Share on Facebook

Thread: Buddhism and the LGBT+ Community

  1. #1

    Buddhism and the LGBT+ Community

    A blog article by western Tibetan Buddhist monk Karma Yeshe Rabgye:

    "Buddhism and the LGBT+ Community".

    http://buddhismguide.org/buddhism-an...gbt-community/

    Any thoughts about the article?



  2. #2
    Forums Member justusryans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Topping, Virginia
    Posts
    277
    Well, having read the article I agree with Karma Yeshe Rabgye’s conclusion. It,s really a uncomplicated idea to reach! Who is to say what is correct in this case but not in that.

    I am personally of the live and let live school. I believe that as long as you are not hurting anyone then you should not be criticized for your sexual orientation. Hey, live and let live. That’s the problem with pointing fingers. Invariably one points back at you. I don’t think if Buddha returned today, that he would see it much different.

    Mike.

  3. #3
    Forums Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    404
    Neither the Dalai Lama nor Tsongkhapa appear to understand that people in the LGBT+ Community are, as I understand, not choosing a lifestyle but following their own particular natural biology as human beings. To impose a pattern of behaviour and conduct which is opposed to this is, for me, the opposite of what the Buddha taught. Forcing people to live a lie is hardly conducive to following the path, whether it fits in with prevailing cultural mores or not. To me there is no difference between the Dalai Lama saying what he did and a spiritual leader telling me I shouldn't be 'straight' when I am.

  4. #4
    Forums Member KathyLauren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    59
    I agree with the author.

    Buddhist morality is, in my view, based on simple, logical principles. If it causes harm, it is immoral. If it reduces harm, it is moral. If it neither causes nor reduces harm, it is morally neutral.

    The conventional interpretation of the precept against sexual misconduct is in keeping with this: if you do not use force or coercion, if you are not violating your own vows or the other person's, if you are not doing it with a minor, then there is no problem.

    I think that all the victorian restrictions of which orifices are allowed and which partners are allowed, and which activities are allowed, are, in effect, adding legs to a snake. They are unnecessary additions to a straightforward precept. In making something simple as complicated as possible, they cause harm.

    Om mani padme hum
    Kathy

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by KathyLauren View Post

    Buddhist morality is, in my view, based on simple, logical principles. If it causes harm, it is immoral. If it reduces harm, it is moral. If it neither causes nor reduces harm, it is morally neutral.

    The conventional interpretation of the precept against sexual misconduct is in keeping with this: if you do not use force or coercion, if you are not violating your own vows or the other person's, if you are not doing it with a minor, then there is no problem.

    I think that all the victorian restrictions of which orifices are allowed and which partners are allowed, and which activities are allowed, are, in effect, adding legs to a snake. They are unnecessary additions to a straightforward precept. In making something simple as complicated as possible, they cause harm.

    Well said, Kathy.

  6. #6
    Forums Member Genecanuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by KathyLauren View Post
    I agree with the author.

    Buddhist morality is, in my view, based on simple, logical principles. If it causes harm, it is immoral. If it reduces harm, it is moral. If it neither causes nor reduces harm, it is morally neutral.

    The conventional interpretation of the precept against sexual misconduct is in keeping with this: if you do not use force or coercion, if you are not violating your own vows or the other person's, if you are not doing it with a minor, then there is no problem.

    I think that all the victorian restrictions of which orifices are allowed and which partners are allowed, and which activities are allowed, are, in effect, adding legs to a snake. They are unnecessary additions to a straightforward precept. In making something simple as complicated as possible, they cause harm.

    Om mani padme hum
    Kathy
    Hi Kathy,

    I agree with Aloka. Very well said.

  7. #7
    Forums Member Genecanuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by philg View Post
    Neither the Dalai Lama nor Tsongkhapa appear to understand that people in the LGBT+ Community are, as I understand, not choosing a lifestyle but following their own particular natural biology as human beings. To impose a pattern of behaviour and conduct which is opposed to this is, for me, the opposite of what the Buddha taught. Forcing people to live a lie is hardly conducive to following the path, whether it fits in with prevailing cultural mores or not. To me there is no difference between the Dalai Lama saying what he did and a spiritual leader telling me I shouldn't be 'straight' when I am.
    Hello Philg,
    I believe you hit the nail on the head so to speak regarding the debate around choice vs biological fact. The science is very clear that sexual orientation is not a choice but a biological fact.

    Thanks for sharing.

    Kind Regards
    Gene

Los Angeles Mexico City London Colombo Kuala Lumpur Sydney
Mon, 7:21 AM Mon, 9:21 AM Mon, 3:21 PM Mon, 7:51 PM Mon, 10:21 PM Tue, 1:21 AM