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

[daelm]

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.

i laughed like a drain for about fifteen minutes. thank you.

[Malcolm]

Oh, an in mexico, they marry alligators:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tized.html

[MalaBeads]

Hello everyone,

Sorry to say but i havent read the whole thread. I dont really need to because i know where i am with this one - keep the thread open! (btw, the last few posts were pretty funny but i wonder if the opening poster thought so).

Perhaps later i will post a link from an interview i saw with lama Chime Radhu. He thinks buddhism in the west is at a crossroads and really urges more loving kindness and compassion. I couldnt agree more.

I have never understood why people get so worked up about love between anyone at all. But you know, different strokes, etc. Everyone has a different viewpoint, a different experience. C'est la vie.

Cheers, ciao, whatever floats your boat, so to speak.

[plwk]

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.

That reminds me of Mel Brooks...

phpBB [video]

[Urgyen Dorje]

Exactly. Which is why it's inconceivable that a man could marry a man. I mean, really. Really. What are we thinking?

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.

[nilakantha]

Being gay, I don't see any reason to ban the topic. Since we all should give up sex anyway, being gay has been a great prod in getting me to practice seriosly. Married men have a harder time giving up sex, seeing that they can have normal sexual intercourse with their wives. Family life being closed to gay men, we don't need to navigate the difficulties of being chate with a wife in the house. We can adopt a life of chaste celibacy without family pressure.

[nilakantha]

I think there is a meta-thread woven into this.

There is a fundamental difference between law and ethics. Law always subscribes a larger circle than ethics, as it must provide the liberty and freedom for people to make their own moral choices. I'm a Buddhist and for the most part a conservative one. I feel it is immoral to cheat on one's wife. While that is an ethical position that I embrace, I would be against legislation against it. The same goes for a variety of things. I feel abortion is immoral, as is hunting animals. I am similarly against legislation banning them. That isn't because I don't find them to be immoral, but rather I feel human rights and liberties must be protected so that people can make their own choices and their own moral decisions.

I agree that there is a certain inherent problem with fixating on rights, and I'll bring this up-- as opposed to fixating on responsibilities. You're right, the Buddhist tradition does not spend much time discussing human rights, but it does spend time discussing human responsibilities. Personally I find that the fixation on personal liberties at the expense of personal responsibilities a form of narcissism. I also recognize that it can be a black hole that becomes all consuming. I see this in the conduct and outlook of many young people I teach. They feel entitled to everything (perceived rights) and on the hook for nothing (negation of responsibilities). I also see this in the Buddhist circles I am involved with. People want teachings, but they don't want to do anything to support the center or the lama. They also want to practice dharma without modifying their conduct in any way. I don't feel that is a way to practice dharma.

So I guess when we talk about homosexuality, we have to decide if we're talking about law or Buddhist practice. The SCOTUS decision is about law, and must draw a boundary much wider than any ethical conduct of any religious practitioner.

I'm more than willing to discuss the Buddhist ethics of sexuality, homosexuality included. I've gone through these things with the khenpo I study with. A trigger for me is that Buddhists seem too willing to discuss the ethics of homosexuality, but seldom to discuss the ethics of heterosexuality or sexuality in general.

But when it comes to law, we should be grateful for any ruling on the side of natural human rights. It wasn't that long ago that my ancestors were put in ovens for their religious beliefs.

My position is that rights arise dependent on the need to recognize them. To the best of my knowledge they do not appear in any Buddhist treatise. There are clearly benefits for us in recognizing them, but then there are pitfalls, and there is also a need to understand what their limits are viz-a-viz territories – a concept no-one here has yet taken me up on.

As Mahayana Buddhists we have a duty to both the Dharma and the wider society to make it more open to the Dharma. In the Lion's Roar of Queen Śrimālā we're told:

Lord, from now on, and until I attain enlightenment, I hold to this ninth vow, that when I see persons with sinful occupations such as dealing in pigs, and those who violate the Doctrine and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathāgata, I shall not take it lightly, and wherever my residence in towns, villages, cities, districts, and capitals, I shall destroy what should be destroyed and shall foster what should be fostered. Why so? Lord, by destroying and by fostering, the Illustrious Doctrine will long remain in the world, the bodies of gods and men will thrive, and evil destinies will fade. And the Lord, having turned the Wheel of the Doctrine, will continue to turn the Wheel of the Doctrine.

The killings of human beings and animals must be stopped, as well as the general immoral tone of the West, if we truly want the Saddharma to spread. This, of course, means putting an end to abortion.

In the Brahma Net Sutra, we're further told:

If a disciple of the Buddha should see any being violate the Five Precepts, the Eight Precepts, the Ten Precepts, other prohibitions, or commit any of the Seven Cardinal Sins or any offense which leads to the Eight Adversities -- any violations of the precepts whatever -- he should counsel the offender to repent and reform.

Practicing abortion will lead all involved, the child included, to at least one of the Eight Adversities in the next life, as Bodhisattvas, why wouldn't we work individually with those involved and publicly against a policy that will damn so many to the hells? The same applies to hunting, butchering and any of the other sins of the body.

[Dan74]

I don't think anyone is damned to hell, nilakantha. Karma is primarily about intention according to what I've learned. That said cultivating compassion for the mother, the foetus and all involved can only be a good thing, IMO. But compassion goes together with understanding, empathy, not so much judgment and condemnation.

_/|\_

[ClearblueSky]

Since we all should give up sex anyway,

False (for many practitioners).

Family life being closed to gay men,

False (in many countries).

[Simon E.]

Being gay, I don't see any reason to ban the topic. Since we all should give up sex anyway, being gay has been a great prod in getting me to practice seriosly. Married men have a harder time giving up sex, seeing that they can have normal sexual intercourse with their wives. Family life being closed to gay men, we don't need to navigate the difficulties of being chate with a wife in the house. We can adopt a life of chaste celibacy without family pressure.

Do we have a Hindu background by any chance ?

Ken Wilbur, who is in many ways an unreliable guide, nevertheless coined a useful concept. Traditions he said, are body positive or body negative. HInduism is in the main body negative ..it sees sexuality and the enjoyment of food ( for example ) as obstacles that have to be kept in severe check or eliminated.
The Vajrayana traditions are a series of schools of Buddhadharma which are body positive, in that they see all these processes as potentially skillful means to liberation.

[Kunzang]

Being gay, I don't see any reason to ban the topic. Since we all should give up sex anyway, being gay has been a great prod in getting me to practice seriosly. Married men have a harder time giving up sex, seeing that they can have normal sexual intercourse with their wives. Family life being closed to gay men, we don't need to navigate the difficulties of being chate with a wife in the house. We can adopt a life of chaste celibacy without family pressure.

I'm gay and gay married. We have a son whose grown up now and is (straight) married with three children. Gay people can definitely have a family life. In fact, most of the gay people I know do.

I hope eventually you're able to come to some point of acceptance of your life.

-sincerely Grandpa Kunzang

[rory]

Well said Grandfather Kunzang: my aged father and mother accept me and love me. I hope to have a partner and care for her always.

As for abortion, I really hope men will stop talking about this. They are 50% responsible but no religion blames men; in Roman Catholicism women are excommunicated for having an abortion whilst in Buddhism they supposedly go to hell. Of course nothing happens to the guilty males. So my thinking is men love to talk about the evils of abortion just like straights who are against gay marriage; its so easy as it is never their problem.

If you don't like abortion, go on male birth control and you won't make an unwanted child.
gassho
Rory

[nilakantha]

Being gay, I don't see any reason to ban the topic. Since we all should give up sex anyway, being gay has been a great prod in getting me to practice seriosly. Married men have a harder time giving up sex, seeing that they can have normal sexual intercourse with their wives. Family life being closed to gay men, we don't need to navigate the difficulties of being chate with a wife in the house. We can adopt a life of chaste celibacy without family pressure.

I'm gay and gay married. We have a son whose grown up now and is (straight) married with three children. Gay people can definitely have a family life. In fact, most of the gay people I know do.

I hope eventually you're able to come to some point of acceptance of your life.

-sincerely Grandpa Kunzang

The Buddhist teaching on sexual misconduct is spelled out pretty clearly by Tsongkhapa:

3. Sexual Misconduct

There are four possible bases of sexual misconduct: a person with whom you should not have intercourse, inappropriate body parts, inappropriate places, and inappropriate times. Those with whom one should not have intercourse in the case of men are women with whom you should not copulate, all men, and eunuchs. The Compendium of Determinations refers to the first:-"4 [1671
Those indicated in the sutras-such as your mother and those protected by mothers-are "those with whom you should not have intercourse."
The meaning of this is as the scholar Asvaghosa said:...
"Those with whom you should not copulate" Are those held by another, those having a religious insignia, Those under the protection of family or king, A prostitute who has been taken by another, And those related to youThese are the ones with whom you should not copulate.
"Those held by another" are others' wives. "Those who have a religious insignia" are renunciate women. "Those protected by family" are those who have not yet become brides and are protected by kinsfolk such as their fathers, who are protected by a father-inlaw or a mother-in-law, who are protected by a guard, or who-in the absence of these-are protected even by themselves. "Those protected by a king" or his representative are those concerning whom a punitive law has been laid down. The line stating that sex with a prostitute for whom another has paid is sexual misconduct shows that there is no sexual misconduct in hiring a prostitute yourself. The Great Elder also taught this in a similar way.
"Men," the second in the list of those with whom you should not have intercourse, refers both to oneself and to others.
Inappropriate body parts are body parts other than the vagina. The master Asvaghosa says:
What are inappropriate body parts? The mouth, the anus, the calves or Thighs pressed together, and the hand in motion.
This accords with what the Great Elder says :386
The "inappropriate body parts" are the mouth, the anus, the front or rear orifices of a boy or girl, and your own hand.
Inappropriate places are areas such as the vicinity of gurus, for instance; a place where there is a stupa; in the presence of many people; and on uneven or hard places that are harmful to the person with whom you are having intercourse. The Master Asvaghosa says:387
In this case, inappropriate places Are ones that are locations of the sublime teaching, Stupas, images, and the like, and bodhisattvas; And the vicinity of an abbot, a preceptor, or one's parents. Do not have intercourse in these inappropriate places. [168]
The Great Elder also taught this.
Inappropriate times are when the woman is menstruating, when she is at the end of a term of pregnancy, when she has an infant who is nursing, when she is observing a one-day vow, and when she has an illness which makes sexual intercourse inappropriate. Sexual intercourse is also inappropriate in excess of a proper amount. A proper amount is having intercourse up to five times a night. The master A§vaghosa says:'""
In that case, inappropriate times are when A woman is menstruating, pregnant, Has an infant, is unwilling, Is in pain or is unhappy and the like, Or is maintaining the eight-part one-day vow.

If there are authentic sutras or shastras that challenge this definition, please let me know what they are.

[nilakantha]

Well said Grandfather Kunzang: my aged father and mother accept me and love me. I hope to have a partner and care for her always.

As for abortion, I really hope men will stop talking about this. They are 50% responsible but no religion blames men; in Roman Catholicism women are excommunicated for having an abortion whilst in Buddhism they supposedly go to hell. Of course nothing happens to the guilty males. So my thinking is men love to talk about the evils of abortion just like straights who are against gay marriage; its so easy as it is never their problem.

If you don't like abortion, go on male birth control and you won't make an unwanted child.
gassho
Rory

Rory, as Mahayana Buddhists we are required to help sentient beings. As it says in the Srimala Sutra:

“Lord, from now on, and until I attain enlightenment, I hold to this ninth vow, that when I see persons with sinful occupations such as dealing in pigs, and those who violate the Doctrine and Discipline21 proclaimed by the Tathagata, I shall not take it lightly, and wherever my residence in towns, villages, cities, districts, and capitals, I shall destroy what should be destroyed and shall foster what should be fostered. Why so? Lord, by destroying and by fostering, the Illustrious Doctrine will long remain in the world, the bodies of gods and men will thrive, and evil destinies will fade. And the Lord, having turned the Wheel of the Doctrine, will continue to turn the Wheel of the Doctrine.

We should, the the greatest degree possible try to stop the killing of sentient beings by forcing slaughter houses and abortion clinics to close. As soon as the sperm, egg and gandharva come together, a complete human being is present. And, believe it or not, even Buddhists are not allowed to kill their children.

[joy&peace]

Hello everyone,

Sorry to say but i havent read the whole thread. I dont really need to because i know where i am with this one - keep the thread open! (btw, the last few posts were pretty funny but i wonder if the opening poster thought so).

Perhaps later i will post a link from an interview i saw with lama Chime Radhu. He thinks buddhism in the west is at a crossroads and really urges more loving kindness and compassion. I couldnt agree more.

I have never understood why people get so worked up about love between anyone at all. But you know, different strokes, etc. Everyone has a different viewpoint, a different experience. C'est la vie.

Cheers, ciao, whatever floats your boat, so to speak.

we're a'flyin thru space,
but it's not a race.

same here.
well said.



santidev!! hehe.

[DGA]

Well said Grandfather Kunzang: my aged father and mother accept me and love me. I hope to have a partner and care for her always.

As for abortion, I really hope men will stop talking about this. They are 50% responsible but no religion blames men; in Roman Catholicism women are excommunicated for having an abortion whilst in Buddhism they supposedly go to hell. Of course nothing happens to the guilty males. So my thinking is men love to talk about the evils of abortion just like straights who are against gay marriage; its so easy as it is never their problem.

If you don't like abortion, go on male birth control and you won't make an unwanted child.
gassho
Rory

Rory, as Mahayana Buddhists we are required to help sentient beings. As it says in the Srimala Sutra:

“Lord, from now on, and until I attain enlightenment, I hold to this ninth vow, that when I see persons with sinful occupations such as dealing in pigs, and those who violate the Doctrine and Discipline21 proclaimed by the Tathagata, I shall not take it lightly, and wherever my residence in towns, villages, cities, districts, and capitals, I shall destroy what should be destroyed and shall foster what should be fostered. Why so? Lord, by destroying and by fostering, the Illustrious Doctrine will long remain in the world, the bodies of gods and men will thrive, and evil destinies will fade. And the Lord, having turned the Wheel of the Doctrine, will continue to turn the Wheel of the Doctrine.

We should, the the greatest degree possible try to stop the killing of sentient beings by forcing slaughter houses and abortion clinics to close. As soon as the sperm, egg and gandharva come together, a complete human being is present. And, believe it or not, even Buddhists are not allowed to kill their children.

I agree with rory on this.

I want to reduce the number of abortions that happen on this planet to as close to zero as possible (it is sometimes a medically necessary procedure--samsara is awful, sorry). I don't think the way to do that is through outlawing it or shaming women or threatening doctors. The easiest way to bring the rate of abortion down is actually to teach girls how to read and write. Educating and empowering girls and women through education is the best contraception.

Further, eliminating violence toward women, which is something that is very much within the grasp of men to accomplish, is another sure way to reduce unplanned pregnancies. I could go into more detail here and show you the scholarship, but that's not the topic of this thread.

[joy&peace]

Wisdom, beloved DGA :sun:


I always enjoy your posts very much, as they are kind, graceful, and peaceful - with so many issues in the world today -- let us focus on some of the more pressing ones --


Shutting off the war machine, Reaching harmony with the other species, and reducing pollution.


This is how beautiful -------- everything ---------- in the universe is:







Beauty is quite subjective -- once the h'art mind is transformed, then the world is transformed. Homosexuality is seen in most other mammals in many cases, thus implying it is most likely a natural thing.


Namaste,
and Peace.



'Smile to your sorrow, because you are more than your sorrow.' -Thich Nhat Hanh

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

... stop talking ... 50% responsible ...

If I'm half responsible for anything I get to talk about it.

[joy&peace]

when in fact we are more like 100% responsible for it, for our lives, for every inch of what occurs - then the burden is lifted, and we may walk peacefully, and walking peacefully is indeed a great act of peace.

[tingdzin]

Nilakantha:

Pardon me for being direct, but quoting scripture as if that could answer every human problem is an immature approach; and is an attitude is especially found either among people who are new converts to a religion and full of holy zeal, or who want a cookbook of rules that they can follow because their own lives are such a mess (I don't necessarily include you in this latter because I don't know you). Generally, this has not been the approach that Buddhists have taken historically, in any Buddhist culture. Those who have considerable experience with life in the world, and who have a balanced and sane inner life are seldom if ever fundamentalists. I once had a Buddhist teacher who said that when Buddhists start shouting out "We are the best!", Buddhism would be no different from other religions.

I once worked with a young Christian evangelical type who was always going on about Biblical inerrancy. I asked him what he thought the difference was in approach between himself and the Islamic radicals who are tearing up a good part of the world. He said, "Well, I'm right, and they're wrong." An honest answer, but hardly satisfactory to anyone who believes in critical thinking.

Don't we already have enough trouble with people who are ready and willing to impose their own beliefs on others with force?