May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity...

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
Malcolm
Posts: 31143
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:06 am

maybay wrote: Put that way, it would seem each court case is something to be regretted. Is that the response you've seen?
Image

Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Urgyen Dorje » Sun Jul 19, 2015 3:37 am

maybay wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:Regarding compassion-- it doesn't necessarily have to be about niceness and getting along and having pie together. Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said this. There is a time and place to stand up for what is good and just.
Well given that the ruling was last month let me be the first to offer you a seat.
Try to grok me here... a SCOTUS ruling doesn't change the fabric of society with the strike of the gavel. Hatred towards LBGT people is alive and well, and burning pretty hot after the SCOTUS decision. I'm not sitting down. The road to LBGT rights is far from over.
maybay wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:There is no guarantee or expectation that any court case should end amicably. That is not the intention of courts.
Put that way, it would seem each court case is something to be regretted. Is that the response you've seen?
Yes, I think it is tragic. I would like to think that the second paragraph of the US Declaration of Independence should be enough: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." But that's not been the case, and that is what is tragic. In the case of slavery the implications of these ideas were evident from the publishing of the document in 1776, but it wasn't until 1 January 1863 (emancipation) that black people became "men". It's tragic that we have to go to SCOTUS in 2015 for gay men and women to be a step closer to being as human as the rest of us. Yes. Tragic.
maybay wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:The SCOTUS ruling doesn't depreive anyone of anything. It rules that states can't deny same sex indviduals the right to enter into this contract known as "marriage". People disagreeing with the ruling are effectively saying that gay people should be deprived of right
My understanding is that they say marriage, like pro-creation, is not a function of two people of the same sex. It's very different when you try to view from the perspective of rights.
I understand that social conseratives, especially religious social conseratives, believe that marriage is defined by the pro-creative function of heterosexual unions. There are plenty of reasons to see that as nonsense, some that I myself take exception to as a straight male: my wife and I had no intention of having children, so do we not have a "marriage"?

Also, people have any number beliefs about society. That divorce should not be allowed. That people should not marry outside their races. That religious law should be imposed on society. That athiests should not have certain rights. Which of these should be entertained? All of them to make everyone happy? It is the spirit of a pluralistic society to entertain none of them so that everyone has space to make their own ethical and spiritual choices.
maybay wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:I appreciate that conservatives are upset about this. As a Buddhist there are a lot of things about our society I don't like.
On that point, I wonder how you see your vaunted concept of rights safe-guarding the environment?
I think the American conception of "rights" is destroying the very political fabric of our society as well as the environment, not because of individual liberties, but because we've made the decision, a decision defended by SCOTUS, to recognize corporations as individuals, and thus their corporate political activism is protected speech. American government is beholden to corporate interests, and thus the core of American military industrial hegemony.

For the record, it's not MY CONCEPT of rights. There's a long history to the concept of "natural rights" which came as a reaction to the concept of legal rights originating from divine-right monarchs. The American founding fathers copped this from enlightenment thought, largely the French Revolution. There's no way to escape this. It's history.

If you want to have a conversation about the 100 ways this society is morally bankrupt, I'm game. Sign me up. But I follow my teacher Garchen Rinpoche in appreciating America as a place well suited to practice dharma.

Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Urgyen Dorje » Sun Jul 19, 2015 3:38 am

Malcolm: Epic use of graphic aids.

Top shelf. Mint.

:bow:

Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Urgyen Dorje » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:02 am

I don't mean to bust chops on this subject. I'm long far too jaded to call myself any sort of advocate, that ship has long sailed. But I'll defend anybody being alienated, marginalized, or degraded for simply being who they are. As Buddhists, we don't know what karma brings us to this place and time as we are, so nobody should feel empowered to smite anyone for that as we're all in the same boat.

Life is hard in samsara, and if somebody finds an ally in that, we should rejoice. What great karma is that? To find somebody that loves one? I can't think of anything more beautiful to rejoice in the merit of. As a Buddhist I also know that can be a source of suffering, but we are all in the same boat, straight or gay. No different.

I'm sure that makes me a devil to some, encouraging activities that send one to hell (by not condemning them). So be it. I'll be in good company. None of my teachers-- old traditional Tibetan men for the most part-- seem to really care less about homosexuality. As one told me, "us Tibetans have a problem with politics, you Americans have a problem with sex". I think they'd just rather we all just get over it-- it's just sex.

I bring in American democracy and the concept of natural rights largely because of the SCOTUS decision, but because dharma is being practiced more and more in western pluralistic societies that are influenced by either American democracy, the French Revolution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or the enlightenment political thought behind all of that. People like Garchen Rinpoche, His Holiness the Karmapa, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama have really helped me appreciate that these ideas are of one taste (at least in their philosophical isolation) with dharma. Got tathagatagarbha?-- got rights, should be treated with respect and dignity. Goes for the two legged, four legged and many legged. Trees too (are roots legs?).

Malcolm
Posts: 31143
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:43 pm

Urgyen Dorje wrote:Trees too (are roots legs?).
No, roots are the brains of a tree.
This year celebrates the 200th aniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, best known for his theory of evolution summarized in On the Origin of Species. Less well known is that, in the second half of his life, Darwin’s major scientific focus turned towards plants. He wrote several books on plants, the next-to-last of which, The Power of Movement of Plants, published together with his son Francis, opened plants to a new view. Here we amplify the final sentence of this book in which the Darwins proposed that: “It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle thus endowed [with sensitivity] and having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense-organs, and directing the several movements.” This sentence conveys two important messages: first, that the root apex may be considered to be a ‘brain-like’ organ endowed with a sensitivity which controls its navigation through soil; second, that the root apex represents the anterior end of the plant body. In this article, we discuss both these statements.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819436/

Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Urgyen Dorje » Sun Jul 19, 2015 6:36 pm

This is actually one of the most interesting things I've seen on DW.

We better make sure the trees can't get married. The horror, the horror.

Malcolm wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:Trees too (are roots legs?).
No, roots are the brains of a tree.
This year celebrates the 200th aniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, best known for his theory of evolution summarized in On the Origin of Species. Less well known is that, in the second half of his life, Darwin’s major scientific focus turned towards plants. He wrote several books on plants, the next-to-last of which, The Power of Movement of Plants, published together with his son Francis, opened plants to a new view. Here we amplify the final sentence of this book in which the Darwins proposed that: “It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle thus endowed [with sensitivity] and having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense-organs, and directing the several movements.” This sentence conveys two important messages: first, that the root apex may be considered to be a ‘brain-like’ organ endowed with a sensitivity which controls its navigation through soil; second, that the root apex represents the anterior end of the plant body. In this article, we discuss both these statements.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819436/

Malcolm
Posts: 31143
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jul 19, 2015 6:56 pm

Urgyen Dorje wrote:This is actually one of the most interesting things I've seen on DW.

We better make sure the trees can't get married. The horror, the horror.
A tree is currently getting more action than a lot of men out there.

According to news.com.au, Emma McCabe, 31, told Closer magazine she has found the most satisfying sexual relationship she’s ever had in a tall poplar tree she has named Tim.

McCabe intends to marry the tree because all of her relationships with humans have failed miserably.
http://elitedaily.com/news/world/woman- ... ex/977768/

Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Urgyen Dorje » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:02 pm

I'm down with that. Dendrophelia.

But... Gasp... *the cold flush of fear*... Is it a FEMALE tree she married???
Malcolm wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:This is actually one of the most interesting things I've seen on DW.

We better make sure the trees can't get married. The horror, the horror.
A tree is currently getting more action than a lot of men out there.

According to news.com.au, Emma McCabe, 31, told Closer magazine she has found the most satisfying sexual relationship she’s ever had in a tall poplar tree she has named Tim.

McCabe intends to marry the tree because all of her relationships with humans have failed miserably.
http://elitedaily.com/news/world/woman- ... ex/977768/

Malcolm
Posts: 31143
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:07 pm

Urgyen Dorje wrote:I'm down with that. Dendrophelia.

But... Gasp... *the cold flush of fear*... Is it a FEMALE tree she married???

Transgendered, I think... :stirthepot:

theanarchist
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:26 pm

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by theanarchist » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:14 pm

Urgyen Dorje wrote:I'm down with that. Dendrophelia.

But... Gasp... *the cold flush of fear*... Is it a FEMALE tree she married???
Malcolm wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:This is actually one of the most interesting things I've seen on DW.

We better make sure the trees can't get married. The horror, the horror.
A tree is currently getting more action than a lot of men out there.

According to news.com.au, Emma McCabe, 31, told Closer magazine she has found the most satisfying sexual relationship she’s ever had in a tall poplar tree she has named Tim.

McCabe intends to marry the tree because all of her relationships with humans have failed miserably.
http://elitedaily.com/news/world/woman- ... ex/977768/
There are plant species that have male and female individuals. For example the Ginko

Malcolm
Posts: 31143
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:21 pm

theanarchist wrote:
There are plant species that have male and female individuals. For example the Ginko
Yes, this is common knowledge.

Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Urgyen Dorje » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:28 pm

Emmah married a poplar which are dioecious-- male and female flowers on different trees.

*suddenly concerned*

looks for stamens...

*gasp*

dreambow
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:59 am

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by dreambow » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:14 am

Ok...ho hum. Look at me, look at me! Emma McCabe another shameless grab for attention and publicity.
Of course the family didn't want to comment as they would have preferred to jump on a magic carpet ride and disappear.

Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Urgyen Dorje » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:21 am

It's a tabloid article.

Which means it's a joke.

Which is why we're laughting at it.

Because it's funny.
dreambow wrote:Ok...ho hum. Look at me, look at me! Emma McCabe another shameless grab for attention and publicity.
Of course the family didn't want to comment as they would have preferred to jump on a magic carpet ride and disappear.

User avatar
rory
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:08 am
Location: SouthEast USA

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by rory » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:07 am

I think the Druids would be down with tree marriage.
Namu Kanzeon Bosatsu
Chih-I:
The Tai-ching states "the women in the realms of Mara, Sakra and Brahma all neither abandoned ( their old) bodies nor received (new) bodies. They all received buddhahood with their current bodies (genshin)" Thus these verses state that the dharma nature is like a great ocean. No right or wrong is preached (within it) Ordinary people and sages are equal, without superiority or inferiority
Paul, Groner "The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture"eds. Tanabe p. 58
https://www.tendai-usa.org/

tingdzin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by tingdzin » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:14 am

It used to be the custom among the Newars of Nepal to marry girls to a bel tree, so that if their human marriages failed later for whatever reason, they would not be widows.

If a young woman dies prematurely in Thailand, sometimes she is married to a spirit that abides in a tree so she won't be alone in the next life.

User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Nepal

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Zhen Li » Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:18 am

I should probably point out that the Newar rite of Ihi is to marry the daughter to the bel fruit, rather than the tree.

One should also be aware of the bahra tayegu rite, which is the concealment of a girl for 11 days, and marriage to the sun on the 12th day.

Thus, as may be a vestige of Himalayan polyandry, the Newar woman typically has three husbands. Divorce is also much easier in Newar culture than Parbatiya culture, and involves the wife returning the betel nut given to her at marriage, to the husband, usually on his pillow. Since the woman is never without a husband, it's often said there is less stigma than in other cultures. Of course there is stigma, as divorce is always a fairly serious matter.
:anjali:

User avatar
mañjughoṣamaṇi
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:26 pm
Location: ཟི་ལིང་། མཚོ་སྔོན་ཞིང་ཆེན།
Contact:

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by mañjughoṣamaṇi » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:03 am

tingdzin wrote:It used to be the custom among the Newars of Nepal to marry girls to a bel tree, so that if their human marriages failed later for whatever reason, they would not be widows.
An old co-worker of mine, a Sikh gentleman now in his 30's, was married to a tree before marrying his wife after an astrologer noted that his first marriage would be problematic.
སེམས་རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བར་བྱའི་ཕྱིར་བྱམས་པ་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱའོ།
“In order to completely liberate the mind, cultivate loving kindness.” -- Maitribhāvana Sūtra

"The bottom always falls out of the quest for the elementary. The irreducibly individual recedes like the horizon, as our analysis advances." -- Genesis, Michel Serres

tingdzin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by tingdzin » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:34 pm

Yes, you're right of course, Zhen Li -- thanks for the correction.

Malcolm
Posts: 31143
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: May be its time to ban discussion about Homosexuallity..

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:47 pm

So I guess what it boils down to is this: traditionally the institution of marriage is between one man and one woman, one man and one tree, one women and one fruit, several brothers and one women, several women and one man and so on.

Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests