Homosexuality in Buddhism

[hope rainbow]

On the popularity of the topic, I just checked the count of visits on the list of topics, and it looks like suicide is generating more interest than homosexuality...

[vajrastorm]

I think sufficient has been said here, including the Dalai Lama’s view, on what is appropriate and correct re- sexual conduct of homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Here, I’d like to share what I have garnered from reading the opening Chapters of Lama Yeshe’s book –“Introduction To Tantra”. According to Lama Yeshe, we have in each of us both male and female 'emotions' and energies. The labels we use ‘male’ and ‘female’ are actually based on our physical forms. Then, males generally like to emphasis their male ‘macho-ness’ and project an image of being brawn and rugged and females generally like to be seen as feminine and fair.

These labels that we use ‘box’ us in and we make projections of people based on them. That’s why we socially and often morally condemn a pair of males or females, who are sexually drawn to each other, as we perceive them to be the most perverted beings around.

If the Path of Buddhism requires us to open up our narrow and limited conceptual minds, then we must see ‘homosexuality ‘ as just a label and not continue to feed our narrow conceptual minds by pandering to our projections of beings and phenomena, based on these labels.

[Big Uncle]

Hey guys,

Thank you for sharing and I have concluded that in Buddhism, homosexuality has not been mentioned explicitly its views on homosexuality probably because it was unheard of during the Buddha's time and because sexuality is an act of desire and increases desire so there are vague references that seems to indicate that homosexuality is inappropriate. However, Buddhism being an enlightened religion does not openly prohibit homosexuality but rather an understanding of where sexuality increases desire - our most powerful drug and downfall. There are many other more destructive aspects of our human nature that deserves greater attention and practice. Hence, unlike certain theistic religions, Buddhism have never placed central importance to it but only a peripheral mention. Anyway, it does make for an interesting discussion. Thank you.

[whitelion]

The February/March 1994 issue of OUT magazine quoted the Dalai Lama as saying:

"If someone comes to me and asks whether it is okay or not, I will first ask if you have some religious vows to uphold. Then my next question is, What is your companion's opinion? If you both agree, then I think I would say, if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay."

But bear in mind that in Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses, a collection of talks and discussions from the Dalai Lama's 1993 visit to France, His Holiness also said that:
 
"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else....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. Is this clear?"

So His Holiness is not condemning homosexual relationship but rather homesexual sex, because homosexual activity (and heterosexual sex) through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand are considered sexual misconducts.

Do you agree?

Hi all,

1) I'm totally agree, if both parties agree to have a mutual satisfaction, I don't see that's any problem. No matter we are homosexual or heterosexual. Both of these terms is just a label that we use to judge the "moral". Base on my understanding about Buddhism, no matter we're born as heterosexual or homosexual, boy or girl, makes no different to me. Since both of straight and gay are still in deep shit (samsara) why do we still judge who is better? or who is more sinful ? Sexuality is just a "label" to show others what do we like, eg : vegetarian or meat eater. so matter you're straight or gay makes no different to me .

2) I think sexual misconduct means when we create problem or trouble for others, and maybe we hurt someone directly or indirectly while doing anything related to sex issue. Eg: if we having affair with someone who is willing to have sexual contact with us, but indirectly we hurt our spouse, to me this is sexual misconduct.  But if we are single and we are not going to hurt anyone directly or indirectly due to any sexual contact, I think this is not consider sexual misconduct.

This is quite similar with the protector issue. Why is it so important to know or to label whether this Lama or that Lama is a Dorje Shugden practitioner, is it that's all you care ? We should see whether this Lama have benefit a lot of other beings in all direction and whether he/she is or not a Dorje Shugden practitioner is not important. If this Lama creates a lot of problem to the all beings, just because he/she want to clarified he/she is or is not a practitioner to me this is a fake Lama. No matter how high your status is , you will not grant my respect. If you have found your inner peace, no matter what has happen you will still be remain peace. But just to clarified you're not a practitioner and create a lot of problem for others, this is non dharmic at all...

What do you think ?

[Barzin]

Dharma already has a way to liberate us humans from samsara, so does it matter whether if one is homosexual or not? ugly or not? Similarly, if we see an animal got injured, we developed compassion and offer our help.  But do we question if that dog is homosexual or not?  Humans, animals, in fact all sentient beings are regarded as one in Buddhism.  So should homosexual not consider as one? 

Homosexual or straight, they share the same kind of problems.  Working problems, relationships, sexual issues, family problems, financial issues etc how does it differ from any other human beings?  I guess, in Buddhism in general; its primary practice is to truthfully recognize who you really are, be very truthful and honest about oneself.  From there, we learn the dharma and improve ourselves through practice of dharma and become a better person, a better self.  And it is not about using the knowledge we gained to prove that we are smarter.  Similarly, just like the protector issue, it is very sad to see among own practitioners, we created this label among us.   Just like we almost forgotten where we came from, where dharma came from and where we are heading.  Aren't we suppose to work towards the same goal?

Us humans only relies on what we hear, what we see & touch so it is only regard as real.  But there are things that only higher foam can see, hear & touch, so the purpose is higher.  This explains why our gurus need to lower down themselves to talk in our manner, or even act in our manner to convey dharma to us.  What we cant see or touch doesn't mean it does not exist.  It just just that we don't know.  That's why sometimes I personally feel i appear to be so small in the world of dharma, I have lived so long yet know so little dharma. 

But it is never too late.  We should already practice what we have learned from our precious guru and no questions asked.  Our guru will only have the best interest for us.  So we should trust our guru all the way.   I really hope among us practitioners, Shugden or not; put dharma really close to our hearts and practice dharma as one.  And not create more problems for our gurus and affect the minds of others anymore. 

That is my very wish...

[Vajraprotector]

I read that in the bardo, one will be attracted to a copulating male and female (can be copulating human, or animals or etc). It is said that if one is attracted to the female, one will be reborn as a male and vice versa. 

So I guess it depends at the time of taking rebirth or  which gender we were attracted to then that decides our fate of being male or female?

[dsiluvu]

I read that in the bardo, one will be attracted to a copulating male and female (can be copulating human, or animals or etc). It is said that if one is attracted to the female, one will be reborn as a male and vice versa. 

So I guess it depends at the time of taking rebirth or  which gender we were attracted to then that decides our fate of being male or female?

Then how would you explain homosexuals? and transvestite?  What were they attracted to when they saw the copulation happening and what were they thinking???
Especially transvestite/queens... what kind of karma did they collect to be trap in a body they do not wish to be in?

[shugdentruth]

I remember reading in the Lamrim that sexual misconduct includes sticking a man’s genitals into anywhere else but a woman’s genital?? But this was during the time of Pabongkha Rinpoche. Could it be that homosexuality was not an issue back then and Rinpoche saw that having too much fun while having sex would become an issue?
Personally, I think a good Buddhists do good deeds with sincerity. Their sexual preference is not very important.
God created homosexuals too?

[Positive Change]

“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history [...] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. [...] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.”

—Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)

The above talks about the Kinsey scale and in the scale the following are rated

Rating   Description
0           Exclusively heterosexual
1           Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2           Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3           Equally heterosexual and homosexual.
4           Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5           Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6           Exclusively homosexual
X           Asexual, Non-Sexual

I found this interesting because this shows that we as the human race have many different facets and some of these facets happen to be of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. It is all part of the make up of our species hence why should there be any distinction at all?

[hope rainbow]

The Kinsey scale

Rating   Description
0           Exclusively heterosexual
1           Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2           Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3           Equally heterosexual and homosexual.
4           Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5           Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6           Exclusively homosexual
X           Asexual, Non-Sexual

I found this interesting because this shows that we as the human race have many different facets and some of these facets happen to be of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. It is all part of the make up of our species hence why should there be any distinction at all?

Dear Positive Change,
I did not know of this "Kinsey table", thank you for sharing.
I intervene again in this topic, even though I think we have said most that could be said about the topic of homosexuality and Buddhism, I would like to say 4 things (A to D):

A.
The above table shows us that there is more to this topic than the opposition between heteroX and homoX.

B.
Having said that, we can also say that from ratings 0 to 6, there would be also ratings 0.5 - 1.5 - 2.5 and even 0.4, or 0.45 or 0.45673...
And then these ratings would change constantly through time and by our actions.
It is a purely virtual business to allocate categories to living beings, and it should be taken as a a tool to think not as the truth.
One day I am rated 2, the next I am rated 4...
I quote you again "should there be any distinction at all?"

C.
actions (sexual actions here) are a result of a train of thoughts. That train of thoughts deserve our full attention, by understanding what fuels it, we can change our habits, we can refrain from actions by working upstream. The key aspect to remove is the delusion that hinges this train from being just thoughts into becoming actions.
Why? How? Simple: the delusion "justify" a non-virtuous action in our mind, once justified, we just DO IT.

D.
Now, the reason really why I decided to answer your comment PC is this: at the end of the Kinsey scale there is: Asexual / Non-sexual.
This can be a new topic all together!
a) I do not understand asexual and non-sexual as the same thing.
b) Does "non-sexual" mean non attraction to neither sex or does it mean abstinence from sexual intercourse for reasons xyz? I see a difference here too.
c) Many religions have abstinence as a vow for their clergy, many also do not have it (for example a rabbi that is not married is seen as awkward) -in Buddhism some schools, like the Gelug ask of their lamas a vow of abstinence, others schools have married lamas. Some Gelug lamas disrobe, marry and have children and remain teachers, lay teachers.
This brings this question: what is the meaning of the abstinence vow for lamas, and why do some lamas need not take them?
Would you like to start a new topic with that?

[samayakeeper]

Homosexuality in Buddhism

I do not see anything wrong with being gay. It is better to be gay with a kind heart than a straight with an evil heart. Just in the human realm alone, we have taken millions of rebirth in a male or female body like what jessicajameson wrote. Maybe all humans are gay, in this respect. Sexual preference is a choice to whet our sexual desire as a human being. What is not right is when we hurt others.

[vajraD]

This is such a hot discussion I could see. Well for me I see that being a gay is not a problem as long as they have a good heart. I remember that at every end of our prayer we always do a dedication to all sentient being (seen or unseen). So if we do such dedication then the person is gay or not it not a problem.

I have quite some friend that are gay and one of them is a close high school friend of mine. We always make fun of him and have a lot of good time together. He is very soft spoken, helpful when ever I have problems with my project he will help me and also have a very kind heart. But few years ago he kill himself as he could not take the pressure of the words that people used on him and when the family and the religious school he is in found out of his sexual preference they disowned him.

My point is one should except gay no matter what faith you are in as all faith teaches us to be kind and have compassion for others.

[Reena Searl]

Quote
A Buddhist author of an article on homosexuality concludes:

"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. "

[Tammy]

Do we NEED to discuss homosexuality in this age and time?

Whether a person chosed to be or was born a gay, we have no right to interfere with their way of lives as long as they do not harm anyone. In Buddhism, all sentient beings are EQUAL (human beings, animals, need I say more??) and I dont think Buddha is going to be selective in helping sentient beings based on their sexuality..

So, do we have the right to discriminate our fellow human being just because they happen to be attracted by the same sex?

[thaimonk]

Do we NEED to discuss homosexuality in this age and time?

Whether a person chosed to be or was born a gay, we have no right to interfere with their way of lives as long as they do not harm anyone. In Buddhism, all sentient beings are EQUAL (human beings, animals, need I say more??) and I dont think Buddha is going to be selective in helping sentient beings based on their sexuality..

So, do we have the right to discriminate our fellow human being just because they happen to be attracted by the same sex?

I agree with Tammy. Even still, it helps new people or people who are condemned by various religions to discuss. It is a big issue because intolerance, prejudice and bigomy has made it so.