Sky Dancer
Rookie
- Jan 21, 2009
- 19,307
- 1,320
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #201
" A monogamous gay couple is able to cultivate responsibility and integrity. There is no harm happening anywhere to a family." So you have spoken to these families, intimately? They have told you, they think this is a great thing?
As far as "assume" that the texts included gay couples, you know what that means. If you assume you make an ass (out of) u (and) me.
You feel sorry for me? I am willing to see homosexuality as a sin (destructive behavior). There will be no homosexual, alone, on their deathbed, wondering why I lied to them about their behavior. I encourage them to fight the temptation to overcome sin, the same way I have for those on drugs, alcohol, or being promiscuous, or other types of destructive behavior. I want them to be happier people and to overcome sin (maybe I can make it to heaven with their support too!). I thought Buddhists tried to achieve the highest degree of awareness. Does destructive behavior bring you closer to awareness? Does denial of destructive behavior bring you closer to the truth?
It's not destructive behavior to make a committment to be with the man or woman you love for the rest of your life.
Being in a relationship can bring you closer to awareness. It matters not if the relationship is same or opposite sex.
We have a number of wonderful gay couples--strong meditators and compassionate people- in our sangha and our community is completely supportive of them. We welcome them with open arms and hearts.
Your view of gay people is misguided and sad. Your hatred of gay people does not become someone committed to a spiritual life. I do feel sorry for you. You judge, condemn and hate others which is not what Jesus taught.
The gay people in our sangha will die with their hearts and minds open in a state of awareness surrounded by the community who will be praying and meditating with them. No one has lied to them, they have been taught how to live and die well.
Robert Aitken, Zen Buddhist teacher puts it this way--this is part of a letter he wrote in support of marriage equality:
The word Zen means "exacting meditation," descriptive of the formal
practice which is central for the Zen Buddhist. It is a demanding practice,
from which certain realizations emerge that can then be applied in daily
life. these are realizations that each of us is a boundless container, a
hologram, so to speak, that includes all other beings. The application of
this kind of ultimate intimacy can be framed in the classic Buddhist
teaching of the Four Noble Abodes: loving kindness, compassion, joy in
the attainment of others, and equanimity.
Applying these Four Noble Abodes to the issue of same-sex marriage,
I find it clear that encouragement should be my way of counseling.
There is, of course, a precept about sex which Zen Buddhists inherit
from earlier classical Buddhists teachings. It is one of the sixteen precepts
accepted by all Zen Buddhist monks, nuns and seriously committed lay people.
In our own Diamond Sangha rendering, we word this precept, "I take up the
way of not misusing sex." I understand this to mean that self-centered
sexual conduct is inappropriate, and I vow to avoid it. Self-centered sex
is exploitive sex, non-consensual sex, sex that harms others. It is
unwholesome and destructive in a heterosexual as well as in a homosexual
context.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/zen.buddhist.perspective.on.same.sex.marriage
The five precepts constitute an integrated set - each precept supports the others. To know what 'sexual misconduct' means you look at the other precepts. 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble. By contrast good sexual conduct is based on loving kindness, generosity, honesty, and mental and emotional clarity - conduct that has good results.
The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions. It calls for its very own precept! If we have a propensity to make fools of ourselves, to act stupidly and destructively - and we all do have this propensity - then we are likely to manifest it in our sex lives. On the other hand, each of us also has the opposite propensity to act out of friendliness, generosity and wisdom. With moral and meditative training our sex lives can powerfully express this propensity too. Hence the third precept expresses a tough and challenging sexual ethic. Not least for anyone who has grown up male and straight in a society like this one, with all its training in objectifying and predatory attitudes towards women, and deep fears of so-called deviance!
Lets look at the spirit of the precepts as a whole before returning to sexuality. Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. Often freedom takes the form of restraint, the ability to say no to an habitual or received compulsion, craving, fashion or dependency. Sometimes freedom takes the form of saying yes, a yes that overrides habitual or received fears, prejudices and inhibitions.
We can either treat other people and other elements of our environment as objects of our calculation, exploitation and consumption, or we can see other people as we see ourselves. All great religions more or less embody the latter ethic (like the Christian 'golden rule': "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). Buddhism does so in pure form. The precepts are a training in loving oneself and others, expressed in the intention to act skilfully so as to set us all free. Free from what and to do what? In traditional Buddhist terms, free from bondage, suffering, harm and danger, and free to take responsibility for our own wellbeing, and to contribute to that of others.
So back to the third precept. In ancient India the precept in its negative form was conventionally read as an injunction against abduction, rape and adultery. It has always carried the additional implication that we honour our sexual undertakings. If we have taken a vow of celibacy we should abstain from sex so long as the vow is on foot. If we have contracted into a monogamous relationship, we only have sex within that relationship. Anything else would be deceitful.
But the precept's ambit, especially today, is obviously much wider and covers violating behaviours that the women's movement among others has rightly politicised. An important example is sexual harassment, so prevalent these days when women and men share public space - workplaces, universities etc. Where power relations are prevalent, the power relations themselves have a gender component, and opportunities and cultural encouragement for abuse are ubiquitous. Among other things, sexual harassment is harming and involves taking the non-given, based on a deep-seated presumption - and delusion - in male conditioning about the constant sexual availability of women.
Rape in marriage is strikingly similar. Also violent and misogynist pornography which creates a hostile and unsafe environment for women and induces moronic and demonic mindstates in men, including delusions about the nature of women and what they want. So both sexes suffer harm. Publication or use of pornography which eroticises women's subordination thus plainly contravenes the third precept. But by no mean all pornography does so, and other sexually explicit material might be equally innocent.
BuddhaNet Magazine Article: Buddhist Sexual Ethics
Can you show me where I said "I hate homosexuals!"? I have never said that I hate homosexuals. I have said that homosexual acts are sinful. I have said that homosexual lifestyle is a destructive lifestyle. I have never said that I hated homosexuals. I said that I wished for their salvation and to join "them" in heaven. I know that it is convenient for you to twist my direct statements, but you are now bearing false witness against me by claiming that I hate homosexuals (that, also, is a sinful act).
""I take up the way of not misusing sex." ",
" 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble.", "Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. Often freedom takes the form of restraint, the ability to say no to an habitual or received compulsion, craving, fashion or dependency. ",
"The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions.",
forgive me for cherry picking, but these are the points I was making: homosexuality violates family values, and takes (by seduction) what is not freely given (a family member). Homosexuality targets the young and inexperienced specifically by deceit or phychological conditioning.
Ask a homosexual about their 'first' homosexual experience; the majority will tell you they thought the activity was totally different than it turned out to be. A homosexual will not go to a family home for a 'date' and be honest about their intentions to enter into a homosexual releationship with the intended target. They will introduce themselves as a 'friend' or an associate; they will not tell the family that they have come to 'date' the child (don't go off on age, please, an offspring is a child, no matter what the age). If the child is homosexual, they will not tell their own parents that they intend to seduce another family's child using deceitful methods. My interpretation of your posting would lead a person to believe that homosexuality has no integrity, little honesty, and is a completely selfish act.
If two people of the same sex want to pledge to live and support each other as friends and are not engaged in homosexual activity, there is no harm, no sin. They maintain their integrity as people. Once they engage in homosexual acts, and pretend to be straight for situations of convenience, they no longer have integrity and have become deceitful. Once they are 'deceitful' that deceit increases, I am sure you know the tale, once you tell a lie, you must tell another, and another....
I think it is compassionate of you to try to include 'most people' in your high opinions of people. I just do not think that you are being truthful according to your faith's precpts, to yourself or to those that engage in homosexual acts. How can you help a person improve if you enable or accept bad behavior? Every person makes their own choices of how they live.
Our society used to reward honor and integrity. Ask yourself: if homosexuality was rejected for millenium, why is it so important that it is given an elevated status, now, today? What is the beneficiary? How can enabling this behavior improve society? Look at it through 'rose-colored' glasses and consider the very best homosexuality has to offer. Now be brutally honest, and look at the other side: look at the destruction and harm the "acceptance" of homosexuality and the extended rights the homosexuals want given to just them will cause. I doubt you will do it, those that claim the eastern religions, rarely look at the downside. Individual rights are being reduced to increase the status and power of specific groups. This has been done throughout history, it results in abuse and subjugation. "Every time" individual rights are replaced by specific groups or government power it starts with: it will be different this time. But through the millenium, "every time" it ends the same, ugly.
I wish you the best with your faith. I hope that by using it, you will search out the truth, and embrace it. The worst atrocities in history have happened because good people would not believe the evil being done, and would therefore do nothing to stop it, until those committing the atrocities came for them and theirs. It is your choice: eyes open, or eyes closed to determine how to live.
To not allow two adult human beings who love each other to be with each other in peace is a form of bias, aversion, it resides in the family of hatred. You'd like to banish gay people from a loving community. It's as if you decided to discriminate against all those with blue eyes. Sexual identity is hard wired into the brain.
That you consider homosexuality evil or atrocity is wrong. Bias crimes are an atrocity. Shunning perfectly loving people and treating them like second class citizens is wrong asking them to change their eye color from brown to blue for god's sake is wrong.
I would just point out that you have a prejudice against gays and lesbians--and I don't find prejudice a religious value. Projecting that two people being together who love each other is some kind of atrocity is wrong. The only harm I see happening if marriage equality is the law of the land is some Christians will have their pride of privelege hurt. I'm sorry for that. The amount of anger that gets directed against gay people by Christians over the issue of marriage equality is a shame.
No one care about being married in your church. These are civil unions we're discussing and they create a public acknowledgment that two people of the same sex have come together to be acknowledged as family. It makes me sad that you can't see that.
I'm sure you are well meaning in your way. But I won't budge in my view any more than you would. You conisder homosexuality 'bad behavior' we define bad behavior as promiscuity, adultery, exploitation, pedophila and rape. Whatever two adult do with each other in bed that is kind and loving is considered wholesome to us. You wear a glass darkly when it comes to gay people. You make sexual behavior the be all and end all of gay relationships and it's not.
We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not? We all take strict vows regarding regarding sexual misconduct. I have previously printed those in detail before. They are stricter vows than Christian vows and wiser IMO. We committ to being harmless and helpful.
Two committed adults loving each other wholeheartedly is virtue. Too bad you can't see it. Your mind and heart are as closed as a steel trap.
Last edited: