Same Sex Marriage: For or Against? The Buddhist Views
-
……To sum up, early Buddhism is well aware of homosexual acts, and never treats them as an ethical problem. Homosexuality as a sexual orientation is not found.
This is completely in line with the Buddha’s take on ethics. The Buddha did not ethically judge persons, he judged deeds. People are simply people, who do various kinds of things, some good, some bad. If a person does a deed that causes harm, this is what the Buddha considered ‘unskilful’. If the deed causes no harm, it is not unskilful.
Read more here…..
"Why Buddhists should support marriage equality"
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/1430/..… and this video by Ajahn Brahm on the subject of gay marriage:
http://youtu.be/GOPcbFhCEj0
Do you agree with their takes on the subject?
-
I am leaning towards a liberal view.
-
Is not recognising a same sex marriage the same as not recognising a same sex union?Are we going to lump the two issues together?!! People are going have relationship and sexual union, eg. fucking with one another, whether out of wedlock or not, or same sex or not! Marriage as an institution to safeguard progenies arising out of such an union. There is a difference between a sexual union and pro creation. Should we afford bestowing such a recognition for an evolutionary dead end sexual union?!! Since time immemorial, children born out of wedlock, eg. bastards, is discriminated upon as compared to those born in wedlock! There will be not birth right issues, as same sex union is not a self perpetuating basic family unit!
-
-
Originally posted by Summer hill:
Is the proclamation above meant to seriously : 1. Discriminate against same sex union, or 2. Ridicule those against same sex union, or 3. Amusement for those without strong views for either? -
Originally posted by Weychin:
Is the proclamation above meant to seriously : 1. Discriminate against same sex union, or 2. Ridicule those against same sex union, or 3. Amusement for those without strong views for either?2.
the picture is sacarism at its very best.
which says that we should accept gay marriage
-
From wikileaks
Classified By: Ambassador Patricia L. Herbold for reason 1.4(d)
Lee Kuan Yew: the Liberalizer?
------------------------------
2. (C ) 2007 turned out not to be a breakthrough year for gay
rights in Singapore, disappointing advocates who had hoped
for a major change. Since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
came to office in 2004, the Government of Singapore (GOS) has
consciously loosened social controls in an effort to give the
country a reputation for "buzz," even as the government has
maintained tight political controls (Ref B.) The government
has promoted the arts, licensed casinos, permitted racy
billboards, and even allowed topless revues. This could not
have happened without at least the tacit approval of Minister
Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who still towers over Singapore public
life seventeen years after passing on the premiership.
Still, some have wondered how comfortable LKY is with these
changes, given his reputation for "Victorian" sensibilities.
3. (SBU) So it was a bit surprising when LKY helped spark a
public debate through a series of public comments about
homosexuality, beginning with a meeting early this year with
young ruling party activists at a popular night club. As
reported in the press, LYK told the group, "You take this
business of homosexuality. If in fact it is true that you
are genetically born a homosexual because that's the nature
of the genetic random transmission of genes, you can't help
it. So why should we criminalize it? You have to take a
practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable
force of time and circumstance." In August, LKY told New
York Times interviewers that liberalized policies toward gays
in Singapore was a "matter of time." But due to the
sensitivities of "conservative older" Muslim, Chinese and
Indian segments of the population, Singapore would take an
"ambiguous" position, he added. "We say, O.K., leave them
alone, but let's leave the law as it is for the time being."Petitioning the GOS
-------------------
4. (C ) Notwithstanding LKY's foreshadowing of the outcome,
activists and bloggers quickly took up the cause in an effort
to have Article 377A, banning sex between men, repealed as
part of the broader penal code reform. (Note: There is no
provision of law in Singapore that bans sex between women,
but the idea that Article 377A involves gender discrimination
against men did not become a significant issue in the Article
377A debate. End Note.) An on-line petition appeared on a
gay rights group website, Global Voices Online, and was
widely circulated by email, eventually garnering nearly 3,000
signatures. While political apathy is the norm in Singapore,
many noteworthy citizens signed the petition, including
multinational company executives, engineers, teachers, local
media celebrities, as well as civil society activists. Alex
Au, co-founder of the gay rights organization "People Like
Us", told us he was pleased with the public response, and
noted that previous on-line petitions had not been
particularly effective in promoting change.
No Repeal
---------
5. (SBU) However, in the weeks leading up to the
parliamentary session, local media began to carry stories on
the conservative views of Singaporeans and their strong
support for traditional family values. The
government-influenced Straits Times newspaper published a
survey reporting that over two-thirds of Singaporeans held
negative attitudes toward homosexuality. MP Sin Boon Ann
observed in the article that the survey reflected the
traditional values of Singaporeans. After a long period of
public comment, the GOS submitted to Parliament in October
the final draft Penal Code revision bill, which retained
Section 377A.6. (U) When Parliament debated the Penal Code revision bill
and NMP Siew Kum Hong's petition later the same day, nine
ruling People's Action Party (PAP) MPs joined the debate to
support retention of Section 377A. The MPs said the petition
had prompted residents in their wards to contact them to
express their support for keeping the ban. MP Dr. Muhammad
Faishal claimed the Malay/Muslim community wanted to preserve
the traditional family unit at a time when it is threatened
by rising divorce rates, single-parent households and work
pressure. MP Ong Kian Min insisted that, "Singaporeans
simply are not ready to change their family values and
endorse homosexuality as normal." MP Hri Kumar agreed with
keeping Section 377A, but noted that it was "virtually
impossible" to enforce (There were only eight convictions
under 377A from 1988 to 2003, according to press reports.) -
Originally posted by Summer hill:
2.
the picture is sacarism at its very best.
which says that we should accept gay marriage
Thanks! But I"ll take the third! Anyway, I pride myself on being tolerant, with exception to the intolerant! Tee hee! -
not acceptable in the social norm..... but if they are in love, what can we say? be it gays or lesbians....watever the case, straights or crookeds.....be responsible to oneself and others....
-
I'm always very curious whether there are gays and lesbians in the olden days. It seems that the terms gays and lesbians are only heard of in our modern days. Any idea guys?
-
surely, there are notable gays and lesbians....though there are no discreet evidence.... Leonardo da Vinci is a suspected homosexual
-
Originally posted by Fcukpap:
surely, there are notable gays and lesbians….though there are no discreet evidence….
Leonardo da Vinci is a suspected homosexual
Oh........... I see. Thanks for sharing.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
I'm always very curious whether there are gays and lesbians in the olden days. It seems that the terms gays and lesbians are only heard of in our modern days. Any idea guys?
because it's more socially accepted now.
-
but i am really curious to know which era showed signs of gays/lesbianism.... it would be hilarious and surprising to know that it already began between cavemen or between cavewomen.... never say never..... The Evolution of the Same Sex by Fcukpap
-
Greeks, romans, us chinese for a period in history, the japanese... Probably a whole lot more.
-
thats right Jui....
-
Originally posted by Jui:
Greeks, romans, us chinese for a period in history, the japanese... Probably a whole lot more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Egypt
etc
-
AT's thread is always thought-provoking...
-
excellent thread!
Buddhism in its social engagement...
-
Originally posted by alize:
From wikileaks
Classified By: Ambassador Patricia L. Herbold for reason 1.4(d)
Lee Kuan Yew: the Liberalizer?
------------------------------
2. (C ) 2007 turned out not to be a breakthrough year for gay
rights in Singapore, disappointing advocates who had hoped
for a major change. Since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
came to office in 2004, the Government of Singapore (GOS) has
consciously loosened social controls in an effort to give the
country a reputation for "buzz," even as the government has
maintained tight political controls (Ref B.) The government
has promoted the arts, licensed casinos, permitted racy
billboards, and even allowed topless revues. This could not
have happened without at least the tacit approval of Minister
Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who still towers over Singapore public
life seventeen years after passing on the premiership.
Still, some have wondered how comfortable LKY is with these
changes, given his reputation for "Victorian" sensibilities.
3. (SBU) So it was a bit surprising when LKY helped spark a
public debate through a series of public comments about
homosexuality, beginning with a meeting early this year with
young ruling party activists at a popular night club. As
reported in the press, LYK told the group, "You take this
business of homosexuality. If in fact it is true that you
are genetically born a homosexual because that's the nature
of the genetic random transmission of genes, you can't help
it. So why should we criminalize it? You have to take a
practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable
force of time and circumstance." In August, LKY told New
York Times interviewers that liberalized policies toward gays
in Singapore was a "matter of time." But due to the
sensitivities of "conservative older" Muslim, Chinese and
Indian segments of the population, Singapore would take an
"ambiguous" position, he added. "We say, O.K., leave them
alone, but let's leave the law as it is for the time being."Petitioning the GOS
-------------------
4. (C ) Notwithstanding LKY's foreshadowing of the outcome,
activists and bloggers quickly took up the cause in an effort
to have Article 377A, banning sex between men, repealed as
part of the broader penal code reform. (Note: There is no
provision of law in Singapore that bans sex between women,
but the idea that Article 377A involves gender discrimination
against men did not become a significant issue in the Article
377A debate. End Note.) An on-line petition appeared on a
gay rights group website, Global Voices Online, and was
widely circulated by email, eventually garnering nearly 3,000
signatures. While political apathy is the norm in Singapore,
many noteworthy citizens signed the petition, including
multinational company executives, engineers, teachers, local
media celebrities, as well as civil society activists. Alex
Au, co-founder of the gay rights organization "People Like
Us", told us he was pleased with the public response, and
noted that previous on-line petitions had not been
particularly effective in promoting change.
No Repeal
---------
5. (SBU) However, in the weeks leading up to the
parliamentary session, local media began to carry stories on
the conservative views of Singaporeans and their strong
support for traditional family values. The
government-influenced Straits Times newspaper published a
survey reporting that over two-thirds of Singaporeans held
negative attitudes toward homosexuality. MP Sin Boon Ann
observed in the article that the survey reflected the
traditional values of Singaporeans. After a long period of
public comment, the GOS submitted to Parliament in October
the final draft Penal Code revision bill, which retained
Section 377A.6. (U) When Parliament debated the Penal Code revision bill
and NMP Siew Kum Hong's petition later the same day, nine
ruling People's Action Party (PAP) MPs joined the debate to
support retention of Section 377A. The MPs said the petition
had prompted residents in their wards to contact them to
express their support for keeping the ban. MP Dr. Muhammad
Faishal claimed the Malay/Muslim community wanted to preserve
the traditional family unit at a time when it is threatened
by rising divorce rates, single-parent households and work
pressure. MP Ong Kian Min insisted that, "Singaporeans
simply are not ready to change their family values and
endorse homosexuality as normal." MP Hri Kumar agreed with
keeping Section 377A, but noted that it was "virtually
impossible" to enforce (There were only eight convictions
under 377A from 1988 to 2003, according to press reports.)The marriage institution is a private arrangement between two individual parties. So long as it does not bring about any harm to the individuals concerned or to society at large, laws against homosexuality or same sex marriage should be repealed. Secular laws should be there for the benefit of all in a multi-racial society and not to be use by some as a tool to hold other hostage on issue that is not even of their concerns whether it is for reasons of their own personal moral values or because of their religious beliefs or teachings.
More importantly, by giving approval and recognizing to same sex marriage, it would give these people the same rights and access as normal married couples to such rights as subsidized housing and the right to adopt children to form their own nuclear family unit.
-
Don't go talking to Singaporeans about rights. They don't know any such concept.
-
I beg to differ in this instance, marriage as an institution is to be recognised by society at large. Marriage in civilised society is either sanctioned by state and religon or customary rites. For example, in Singapore, it is not uncommon for Christian couples to go through all three ceremonies, ROM, church wedding, tea ceremony. Also, wedding vows must have witnesses to make complete the vows and not forgetting the wedding banquet! Obviously, a wedding must be recognised by it's society before it(state or community) will accrue the union it's right to protection. For couple who cohabited without state sanctioning have common law wife/ husband status. Recognition by society is important.Originally posted by Aik TC:
The marriage institution is a private arrangement between two individual parties. So long as it does not bring about any harm to the individuals concerned or to society at large, laws against homosexuality or same sex marriage should be repealed. Secular laws should be there for the benefit of all in a multi-racial society and not to be use by some as a tool to hold other hostage on issue that is not even of their concerns whether it is for reasons of their own personal moral values or because of their religious beliefs or teachings.
More importantly, by giving approval and recognizing to same sex marriage, it would give these people the same rights and access as normal married couples to such rights as subsidized housing and the right to adopt children to form their own nuclear family unit.
-
I still refer to birthright of the future offspring, the need to protect the vulnerable, the baby and the long period he/she needs to become a fully fledged human being. As the same sex couple is unable to bear offspring, why should it demand and deprive couples with offsprings of social care intended to perpetuate the community and species. Please understand the same sex and man/ women sexual do not have the same end game! Adoption must compatible with contemporary social mores! Also gender roles for species propogation must be considered, the expectation of one's social role when one becomes another's parent. Currently, the more common family unit is a patriachal one!
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
I beg to differ in this instance, marriage as an institution is to be recognised by society at large. Marriage in civilised society is either sanctioned by state and religon or customary rites. For example, in Singapore, it is not uncommon for Christian couples to go through all three ceremonies, ROM, church wedding, tea ceremony. Also, wedding vows must have witnesses to make complete the vows and not forgetting the wedding banquet! Obviously, a wedding must be recognised by it's society before it(state or community) will accrue the union it's right to protection. For couple who cohabited without state sanctioning have common law wife/ husband status. Recognition by society is important.
But society is not always right. That's why the definition of marriage is an evolving one. It used to include polygamy and exclude inter-racial marriage, as accepted by society.
-
To press the case further,I believe most of us would have heard of stories of some guy, usually a teenager, asked to take responsibility for a very pregnant girl, usually also teenager. The urgency for the case for marriage is more for pregnancy rather than the consumation of union. Fornification, out of sight and mind, is usually conveniently, side stepped, but not if it involve another life, the unborn infant!