada tradition, which is closest to the original buddha's teachings) do not disapprove of homosexuality if it does not harm the persons involve. No violation of precept for the lay people.

However, in the later developed type of buddhism - tibetan buddhism, dalai lama does not approve but urges tolerance. His stand is based on ancient indian commentary (so not buddha's actual words).

In the mahayana type of buddhism (ie later type of buddhism), they may have certain views.

[Guest society]

It is a still a sin in Buddhism.

 

Not true.

 

If you study Buddhism properly, you would know that sin does not exist within Buddhism. Sin is a concept among Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

 

As the various monks argued in the above blog, homosexuality is just like heterosexuality from the perspective of Buddhism.

[ndbt]

Buddhism is all about 大慈大悲. we wont even want to hurt an ant, much less discriminate humans too.

[Guest society]

In short, those Buddhist monks and scholars who argued the homosexuality is as spiritually acceptable as heterosexuality base their reasoning on:

 

1. The Vinaya (a section of Buddhist scripture concerning Gotama Buddha's dealing with monks and nuns) showed that Gotama Buddha knew, and knew a lot, about homosexuality. (with many detailed descriptions of various homosexual sex)

 

2. Yet, despite his knowledge of homosexuality, Gotama Buddha's elaborations on the what sexual activities to avoid under the Precept on Sexual Misconduct (Sexual Misconduct is one of the 5 Precepts - think of it as 5 Codes of Ethical Conduct - that all Buddhists ought to follow) did not include homosexuality in spite of his detail knowledge of homosexuality.

[Gotama Buddha only forbid both heterosexual and homosexual practices among the monastic community (monks & nuns) but not the lay followers.]

 

3. Homosexuality does not contradict Buddhism's fundamental ethical principles and their implications.

[bhboy]

It is a still a sin in Buddhism.

Where's your source? Don't use grandma logic.

[fab]

The sexual misconduct precept is not against homosexual but promiscuoity.

Edited June 25, 2014 by fab

[iamziz]

With all the arguments/debates homosexuality is a sin, I prefer to believe God didn't create us to be hated neither did he make a mistake in creating us. With that, I live in peace embracing my sexuality - regardless what those who choose to play God want to think or judge. 

 

As Mother Teresa said ''At the end of the day it is not between you and them but between you and God.''