Same Sex Marriage: For or Against? The Buddhist Views
-
Haha. Okay, then. if you have any faith in your views, then let them stand here for all to see.
Since you say society's opinion is so important, let the opinion of society be the judge. :)
-
im neutral to this matter as i believe there are worst marraiges out there.
u sure Mr Lee is against gay marraiges? there is a lubricant name ky out in the market
-
I am disgusted by your hypocrisy. You are bigoted and oppressive. Let's see some of your quotes:
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!
This is obviously an emotional issue for you! But not for me!
It is possible that you have been discriminated by some at some point, therefore crave some official sanctioning of who you are!
-
I do not want you to impugn my character anymore, also I'm sorry that you are unable to further advance your view points constructively! You could have expressed commonality in both unions, social participation and interest in reinforcing of community bonds social values and inclusiveness etc. Benefits of such recognition of an institution can bring to society. If you are indeed representative of such a community, do not project it such that you are be me, me, me, I, I, I mindset, give me my dues, my share all the time! Also just because what I have expressed sounds unpalatable, but ask yourself whether any statements you have listed is factually is untrue?!
-
I have addressed your community-based argument by society once allowed polygamous marriages and disallowed inter-racial marriages. That was bigoted and oppressive. By disallowing gay marriage, you are the same.
You accused me of being emotionally involved with the issue, I didn't describe you first. Your posts are the ones full of emotional exclamation marks and claims that gay marriage will dilute your matrimonial values, hence you deny them equal status.
Your claim that state resources should be given to couples who can have children: Gays don't want state resources, they just want the dignity of marriage rights. The Govt allows unmarried singles who don't produce children to team up and buy HDB flats. And gays pay tax as equally as everyone else.
Every single statement I have made is factually true. From the legal status of married gays to the fact of all marriages being civil unions in Singapore. It is reality and you can check with a lawyer.
-
You could have expressed commonality in both unions, social participation and interest in reinforcing of community bonds social values and inclusiveness etc. Benefits of such recognition of an institution can bring to society.
> Is your being intolerant very constructive to society?
If you are indeed representative of such a community, do not project it such that you are be me, me, me, I, I, I mindset, give me my dues, my share all the time!
> No one can understand this sentence.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
In Gampopa Jewel Ornament of Liberation, it states that sex committed, orally and anally constitutes an unwholesome act. However, I take this to be meant for practitioners, eg. monks. Also, I am not sure whether it is suscribe to sapphism!
u meant for lay "married" buddhists? monks cannot even have any form of "proper" sex.indeed:-
The current Dalai Lama follows the traditional Tibetan Buddhist assertion that inappropriate sexual behaviour includes lesbian and gay sex, and indeed any sex other than penis-vagina intercourse with one's own monogamous partner, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Buddhism
same standing with lated Ven Hsuan Hua.
though "inappropriate sexual behaviour" and wholesome/unwholesome act (conducive to liberation) can be understood differently from the advance tantric P.O.V. where 'unwholesome act' is use to conduce liberation.
/\
-
These have been addressed before, all the unions you mentioned with exception of same sex union have the potential of raising a family! Using exclamation mark is just a way of highlighting, with dramatizing effect! It is just my style of writing! You read into it too much!! You, as a proponent for gay marriage should highlight the discrimination suffered by gays as opposed to an individual. Why the neccessity of a state recognised marriage, issues of estate, etc. Issues that cannot be addressed without such! Please when you form a community, with a wider context of a society. Have your individual rights been compromised?! If they are, what are they! What the obstacles faced from being homosexual. Dealing with issues need not be in your face, skilful means is called for! Please bring forth the legal issues homosexual faced here, instead asking others to look for it!Originally posted by alize:
I have addressed your community-based argument by society once allowed polygamous marriages and disallowed inter-racial marriages. That was bigoted and oppressive. By disallowing gay marriage, you are the same.
You accused me of being emotionally involved with the issue, I didn't describe you first. Your posts are the ones full of emotional exclamation marks and claims that gay marriage will dilute your matrimonial values, hence you deny them equal status.
Your claim that state resources should be given to couples who can have children: Gays don't want state resources, they just want the dignity of marriage rights. The Govt allows unmarried singles who don't produce children to team up and buy HDB flats. And gays pay tax as equally as everyone else.
Every single statement I have made is factually true. From the legal status of married gays to the fact of all marriages being civil unions in Singapore. It is reality and you can check with a lawyer.
-
I've made the assumption as Lord Gampopa, incorporated teachings of Milarepa with monasticsm. Also, most of the Tibetan laity are illiterate and most of the teachings, until recently, are meant for monks! Also, those who do not take vows of celibacy! Perhaps, I make too many conjectures!Originally posted by sinweiy:
u meant for lay "married" buddhists? monks cannot even have any form of "proper" sex.indeed:-
The current Dalai Lama follows the traditional Tibetan Buddhist assertion that inappropriate sexual behaviour includes lesbian and gay sex, and indeed any sex other than penis-vagina intercourse with one's own monogamous partner, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Buddhism
same standing with lated Ven Hsuan Hua.
though "inappropriate sexual behaviour" and wholesome/unwholesome act (conducive to liberation) can be understood differently from the advance tantric P.O.V. where 'unwholesome act' is use to conduce liberation.
/\
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
I've made the assumption as Lord Gampopa, incorporated teachings of Milarepa with monasticsm. Also, most of the Tibetan laity are illiterate and most of the teachings, until recently, are meant for monks! Also, those who do not take vows of celibacy! Perhaps, I make too many conjectures!
oh, and i was from Buddhism norm that desire is the cause of suffering and is not conducive to liberation.
recently i heard from Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse's talk that his tradition is special that he can get married. and i wonder if i heard it correctly!
kind of think of it, i did a search about Vajrayana and Celibacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_Buddhism#Celibacy_and_monasticism
Not all lamas are monks or nuns, and celibacy is not a requirement for teaching in most Tibetan Buddhist denominations. However, in the denomination to which His Holiness Dalai Lama belongs, celibacy is the rule.
---------------------------------------
Nepalese Newar Buddhism
Newar Buddhism is practiced by Newars in Nepal. This is the only form of Vajrayana Buddhism in which the scriptures are written in Sanskrit. Its priests do not follow celibacy and are called Vajracharyas.--------------------------------------The rule of celibacy in the Buddhist religion, whether Mahayana or Theravada, has a long history. Celibacy was advocated as an ideal rule of life for all monks and nuns by Gautama Buddha, except for Japan where it is not strictly followed due to historical political developments following the Meiji Restoration. In Japan, celibacy was an ideal among Buddhist clerics for thousands of years. But violations of clerical celibacy were so common for so long that, finally, in 1872, state laws made marriage legal for Buddhist clerics. Subsequently, ninety percent of Buddhist monks/clerics married.------------------like this:-Celibacy and Tantric Buddhism by HHDLhttp://www.vopus.org/en/gnosis/alchemy/celibacy-and-tantric-buddhism.html/\ -
You should address the allegations against you and state why you should not be considered oppressive and bigoted.
And convincingly explain the basis to deny equal rights to "couples who don't procreate". Nobody is asking for state resources or special treatment, you made up that point yourself.
Quote weychin: As for building casinos, as long as most people benefit in some way, status quo will remain.
Casinos are desytroyers of vulnerable lives and families. Any gains that people make from the casinos are ill-gotten.
Anyway they are a completely separate issue from gay marriage. Only you stupidly try to justify banning gay marriage by downplaying their effect. Is there any link? Why should anyone listen to you for moral standards? Siao.
Quote weychin: Using exclamation mark is just a way of highlighting, with dramatizing effect! It is just my style of writing! You read into it too much!!
In every sentence you've typed so far? You do have emotional stability issues.
-
Questions for late Venerable Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda
What is the Buddhist attitude towards homosexuality?
Dear LLL, Thank you for your e-mail. I am happy that you have brought up this matter as I realise how important it is in the context of what is happening today in the world. As human beings, we have bodies that crave for all kinds of pleasures (not only sex) - for food, pleasant smells, sounds, etc. If we deny ourselves these as being sinful, then we repress natural desires. Instead of repressing these natural desires, we must seek to understand how and why they arise and to realise that it is not in our best interests to pander to physical desires. The victim of maya (illusion) sees the body as real and craves to satisfy a longing for kama which covers all kinds of sensual pleasure. As the being matures spiritually, maya is replaced with vidya (knowledge) and panna (wisdom). With spiritual maturity, the body is seen as an illusion and the being naturally grows out of craving. Here we see the spiritually advanced being renounces sex upon maturity, just as a child stops playing with toys as he or she grows up. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with sex. What is wrong is attachment and slavery to it, in believing that indulgence in sex can bring ultimate happiness. This is the problem with the exploitation of sex by the mass entertainment industry today - extending the myth that sex can bring lasting happiness. The third of the Five Precepts we recite in daily Buddhist practice is: “I undertake the training rule to refrain from sexual misconduct.” First, we note that there is no compulsion, no fear of punishment for infringement of any divine law but rather, when we recognise the danger of attachment to sex, we freely take the steps (training rule) to grow out of it, i.e. “I undertake.” In short, homosexuality is no different from other forms of sexual activity. They all have inherent dangers of increasing tanha (craving) and must be avoided through the development of Samma Ditthi (Right Understanding) and by following the Majjhima Patipada (Middle Path).
http://www.ksridhammananda.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=44
Is a Buddhist homosexual breaking the precept on "avoiding sexual misconduct?"
What do we mean by "sexual misconduct?" Here we are referring specifically to behaviour that harms the person who performs the act, or the other party - not all sexual conduct. Sex is prohibited to those who choose to be celibate e.g. monks or nuns. These persons have voluntarily chosen to abstain from sex to better concentrate on their spiritual progress. In a sexual relationship, if the two parties are consenting adults, not under-aged, not “attached” (legally or otherwise) to someone else, there is no harm done. In Buddhism, we do not consider any action "sinful" in the sense that we transgress a divine commandment. We act wrongly because of avijja (ignorance) and therefore we commit an akusala kamma (unskillful/bad action) that delays or interferes with our spiritual progress. In our ignorance about the real nature of things (in this case, our body) we act in ways that are detrimental to us from a spiritual point of view. Understanding and wisdom will help us refrain from harmful actions, both mental and physical. In this connection, Buddhism does not recognise that marriage is a divinely ordained institution that suddenly makes sex permissible. Sex is a human activity that has nothing to do with heaven and hell. You will notice that sexual restraint is one of the Five Precepts observed by practising Buddhists. Killing is far more serious because you can hurt another being more viciously. Sex is a craving, just like craving for food, liquor, drugs, wealth, power, etc. Attachment to any of these constitutes akusala kamma because, if we really understand the nature of our bodies and how craving works against us, we will not indulge in it. Buddhism discourages any of these forms of craving because they will tie us down more firmly to samsara. Also, indulgence in sex can lead to other evils like anger, jealousy, remorse and guilt. http://www.ksridhammananda.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=44
If two members of the same gender fall in love with each other, are they wrong?
You may see from the foregoing that Buddhism does not see homosexuality as wrong and heterosexuality as right. Both are sexual activities using the body, both are strong expressions of lust which increase desire for life and therefore trap us longer in samsara. When a couple (whether a man and a woman, two men or two women) fall in love, it arises out of the same human limitation of not seeing the body as empty of any ultimate reality.
http://www.ksridhammananda.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=44
Does Buddhism condemn homosexuals/homosexuality?
Buddhism does not condemn homosexuals in the same way as it does not condemn any wrongdoing. We act through ignorance of the true nature of things. Therefore, we are only guilty of akusala kamma. We have no right to condemn others. Our duty is to help others see that they are acting out of ignorance, to show how real happiness can be gained. We have no right to condemn those who think or act differently from us, especially when we ourselves are slaves of sensual pleasure in other forms. We know that when we point one finger at others, the other three fingers are pointing at us. In summary, homosexuality, like heterosexuality, arises from ignorance. All forms of sex increase lust, craving and attachment to the body. With wisdom, we learn to grow out of these attachments. We do not condemn homosexuality as wrong and sinful, but we do not condone it either, simply because it, like other forms of sex, delays our deliverance from samsara. With the Blessings of the Noble Triple Gem, Yours in the Dhamma, Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda Rev. K. Sri Dhammananda, I am a homosexual and I am suffering for it. I would be most grateful if you could advise me what should I do about it. MMM
http://www.ksridhammananda.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=44
As a homosexual, I have suffered much. What should I do?
Dear MMM, You say you 'suffer' from being a homosexual. But have you asked yourself why you suffer? Is it because homosexuality itself brings suffering like AIDS or cancer or do you suffer from feelings of guilt because your sexual choice does not conform with what society has deemed as deviant behaviour? You suffer because of what others think of you. This distinction is important because you must realise you are allowing external forces to determine your happiness or unhappiness. The Buddhist view of all sexual behavior is contained in the Third Precept: “I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.” Sexual activity is based on the use of the body to gain pleasure. Sex in itself is not sinful. What is wrong is the use of sex to exploit others - young children, the economically deprived and so on. It does not matter if this pleasure is obtained through heterosexual or homosexual behavior. Buddhism sees little difference between a homosexual who exploits others and a heterosexual who does the same, although public opinion seems to make heroes of the latter, calling them macho. We need to ask ourselves whether the sexual excesses of some public figures like footballers and film stars actually deserve so much publicity. Sex is sex, regardless of how we derive pleasure from it! What we have to guard against is attachment to the body and the pleasure derived from it - gluttony and alcoholism can be just as harmful. The more we indulge in sex the more we become attached to our gross bodies and the more we are doomed to suffer in samsara thinking that our bodies are real. Sensible self-restraint of the body in all matters leads to freedom and spiritual development, free from guilt. We must train ourselves not be attracted to our bodies (although we must treat them with due respect) and to see our bodies, and those of others, as nothing more than receptacles for pus, urine, blood, saliva. We must not waste unnecessary time on useless guilt. Use your effort and energy to develop positive states of mind. As you see your body for what it really is, you will be able to transcend all your different desires. But you have to be patient and diligent. These things take time. With the Blessings of the Noble Triple Gem, Yours in the Dhamma, Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda http://www.ksridhammananda.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=44
-
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/05/gay-tragedy.html By Shravasti Dhammika. A Gay Tragedy Occasionally someone, usually a young man but sometimes a young women or an older man or women, will approach me and after a few minuets of hesitation or beating around the bush, ask me what the Buddhist position on homosexuality is. When they do I tell then that intentional actions (kamma) modify consciousness and that our kamma conditions our future. Positive intentional acts have positive effects (vipaka) and negative intentional acts have a negative effect. Sexual acts motivated by the usual intentions, feelings and emotions which exist between two people who love each other, would have a positive effect and would not infringe the third Precept, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. I underline this point by saying that Buddhist ethics about sex are primarily concerned with the motives behind out sexual behavior, rather than the gender of our partner. This being so, if two people of the same gender express their love for each other physically there is no good reason why the kamma this creates should be any different from when two people of the opposite gender do the same. Having said this I then try to change the subject, not because I am embarrassed talking about homosexuality, but because I do not like the ‘single issue’ approach to Dhamma. However, a few years ago I had an encounter which made me realize that inquiries about homosexuality, whether from gays themselves or their families, should be given my whole attention. However theoretical or marginal this issue may be to me it is likely to be of considerable import to the people who ask such questions. A young man named Julian rung me asking if he could come and talk to me about Buddhism. I said he could and on the appointed day and time he came. Julian turned out to be about 20 old, of slight build and with pleasant features. He was well groomed and neatly dressed. He started by asking me a few questions about some aspects of Buddhism but I sensed that these were not really what he was interested in. Finally the question came, “Venerable, can a gay person be a good Buddhist?� I gave my usual reply but it soon became clear that this did not please him. He kept interjecting and expressing doubts about what I said. I answered all his objections but he remained unconvinced. Arriving at a deadlock and not knowing what more I could say I asked him if he was gay. He blushed, cleared his throat and said that he was. Then he told me his story. Since his early teens he noticed that he was attracted to other boys and had a particular interest in woman’s clothes. Horrified by these feelings he kept them well under control. A year ago while doing his national service he had met another soldier who was gay and since that time they had been having a relationship, although a guilt-filled and fugitive one. Once or twice a month they would pool their recourses and book a hotel for the night. He would dress in woman’s clothes, put on makeup and they would spend the night together. For Julian at least, this would be followed by days of self-loathing and resolutions never to do it again. After he had finished telling me this he hung his head and said, “This must be wrong.� “Well,� I said, “some people would find it a bit strange. But from a Buddhist perspective I really can’t see that it is particularly harmful. Satisfying sexual urges is a perfectly natural thing to do and it is acceptable where it does not involve adultery or harming others. The conflict you create within yourself by hating what are completely harmless feelings hurts you much more than being gay ever could. There is no reason why you can’t practice the Precepts – respecting the life, the prosperity and the sexual feelings of others, their right to know the truth and keeping your mind free from intoxicants – while being gay.� He was silent but I could see that I had not been able to still his doubts. Julian visited me two more time over the next two month and our conversations were about the Dhamma in general although we also went over the same territory concerning homosexuality with very much the same results. Then, after not having seen or heard from Julian for nearly six month I got a call from him. He told me that a famous Taiwanese monk was in town giving a series of talks and that he had managed to get a few minuets with him. He had asked the monk the same question he had asked me and the monk had told him that homosexuality was a filthy, evil thing and that homosexuals get reborn in the lowest hell where they are boiled in excrement for eons. Julian said this with in an almost triumphant tone, seemingly glad that he had proved me wrong or that he had found someone who agreed with him. I asked him what else this venerable monk had said. “Nothing,� he replied. “He was going somewhere and only had a few minuets to talk.� How often has this happened to me? I have told an inquirer something about Buddhism which I know to be sound, sensible and in accordance with the Tipitaka, they go to another monk who tells them the exact opposite and then they come back to me asking me to explain the anomaly. Then I am stuck with the problem of either saying that the other monk doesn’t know what he is talking about (which is often the case) and appearing to be an arrogant upstart, or biting my lip, saying nothing and letting the person go away with yet another half-baked notion or superstition thinking that it is Dhamma. How often? Very often! In most cases this is just frustrating. In this case it had tragic consequences. “Look Julian� I said, “You asked me what Buddhism would say about homosexuality and I told you based on my 20 years of studying the Buddhist scriptures and thinking about various issues in the light of the Buddha’s Dhamma. I don’t know what else I can say.� I told him that if he wanted to talk with me at any time he was welcome to do so and then we hung up. Four days later I was browsing through the paper and a small article tucked away on the eighth page caught my eye. The heading read ‘Man’s Body Found in Park.’ I scanned the article briefly and was about to turn to something else when the name Julian sprung out at me. In an instant my attention was riveted. I read the part where this name appeared and sure enough it was about the Julian who had come to see me. I returned to the top of the article and read it all the way through. Four days earlier, perhaps only a few hours after ringing me, Julian had gone to a park in the centre of Singapore late at night, taken an overdose of sleeping tablets and been found dead the next morning. A suicide note had been found in his pocket but the article did mention what it said. I was overwhelmed by sorrow. The thought of him lying there utterly alone, hating himself and in such despair that he would kill himself almost made me cry. But soon anger was welling up through the sadness and diluting it until it had completely replaced the sadness. I pictured the Taiwanese monk blithely dispensing his ignorant and ultimately toxic opinion before rushing off to give a sermon about compassion or receive the accolade of the crowd. I became so angry that I resolved to write him a letter and tell him what he had been responsible for. Then I thought it would probably be a waste of time. He probably wouldn’t even remember talking to Julian. It seems to me that most thoughtful people would agree that sex without love is a pretty unattractive thing. Physically, it is little more than ‘exchanging fluids’ as the AIDS awareness literature so delicately puts it. What lifts sex above the fluids exchange level is the motives and emotions behind it – affection, tenderness, the desire to give and receive, the bonds of companionship, fun even. This fits well into the Buddha’s famous statement, “I say that intention is kamma.� Is sticking a knife into someone a positive or a negative action? It depends! If the knife was held by an enraged violent person it would probably be negative. If it is held by a surgeon performing an operation to save someone’s life it would certainly be positive. From the Buddhist perspective, sexual behavior is not judged primarily by the gender of the people involved, by the dictates of a code of behavior drawn up in the Bronze Age or by whether a legal document has been signed, but by its psychological components. Homosexuals are as capable of wanting and of feeling love and affection towards their partners as heterosexuals are and where such states are present homosexual sex is as acceptable as heterosexual sex. This is a simple and logical truth and it is in accordance with Buddhist teachings but circumstances were such that I was unable to help Julian see it. All his experience had told him that being attracted to people of the same gender is wrong. Those around him had always expressed disapproval towards homosexuality and sniggered at gays. The law (in Singapore) told him that homosexuality is so heinous that it must be punished by 10 years imprisonment, more than for manslaughter. He knew that religious teachers, Christian, Muslim and even some Buddhists, consider it so evil that it will have dreadful consequences in the life hereafter. All this denigration and ignorance prevented him from hearing the gentle, reasonable and kindly words of the Buddha. It caused him inestimable suffering and finally drove him to suicide. I am reminded of Julian because three weeks ago I represented Buddhism in a seminar on religion and homosexuality at Catholic Junior Collage (Boy! Haven’t Catholic collages changed!). Of the 800 students in the audience I assumed that a certain number would probably be homosexual and may be struggling to understand their feelings. Knowing that what I said may well have something to do with them growing up either happy and well-adjusted or tortured and self-loathing, I did took great care to explain the Buddhist position on homosexuality.
-
I think this topic is like asking which kind of desire/attachment is acceptable. Definitely from a Buddhist POV, desire/attachment will only lead to suffering. If you can reduce it, that's better. To ask in Buddhist forum for some kind of evaluation on which type of desire is more or less acceptable is quite outlandish.
on the other hand, as most of us are in the normal condition of being subjected to desires, i think there is almost no point in debating too much. You should just do your best in your particular situation. Being homosexual is something karmic, to put judgements on those who are gay is almost the same as judging someone for being born short or tall or rich or poor etc.
-
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:
I think this topic is like asking which kind of desire/attachment is acceptable. Definitely from a Buddhist POV, desire/attachment will only lead to suffering. If you can reduce it, that's better. To ask in Buddhist forum for some kind of evaluation on which type of desire is more or less acceptable is quite outlandish.
on the other hand, as most of us are in the normal condition of being subjected to desires, i think there is almost no point in debating too much. You should just do your best in your particular situation. Being homosexual is something karmic, to put judgements on those who are gay is almost the same as judging someone for being born short or tall or rich or poor etc.
If you have read both the titles of the article and the video in the first posting, you would have notice it is on the issue of the ‘equality of same sex marriage’. Some of the postings may have got deviated from the original intended purpose that is not related to Buddhist morality or ethic.
The topics of this thread are certainly not about what kind of desire/attachment is acceptable or not. Nor is it asking anyone for evaluation on which type of desire is more or less acceptable. It would not just be 'outlandish', it would be rather un-Buddhist to be asking that kind of questions.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
I do not want you to impugn my character anymore, also I’m sorry that you are unable to further advance your view points constructively! You could have expressed commonality in both unions, social participation and interest in reinforcing of community bonds social values and inclusiveness etc. Benefits of such recognition of an institution can bring to society. If you are indeed representative of such a community, do not project it such that you are be me, me, me, I, I, I mindset, give me my dues, my share all the time!
If you want me to propose "reinforcing of community bonds social values and inclusiveness", I suggest doing it by educating bigots and oppressors like you.
No one has impugned your own character except yourself.