Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism
EDITORS’ NOTE:
There have been blatant attempts by some religious groups to push for their case against homosexuality by arguing that it is regarded as an aberration by all major religions in Singapore.
The majority of Singaporeans are Buddhists which made up of 42% of the population. Unfortunately, there are many Buddhists who have little knowledge of the ancient scriptures of Buddhism, namely the Theravada Pali Canon on which the Buddha’s teachings, or the Dhamma is based, and may succumb to peer pressure to lend support to the anti-homosexuality lobby.
Nowhere in the Pali Canon (read the entire canon here) did the Buddha explicitly condemn or forbid homosexual practices which are regarded on the same platform as heterosexual practices. The Buddha adopted an utilitarian approach when evaluating sexual behavior which are judged on its intention and consequence.
The third of the five precepts proscribed by the Buddha for lay followers refers to sexual behaviour. In the Theravada tradition of Buddhism, the third precept is perhaps more precisely rendered as “I undertake the rule of training not to go the wrong way for sexual pleasure“.
What then would constitute “going the wrong way” and would this include homosexual acts? To determine this, we need to consider the criteria which Buddhists are advised to use in making ethical judgements. From the Buddha’s discourses, there can be discerned three bases on which we can make judgements about our behaviour:-
- we should consider the consequences of our actions, their effects on ourselves and others
- we should consider how we would feel if others did the same thing to us
- we should consider whether the behaviour is instrumental to our goal of Nirvana.
Using these criteria, Buddhist commentators have usually construed sexual misconduct to include rape, sexual harassment, molestation of children, and unfaithfulness to one’s spouse. Clearly, these manifestations of sexual misconduct can apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual behaviour. The third precept is not a blanket prohibition, nor a simplistic depiction of some behaviours as wrong and other behaviours as right.
We hope members of other faiths will stop misrepresentating the Buddha’s teachings in order to propagate their own values in mainstream society.
For an excellent dissection on homosexuality in Buddhism, please read the article below:
An extract from Buddhanet by A.L. De Silva
Buddhism teaches to, and expects from, its followers a certain level of ethical behaviour. The minimum that is required of the lay Buddhist is embodied in what is called the Five Precepts (panca sila), the third of which relates to sexual behaviour. Whether or not homosexuality, sexual behaviour between people of the same sex, would be breaking the third Precept is what I would like to examine here.
Homosexuality was known in ancient India; it is explicitly mentioned in the Vinaya (monastic discipline) and prohibited. It is not singled out for special condemnation, but rather simply mentioned along with a wide range of other sexual behaviour as contravening the rule that requires monks and nuns to be celibate. Sexual behaviour, whether with a member of the same or the opposite sex, where the sexual organ enters any of the bodily orifices (vagina, mouth or anus), is punishable by expulsion from the monastic order. Other sexual behaviour like mutual masturbation or interfemural sex, while considered a serious offense, does not entail expulsion but must be confessed before the monastic community.
The Buddha seems to have had a profound understanding of human nature and have been remarkably free from prejudice, and as there is not evidence that homosexuals are any more libidinous or that they have any more difficulties in maintaining celibacy than heterosexuals, it seems unlikely that the Buddha would exclude homosexuals per se from the monastic life.
The lay Buddhist is not required to be celibate, but she or he is advised to avoid certain types of sexual behaviour. The third Precept actually says: ‘Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.’ The word kama refers to any form of sensual pleasure but with an emphasis on sexual pleasure and a literal translation of the precept would be “I take the rule of training (veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami) not to go the wrong way (micchacara) for sexual pleasure (kamesu)”. What constitutes “wrong” will not be clear until we examine the criteria that Buddhism uses to make ethical judgments.
No one of the Buddha’s discourses is devoted to systematic philosophical inquiry into ethics such as one finds in the works of the Greek philosophers. But it is possible to construct a criterion of right and wrong out of material scattered in different places throughout the Pali Tipitaka, the scriptural basis of Theravada Buddhism. The Buddha questioned many of the assumptions existing in his society, including moral ones, and tried to develop an ethics based upon reason and compassion rather than tradition, superstitions and taboo. Indeed, in the famous Kalama Sutta he says that revelation (anussana), tradition (parampara), the authority of the scriptures (pitakasampada) and one’s own point of view (ditthinijjhanakkhanti) are inadequate means of determining right and wrong.
Having questioned the conventional basis of morality, the Buddha suggests three criteria for making moral judgments. The first is what might be called the universalisability principle – to act towards others the way we would like them to act towards us. In the Samyutta Nikaya he uses this principle to advise against adultery. He says: “What sort of Dhamma practice leads to great good for oneself?… A noble disciple should reflect like this: ‘If someone were to have sexual intercourse with my spouse I would not like it. Likewise, if I were to have sexual intercourse with another’s spouse they would not like that. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and how could I burden someone with that?’ As a result of such reflection one abstains from wrong sexual desire, encourages others to abstain from it, and speaks in praise of such abstinence.”
In the Bahitika Sutta, Ananda is asked how to distinguish between praiseworthy and blameworthy behaviour. He answers that any behaviour which causes harm to oneself and others could be called blameworthy while any behaviour that causes no harm (and presumably which helps) oneself and others could be called praiseworthy. The suggestion is, therefore, that in determining right and wrong one has to look into the actual and possible consequences of the action in relation to the agent and those affected by the action. The Buddha makes this same point in the Dhammapada: “The deed which causes remorse afterwards and results in weeping and tears is ill-done. The deed which causes no remorse afterwards and results in joy and happiness is well-done.” This is what might be called the consequential principle, that behaviour can be considered good or bad according to the consequences or effects it has.
This utilitarian attitude to ethics is highlighted by the fact that the Buddha uses the term kusala to mean ’skillful’ or ‘appropriate’ or its opposite, akusala, when evaluating behaviour far more frequently than he uses the terms punna, ‘good’, or papa, ‘bad’. The other thing that is important in evaluating behaviour is intention (cetacean). If a deed is motivated by good (based upon generosity, love and understanding) intentions it can be considered skillful. Evaluating ethical behaviour in Buddhism requires more than obediently following commandments, it requires that we develop a sympathy with others, that we be aware of our thoughts, speech and actions, and that we be clear about our goals and aspirations.
Having briefly examined the rational foundations of Buddhist ethics we are now in a better position to understand what sort of sexual behaviour Buddhism would consider to be wrong or unskillful and why. The Buddha specifically mentions several types of unskillful sexual behaviour, the most common of which is adultery. This is unskillful because it requires subterfuge and deceit, it means that solemn promises made at the time of marriage are broken, and it amounts to a betrayal of trust. In another passage, the Buddha says that someone practicing the third Precept “avoids intercourse with girls still under the ward of their parents, brothers, sisters or relatives, with married women, with female prisoners or with those already engaged to another.” Girls still under the protection of others are presumably too young to make a responsible decision about sex, prisoners are not in a position to make a free choice, while an engaged woman has already made a commitment to another. Although only females are mentioned here no doubt the same would apply to males in the same position.
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha’s discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society’s English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender. Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.
We will now briefly examine the various objections to homosexuality and give Buddhist rebuttals to them. The most common Christian and Muslim objection to homosexuality is that it is unnatural and “goes against the order of nature”. There seems to be little evidence for this. Miriam Rothschild, the eminent biologist who played a crucial role in the fight to decriminalize homosexuality in Britain, pointed out at the time that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost every known species of animal. Secondly, it could be argued that while the biological function of sex is reproduction, most sexual activity today is not for reproduction, but for recreation and emotional fulfillment, and that this too is a legitimate function of sex. This being so, while homosexuality is unnatural in that it cannot leads to reproduction, it is quite natural for the homosexual in that for her or him it provides physical and emotional fulfillment. Indeed, for him or her, heterosexual behaviour is unnatural. Thirdly, even if we concede that homosexuality “goes against the order of nature”, we would have to admit that so do many other types of human behaviour, including some religious behaviour. The Roman Catholic Church has always condemned homosexuality because of its supposed unnaturalness – but it has long idealized celibacy, which, some might argue, is equally unnatural. Another Christian objection to homosexuality is that it is condemned in the Bible, an argument that is meaningful to those who accept that the Bible is the infallible word of God, but which is meaningless to the majority who do not accept this. But while there is no doubt that the Bible condemns homosexuality, it also stipulates that women should be socially isolated while menstruating, that parents should kill their children if they worship any god other than the Christian God and that those who work on the Sabbath should be executed. Few Christians today would agree with these ideas even though they are a part of God’s words, and yet they continue to condemn homosexuality simply because it is condemned in the Bible.
One sometimes hears people say: “If homosexuality were not illegal, many people, including the young, will become gay.” ‘This type of statement reflects either a serious misunderstanding about the nature of homosexuality or perhaps a latent homosexuality in the person who would make such a statement. It is as silly as saying that if attempted suicide is not a criminal offense then everyone will go out and commit suicide. Whatever the cause of homosexuality (and there is great debate on the subject), one certainly does not ‘choose’ to have homoerotic feelings in the same way one would, for example, choose to have tea instead of coffee. It is either inborn or develops in early childhood. And it is the same with heterosexuality. Changing laws does not change people’s sexual inclinations.
Some have argued that there must be something wrong with homosexuality because so many homosexuals are emotionally disturbed. At first there seems to be some truth in this. In the West, at least, many homosexuals suffer from psychological problems, abuse alcohol, and indulge in obsessive sexual behaviour. As a group, homosexuals have a high rate of suicide. But observers have pointed out that such problems seem to be no more pronounced amongst African and Asian homosexuals than they are in the societies in which they live. It is very likely that homosexuals in the West are wounded more by society’s attitude to them than by their sexual proclivity, and, if they are treated the same as everybody else, they will be the same as everybody else. Indeed, this is the strongest argument for acceptance and understanding towards homosexuals.
Christianity grew out of and owes much to Judaism with its tradition of fiery prophets fiercely and publicly denouncing what they considered to be moral laxity or injustice. Jesus was very much influenced by this tradition, as have been the Christian responses to public and private morality generally. At its best, this tradition in Christianity to loudly denounce immorality and injustice has given the West its high degree of social conscience. At its worst, it has meant that those who did not or could not conform to Christian standards have been cruelly exposed and persecuted.
The Buddhist monk’s role has always been very different from his Christian counterpart. His job has been to teach the Dhamma and to act as a quiet example of how it should be lived. This, together with Buddhism’s rational approach to ethics and the high regard it has always given to tolerance, has meant that homosexuals in Buddhist societies have been treated very differently form how they have been in the West.
In countries like China, Korea and Japan where Buddhism was profoundly influenced by Confucianism, there have been periods when homosexuality has been looked upon with disapproval and even been punishable under the law. But generally the attitude has been one of tolerance. Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit missionary who lived in China for twenty-seven years from 1583, expressed horror at the open and tolerant attitude that the Chinese took to homosexuality and naturally enough saw this as proof of the degeneracy of Chinese society. “That which most shows the misery of these people is that no less than the natural lusts, they practise unnatural ones that reverse the order of things, and this is neither forbidden by law nor thought to be illicit nor even a cause for shame. It is spoken of in public and practiced everywhere without there being anyone to prevent it.” In Korea the ideal of the hwarang (flower boy) was often associated with homosexuality especially during the Yi dynasty. In Japan, a whole genre of literature (novelettes, poems and stories) on the love between samurais and even between Buddhist monks and temple boys developed during the late mediaeval period.
Theravada Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Burma had no legal statutes against homosexuality between consenting adults until the colonial era when they were introduced by the British. Thailand, which had no colonial experience, still has no such laws. This had led some Western homosexuals to believe that homosexuality is quite accepted in Buddhist countries of South and South-east Asia. This is certainly not true. In such countries, when homosexuals are thought of at all, it is more likely to be in a good-humored way or with a degree of pity. Certainly the loathing, fear and hatred that the Western homosexual has so often had to endure is absent and this is due, to a very large degree, to Buddhism’s humane and tolerant influence.
Source: Buddhanet
Loading ...
Gemini on Sat, 16th May 2009 10:54 am
Excellent and informative article. Thank you.
A Tan on Sat, 16th May 2009 11:07 am
So what if Theravada Buddhism is neutral on homosexuality?
Most of the Buddhists here are Chinese and belong to the Mahayana tradirion. What does this tradition say abt homosexuality?
Maybe the writer can let us know?
admin on Sat, 16th May 2009 11:32 am
Hi A Tan,
Thanks for your question.
Before we began, let us correct your misperception of Buddhism in Singapore.
Though Mahayana Buddhism is the major school in Singapore in the past, there is renewed interest in Theravada Buddhism especially from the young today.
According to a recent Sunday Times report, Theravada Buddhism is winning converts among the English-educated professionals.
Both the Mahayana and Theravada schools of Buddhism accept the Dhamma as the teachings of the Buddha.
The Pali Canon is found in the Mahayana school as well. No where in the Mahayana scriptures can we find a sutra condemning homosexuality as an abnormality.
The Mahayana school is divided into many sects such as Zen and Tibetan Buddhism which adopt a neutral stance towards homosexuality.
For more information on Zen Buddhism and homosexuality:
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html
Leng on Sat, 16th May 2009 11:42 am
A Tan, for your information, Buddhists in South Korea, China, Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan and Hong Kong generally practice Mahayana Buddhism. All of them are tolerant about homosexuality. Homosexual acts are legal in all these Asian countries.
Lop on Sat, 16th May 2009 12:13 pm
“A Tan, for your information, Buddhists in South Korea, China, Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan and Hong Kong generally practice Mahayana Buddhism. All of them are tolerant about homosexuality. Homosexual acts are legal in all these Asian countries.”
Hmmm…is this the kind of Asian values that we are supposed to uphold? No, I want to change my story – Homosexual act is a sin, and Singapore should abandon the corrupt Asian values and embrace the far superior Western ones!
Lop on Sat, 16th May 2009 12:49 pm
Dear Admin
On a separate note, I think we’ve had an overdose on the homosexual pills recently, it’s time to tone down or we will start speculating the gender of the person in your bedroom ;p
Seriously, not that I don’t support the rights of the LGBT community, but I believe in the local context it’s a defence game instead of an attack game. The leaders said Singapore is a conservative society – I read ‘conservative’ as ‘being reluctant to change i.e. don’t rock the boat’ rather than ‘loving the traditional ways’ – therefore any aggressive championing of a cause will cause a backlash from the majority who are mostly neutral on many issues. When a ‘backlash’ happens, people who are initially neutral tend to be swayed into making an opposing stand. Ever since the drama cooked up by TSM, I on the ground feel that the LGBT are gaining more sympathy from the public, more so than during the debate of 377A. I believe the same ‘backlash effect’ is at work. Therefore, for the interests of the LGBT community, we should moderate on our discussion on the subject matter, lest the fundies accuse us of being gay and pushing a ‘gay agenda’, but eventually it is the LGBT community who actually suffers.
Lin Ah Gong on Sat, 16th May 2009 1:16 pm
To all,
whatever beliefs or religion you guys uphold, if you can accept your son marrying his boyfriend or your daughter marrying her girlfriend, then it’s fine and live with it. Don’t waste your time arguing which sections of buddhism can accept homosexual becos i dun know what you want to achieve. dun try too hard, a wrong is a wrong. If homosexual acts are legal in all these countries mentioned above, just go there and be gay and happy, and enjoy the the fun of rear entry.
Gemini on Sat, 16th May 2009 1:17 pm
Leng mentioned that homosexual acts are not illegal in other Asian countries.
Can admin clarify whether this is true? Thank you.
Donquote on Sat, 16th May 2009 1:58 pm
This site seem to be pushing the pro-gay agenda instead of being neutral. Going to the extend of quoting from buddhism text to justify there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is going one step too far. I also begin to quesion if this site is run by LGBT. If you want to be a homo, go ahead. You don’t have to justify to others whether it is right or wrong.
Truth Seeker on Sat, 16th May 2009 1:59 pm
The majority of people are heterosexual. Gays are a minority.
And so-called democracy works with what the majority says is right. So end up if you are a minority you are always wrong.
PAP is right. Workers Party and everyone else is wrong. PAP got 66.6% of the votes. Case closed. Obviously this is an injustice, an immorality in itself.
For right and wrong got nothing to do with the majority or the minority. Just because a majority vote for 377A does not mean 377A is right. The law as with all things man-made is always flaw and imperfect.
And the great tragedy is that real people suffer, potentially beautiful lives destroyed, and criminals and schemers who knows how to manipulate the law become kings.
Where the law is suppose to serve, even as a dog is to serve its master; but wicked men promote the law to be king, and the master now cleans the dog’s ass.
The whole world is corrupt. The righteous suffer, but the evil and wicked are all legally rich and powerful and all seen to be moral.
Anonymous on Sat, 16th May 2009 2:01 pm
To “Lin Ah Gong on Sat, 16th May 2009 1:16 pm”
This article is just to bring another “religious” perspective of homosexuality that some Christians said THEIR views reflect that of other religions as well.
If you are not interested in this article, there is no need for you to be “constipated” here.
joyeux on Sat, 16th May 2009 2:02 pm
Dear Gemini, The internet has so much information out there, I suggest you do a search from wikipedia.
Imagine you are a detective and you want do a search of information , just be neutral and objective and weigh the information with an open mind.
You will find that people who are objective publish information in fair and balanced way and let the reader be a judge for themselves.
It is an open field out there in the internet, use the search engines.
Maybe you can try to search under keyword decriminalise homosexuality under wilipedia.
Tua Pai Kia on Sat, 16th May 2009 2:06 pm
Wake up your stupid idea, old man. Why every time you can only think about enjoying rear entry?? Now you even come here and ask people to go abroad to have fun. Di si bo yo kui liao!! You better stop wasting your CPF money fooling around abroad or your own son will challenge the maintenance of parents act that you need to file later in future. Tia tiok boh??
joyeux on Sat, 16th May 2009 3:05 pm
If you are of age of majority meaning an adult in your country you may want to check out this website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
these are some examples, but of course there are sites of opposing views and they are overwhelmingly discussed from a particular religioun’s view.
You may read up what they say, i shall not do the search for you because I find that the arguments put forward are already a foregone conclusion in their view.
Then I am not learning anything new and I do not feel I need to be constricted in my thoghts since I do not follow that particular religion.
I find the Buddha’s teaching of having and encouraging an enquiring mind and always search for knowledge and do not accept things at face value very refresing.
My Sociology lecturer once said this in a class about religion, she asked us to keep it off the record.
She said ,”class look at religion this way, if no one believes in religion , than religion does not exist, problem solved.
What is the use of arguing over who is more right and who is more wrong. Can Religion exist in a vacuum, with no believers.I don’t thinks so. Come to think of it, religion needs its beliviers much more than the other way around “.
I find this statement by my lecturer has a deep meaning .
Just think about it .
ThinkingSoul on Sat, 16th May 2009 3:22 pm
There is no cause to be alarmed.
This article only serves to give another perspective on Homosexuallity from the Theravada Buddhist point of view.
It is to balance the overwhemingly negative perpective created by the Ultra-Conservative Christian Rights on this issue.
You are free to agree or disagree.
You are also free to choose to read or not to read.
However, in the context of harmonious living with all members of the society, we should all strive to be moderate, inclusive, benevolent, compassionate and magnonimous in our words and deeds.
May God Bless Us All.
JohnnyKid on Sat, 16th May 2009 3:45 pm
This article is to debunk the claims of “concerned parents” that they represent the views of majority of Singaporeans. The truth is these “concerned parents” have been living in their own ivory towers for too long to realise how much society has progressed without them. Even the heartland uncle and auntie know that tsunamis are natural phenomenons which has nothing to do with the legal status of abortions in Singapore.
a on Sat, 16th May 2009 3:56 pm
You push people, people push you. You sow goodwill, it comes back. You show compassion, it returns. It’s karma.
So, there’s no need to push anything. Just work hard at doing good. And it’ll return naturally.
All desires are illusory, transient and worldly. With this understanding, there comes natural abstainance. Sex is just gratification. Sexuality is not important. There’s nothing to push. Just practise good.
a on Sat, 16th May 2009 4:11 pm
I think it’s wrong to say buddhism accepts homosexuality. That gives the the mistaken idea that homosexuality is good by Buddhist definition.
Buddhism makes no judgement on homosexuality. In fact, for that matter, it doesn’t pass judgement on things per se. It interprets worldly pursuits as transients that disappears before you even realise. You need to realise them as such, so that you can free yourself from their entrapment.
The only thing that persists through these transients is karma – the thought and purpose that goes into these pursuits. The good and bad will come back to you.
Outsider on Sat, 16th May 2009 6:08 pm
>>>>>>>>>
>a on Sat, 16th May 2009 3:56 pm
>All desires are illusory, transient and worldly. With this understanding, there comes natural abstainance. Sex is just gratification. Sexuality is not important. There’s nothing to push. Just practise good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What you said is true, but that is not a reflection of the real world we are living in, where the inclination towards things sexual and erotic is obviously and uncontrollably on the rise.
The whole issue of homosexuality itself is clouded and made more and more confusing and perplexing to the average person on account of two factors viz:
1)Significant numbers of people have been and are still much against the existence of the GENUINE gays on this planet. The genuine gays are an integral part of humanity, regardless of existing prejudices.
2)The genuine gays are lumped in the same category as those who are ‘casually practising gays’ ie. those who are not inherently gay but choose to indulge in these practises purely as an acquired pleasure habit.
If these two categories of people are distinguished apart and treated separately by the world community, there would be much overall educational benefit overall.
But then, no amount of talk and good intentioned effort will lessen the proliferation of sex as we know it in the world. I tend to reflect that it could be a ‘mistake’ of mankind’s creator to have created sex itself.
cy on Sat, 16th May 2009 9:48 pm
Good article. It’s always good to have an open mind and learn more. I don’t see this as an agenda to push for supporting homosexuality.
a on Sun, 17th May 2009 12:25 am
Yes, Outsider. You make a good point.
Maybe homosexuality is inborn in some, and they can’t help it (though to many, this is still inconclusive). But like you said, sex isn’t only done for love and romance. It’s also a very-base desire. And people can do all sorts of senseless, loveless acts to satisfy their sex drive.
So, the danger is there. In the liberal west, they seem to take homosexuality as simply another normal way of life. But that opens the floodgate.
It’s not as innocent and simple as being left-handed. If like the liberal west, it will become an entirely new way of life, new mode of family, new ways of rearing new generations of children, and also affect the range of sexual activities people indulge in. The repercussions is much more than being left-handed.
If the condition is congenital, then objectively it’s also abnormal, like an inborn sexuality disorder.
So buddhism is correct in its own objective way. Homosexuality, when practised between 2 people in love and doesn’t affect others (children and other adults) negatively, will have positive karma. It’s no different from love between 2 heterosexuals.
However, if otherwise, or engaged for just basic desires, then it has elements of negative karma.
Morris on Sun, 17th May 2009 1:37 am
Humans are sexual beings. Mental Health Experts of our day consider adult sexuality as consisting of seven components, of which:
1) gender identity
2) orientation (innate sexual attraction)
3) intention (nature of sexual behaviour/type of sexual activity)
constitute our sexual identity.
The remaining components (desire/drive, arousal and orgasm) describe our sexual function whereas the seventh component (emotional satisfaction) is based on our personal reflections on the first six.
So we can see that our sexual orientation is a component part of our sexual identity. Terms like “heterosexual” and “homosexual” describe our sexual orientation.
Everyone has a sexual orientation, just as everyone has a hair colour or eye colour. We don’t normally ascribe “morality” to our eye or hair colour, considering such inborn physical characteristics to be morally “neutral”.
It’s good to understand that our sexual orientation is innate – this is what gay people are desperately trying to tell us when they say “I’m born this way”.
Straight or gay, we do not choose our sexual orientation. For those with good insight into their own sexuality, this is a self-verifiable fact. There is no need (as some argue) for the discovery of a gay or straight “gene” to prove or disprove that we are “born this way”. Just as there isn’t a “clever” gene but we know that clever people exists and that they are “born that way”. Like “clever-ness”, our sexual orientation is a complex characteristic which is unlikely to be determined by a single gene.
For Buddhists, it makes a lot of sense that the Buddha sees sexual desire — whether same-sex oriented or opposite-sex orientated — to be equal and arising from the roots of ignorance and craving.
The main task of a Buddhist is purification of the mind through cultivation of wisdom, compassion and loving-kindness towards ALL sentient beings without discrimination. Prejudice is a mental defilement; we tend to react with aversion and ill-will to whoever we are prejudiced against.
True practising Buddhists therefore take the “middle path” and are neutral towards heterosexuality and homosexuality. They do not promote (or demonize) one type of sexual craving over another. Heterosexuality is not one of the “virtues” in Buddhism and clearly, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice is not heterosexuality but freedom from ignorance, craving and ill-will.
a on Sun, 17th May 2009 2:11 am
To qualify, when something is said to be a congenital disorder, it doesn’t mean it’s something to be treated or quarantined. It just means it’s an uncontrollable abnormality that requires compassion and understanding from outsiders.
But to go all the way to say it’s a very normal practice open to people, like the liberal west.. then there are repercussions beyond the small group involved. For one, it’s not only about love and freedom. It’s also something that intrinsically involves carnal desires.
So, positive or negative? What’s the karma? I’m not really sure.
ziiro on Sun, 17th May 2009 2:15 am
*Buddhism makes no judgement on homosexuality. *
An neither does Aware, nor the true majority of Singaporeans, less those thio-ed fanatics. It is exactly that – Neutral.
The majority of pple makes no judgement on it, it is not a wrong or right to them, it is just a way of life for those who are homosexual. They dun say its wrong to be homosexual, they are INDIFFERENT. This is a very different concept from being PRO-GAY, which is more akin to promoting being homosexual to heterosexual pple.
The self-declared tsunami saviour and her band of christian fanatics are just making use of a False Dilemma fallacy to say either u are with us or against us. Yes we are AGAINST u, but we are not pro-gay, we are PRO-CHOICE. Aka a THIRD choice.
buddism on Sun, 17th May 2009 2:21 pm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm
“Unfortunately, the Pali Canon, which documents the teachings of the Buddha, do not include any direct reference to homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior. Some have interpreted this to mean that the Buddha believed that the same rules governing sexual behavior apply to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples.
To summarize: Buddhism’s basic teaching discourages sex, and particularly condemns adultery, rape, non-consensual sex, and unsafe sex. This would seem to apply to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally. However, some groups within Buddhism condemn homosexual sex because of cultural teachings that have merged with their religious beliefs.”
buddism on Sun, 17th May 2009 2:32 pm
(cont)
“However, the Buddha sometimes advised against certain behavior not because it is wrong from the point of view of ethics but because it would put one at odds with social norms or because its is subject to legal sanctions. In these cases, the Buddha says that refraining from such behavior will free one from the anxiety and embarrassment caused by social disapproval or the fear of punitive action. Homosexuality would certainly come under this type of behavior. In this case, the homosexual has to decide whether she or he is going to acquiesce to what society expects or to try to change public attitudes. In Western societies where attitudes towards sex in general have been strongly influenced by the tribal taboos of the Old Testament and, in the New Testament, by the ideas of highly neurotic people like St. Paul, there is a strong case for changing public attitudes.” 12
However, the above discussion is only applicable to lay Buddhists. Very different rules apply for Buddhist monks. They are required to abstain from all types of sexual behavior — both from opposite-sex and same-sex activity.
buddism on Sun, 17th May 2009 2:37 pm
The Dalai Lama is the leader of the Tibetan people and is revered by millions of Buddhists worldwide. At a press conference in 1997-JUN, he commented: “From a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex]…is generally considered sexual misconduct”.
This belief is not based on the partners being of the same gender. In his book “Beyond Dogma,” he has written that “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.” Tibetan Buddhism prohibits oral, manual and anal sex for everyone – both homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, these restrictions refer only to members of the Buddhist faith.
buddism on Sun, 17th May 2009 2:39 pm
(Cont)
An article in Newsweek stated that “Although he has affirmed the dignity and rights of gays and lesbians, he has condemned homosexual acts as contrary to Buddhist ethics.
The Dalai Lama was interviewed by CBC News at the time of his visit to Canada during 2007-NOV. Near the end of his interview he was asked whether Buddhism condones love between two men or two women. He replied that Buddhists reject this. Genuine Buddhist practitioners, like Christians, condemn same-sex behavior as sexual misconduct. “So, [it is] not permissible, not allowed.”
ThinkingSoul on Sun, 17th May 2009 3:14 pm
Ven. Thubten Chodron has these to say about Homosexuality, in the Book “Dealing With Life’s Issues – A Buddhist Perspective ” which I think is worth sharing :
” I think what’s most important is the motivation behind how we use our sexuality. If people use their sexuality unkindly or unwisely, it doesn’t matter if it is directed to someone of their own sex or opposite sex.
Several people in our Buddhist Group in Settle told me that they knew they were gay when they were quite young. It isn’t a learned behaviour. That is how their karma played out.
I feel that criticising or discriminating against people who are gay is counter to the attitude of love and compassion that the Buddha would like all of his disciples to cultivate.
If sexuality is used carelessly, for example people have unprotected sex that could harm oneself or the other person or people use their sexual partner for the benefit of their own ego, that is not wise use of sexuality.
The basic questions one should ask oneself are;
1. How do I relate to my sexuality?
2. Am I always looking at other people’s bodies and judging
them by their bodies?
3. Do I really look into their hearts and accept them as human
beings? Or am I constantly undressing them with my mind
because I have a lot of sexual energy?
4. Do I respect my sexual partner, and treat him /her
wisely and kindly? ”
I respected her simple, thoughtful, moderate and compassionate view of the subject matter.
Outsider on Sun, 17th May 2009 4:03 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>a on Sun, 17th May 2009 12:25 am >”…But like you said, sex isn’t only done for love and romance. It’s also a very-base desire. And people can do all sorts of senseless, loveless acts to satisfy their sex drive…”
>”… So, the danger is there. In the liberal west, they seem to take homosexuality as simply another normal way of life. But that opens the floodgate…”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s the whole point I want to make.
The world is deeply steeped in sex for the wrong reason – for to stisfy desire and pleasure rather than love as such.
And this undermines mankind’s progress as a whole, since today’s world is already globalised and fast becoming a homogeneous mass of people divided only by geo-political boundaries.
Since sex pleasure has already overwhelmingly overtaken love as the reason for sex itself, there can only be one result – an increasingly depraved world. Like I have said before, the next almost certain step in the evolution of mankind in search of more ‘exotic’ pleasures could well be real bestiality, ie. thrusting and penetrating animals’ orifices, eg pet dogs, pigs, etc. And I am not jesting at all. As it is, humans beings already enjoy sex pleasure ‘animal style’ with their partners.
In this regard, I am almost certain that in the not too distant future, another women’s group with less numb awareness will come into existence, not to oppose male-male coition, but male-female anus coition. And I can easily foresee countless wives calling for divorce because of having to put up with such literally physical abuse.
But I am not against woman&woman relationships, since like I mentioned before, it may be (ironically?) the ideal practical, spiritual, moral and health solution to today’s and tomorrow’s ills vis-a-vis anus sex.
Ah Beng on Sun, 17th May 2009 5:29 pm
Stop bull-shitting Eugene.
Come out and fight in the next GE. Don’t hide the blog. Be a man!
Prove that you are not one of those arm-chair critics. Easy to condemn and criticise others, right? Wait till you are in the hot seat. That’s what happens to the Lings, Cheos, etc. Talk a lot. Go around condemning their own elected government. Alas, but when voted in the government didn’t have to do anything. The constitutents themselves threw those big mouths out after one term. Fortunately, they weren’t hunted down for messing up the constituencies’ funds.
In actuality, they could only blame and condmn others but not able to perform at all.
COWBEHCOWBU on Thu, 11th Jun 2009 9:12 pm
In Buddhism ,start from the teaching by Guatama…is the ideas of detachmenta to all worldly phenomenons, and human emotions and sensations..these are for beings determine to seek enlightenment without looking back to life on earth….
In .the Mahayana teaching ..one is advised to convolute ones sexual desires to one’s wisdom….ie.when a being can practice to subdue his sexual desire effortlessly..his urge and energy will catapult his insight into the REAL truth and gain immense wisdoms…..
For common folks..Guatama teaching is not to engaged in licentious sexual activities beside that with your rightful spouse..IF ..the practioners still need to engaged in sexual activities.
By this teaching..any other forms of sexual activities are consider bad……inplicitly homosexulity too….
Buddhism text has recognised that SEX is the STRONGEST desire of all sentient beings….even in the 6 higher heavens immediately ‘above’ our sentient worlds…there are still unions of the two sexex..though in very sublime form..like just looking at each other….the union is accomplished..only when a beings can detached sexual desire..can then he advance above the 6 heavens…..
For ordinary beings who just can do away with this STRONGEST URGE ..one is to conduct in a rightful way……..
Curious on Thu, 18th Jun 2009 3:03 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
Quote :
Singapore
No – Male illegal (Penalty: up to 2 years prison sentence; not enforced)
Yes – Female legal
Just curios why Singapore Law are gender bias ?
Outsider on Thu, 18th Jun 2009 6:56 pm
From a strictly practical point of view, I would say there’s nothing undesireable, distasteful or unaesthetic about female/female relationships. Apart from their inability reproduce naturally, I don’t see any reason to move against female/female relationships.
In the light of ever increasing divorces among ‘normal’ people, who usually marry mainly for reasons of physical lust (on the part of the male) for a particular woman, rather than true love in the highest spiritual sense; whereas for female/female relationships, true love on the part of both individuals concerned is the main motivation rather than lust.
For practical, aesthetic and social considerations, male/male relationships should necessarily remain controlled (by the law)and remain ‘underground’.
cy on Thu, 18th Jun 2009 8:12 pm
homosexuality is also found in animals.see below article.
动物界也有同性恋颠覆进化论
科学家历年发现了逾四百种有同性恋行为的脊椎动物，使科学界涌起一股反对“进化论之父”达尔文理论的热潮。这些科学家认为同性恋在动物界中是正常的、而且很可能是动物进化过程中必需的现象。
也许达尔文并未料到夏威夷会有同性恋信天翁，也未料到会有双性恋的倭黑猩猩、或有施虐受虐狂的蝙蝠以及同性恋企鹅。
一项研究显示，有些动物物种的同性恋是如此普遍，达到可以重塑牠们的社会动力以至改变牠们的DNA的程度。从哺乳动物到蜗牛，以至线虫类蠕虫，同性恋行为在动物王国里几乎是无远弗届的。科学家认为，应把同性恋本身视为一种自然选择力。加州大学河边分校的纳森．白利和马尔勒内．朱克写道：“动物中同性性行为的多样性和无所不在，可谓蔚为奇观。研究者已在广泛的物种中观察到数以千计同性求偶、结合和交配的例子，包括哺乳动物、禽鸟、爬行动物、两栖动物、昆虫、软体动物和线虫类。”
搞错身份导致同性恋
动物参与同性性行为，有各种各样的理由，有些动物需要一种另类的育儿战略，也有些动物因为搞错身份。白利说：“例如，雄性果蝇向雄性果蝇求爱，可能因为自身缺乏一种使牠们可以识别性别的基因。但是，宽吻海豚参与同性互动，却是为了方便群体紧密关系。雌性黑背信天翁可以终生同性结合并共同养育孩子。”
白利认为，同性恋活动有可能成为一种选择压力。他说：“同性行为可能会带来进化后果，这些后果，现正被科学家纳入考虑。”他说，普通雄性蟾蜍都不加区别地企图彼此交配，这似乎也影响了牠们的叫声的进化方式。
雄大角羊喜互舔性器
另外，美国史丹福大学女生物学家琼?拉夫指，动物性交不一定是为了繁殖，同性之间可以纯为快感或者增进感情而干那回事。拉夫加登更直言同性恋是生物学不可或缺的一部分，不容轻视。她利用同性恋现象来加深对异性恋的了解，说不定可以为动物性研究掀起一场革命。
以大角羊为例，牠们的雄性群体就像人类的同志社群一般。牠们以口交和性交（通常都直至射精为止）维系关系，不好男风者会被社群孤立。
长颈鹿、瓶鼻海豚、杀人鲸、黑鲸和美洲海牛都有雄性群交行为，日本猕猴则流行激情的女同性恋。雌性的倭黑猩猩（与人类最接近的灵长类动物之一）更厉害，每两小时便要亲热一番；雄性更是神乎其技，以“阴茎剑击”的方式性交竟也可以射精，另外又懂得手交。
同性恋并非基因疾病
拉夫加登指出，同性恋既然如此普遍，便不会是阻碍动物适应环境的特徵，反而可以协助动物适应。她批评，把同性恋说成“常见的基因疾病”是自相矛盾的说法──基因的常见现象也算是病吗？她指出，同性恋比亨丁顿舞蹈症等名副其实的遗传病常见三、四级。
拉夫加登认为同性恋是同性情谊的必然副作用。同性恋随着脊椎动物群体的演化而越趋普遍。拉夫加登甚至指出，同性恋是进步的动物社群的象徵现象。
singaporeeyes on Wed, 15th Jul 2009 2:22 pm
Outsider: Admit you’re just a straight guy who gets turned on by women having sex and whose small brain can’t understand that males having sex can be as wonderful and healthy than your frog in the well view.