Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would classify Thailand as being "gay friendlier".
Well, this is another social justice issue. Doesn't affect me directly but I've had gay friends since high school, before the term "gay" was much in use. And in the music world it's very common. I just don't like to see anyone mistreated, so it was nice to see this.
Well, this is another social justice issue. Doesn't affect me directly but I've had gay friends since high school, before the term "gay" was much in use. And in the music world it's very common. I just don't like to see anyone mistreated, so it was nice to see this.
My understanding is that the only explicit "injunction" against homosexual sex is in the Vinaya (the code of conduct for monks and nuns). Monks and nuns are expected to be celibate, and - I have been told - that homosexual sex is only part of the itemization of sexual misconduct. There are strong injunctions about parental and spousal conduct, but they come in the form of sermons/talks that are contained in the sutras.
But while Christianity may have had explicit rules against laypersons having homosexual sex, still and all whether it was a traditional non-industrial society in Catholic Ireland, Italy or Spain or a Buddhist one in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Vietnam some goals were the same. The need and expectations for a family to help with physical labor, make marital alliances reinforcing village/clan/tribal structures, provide support for the elderly and ill, etc. would all be goals that would be facilitated by marriage and children, and which homosexual relations could be easily seen as undermining....added to what the church/temple says. Thus, the culture would not be happy with homosexuality in a lay context either.
I am gay, non-Asian heritage American. Most of my experience in Buddhist group environments were ones in which almost all the other participants were of similar background. (This, by the way, was in the 80s when the U.S. was in the grip of really horrendous AIDS hysteria, homophobia, disinformation about both and even truly vile treatment of children infected AIDS.) I encountered a fairly small number of gay males in these Buddhist environments, but most participants were heterosexual. Some of the monks were Asian, some Euro-American. I was very involved in hands-on AIDS-related work with infected persons, and made no effort to camouflage that fact or my sexual orientation. The bottom line was that there was no bottom line, no one in all those years (including some Tibet Buddhists I knew) batted the proverbial eyelash. (I will add that this was in marked contrast to the very liberal work environment in which I was employed where in the same years I encountered routine homophobia from some people, but one occasion where my work with people who had AIDS caused an employee to complain that he did not want me to personally handle his paycheck.)
I am aware that in traditional ethnically-oriented centers there was strong antipathy to homosexuality, but it was based (I have been told) largely on cultural expectations. I can remember in the Seventies, I believe it was, when gay friend of mine became interested in a popular sect of Nichiren Shoshu that it was homophobic, and at that time emphasized that heterosexual marriage was the goal, homosexuality was a contamination. Some males friends of this person did comply and marry women despite being gay-oriented. So, I did have some anecdotal evidence that homophobia existed in American Buddhism to some (to me, unknown) degree. But when I became actively involved in a center in the second half of the Eighties after several years of solitary practice, I encountered nothing negative in that regard. Zip.
I have had two discussions over the years about this topic, both occurred in the U.S. in the 90's. One was with an Asian monk and the other with a married man who the leader of a Zen center. Both said essentially the same thing, which I will wrap up in a sentence or two: Many American Buddhist centers are not immersed in traditional Asian or American lifestyles or social environments, and these centers have less ritual and traditional activities that members get involved in. And, as a result, there was a stronger emphasis on understanding and practicing the Eightfold Path, and seeking to examine one's life and less on group activities. Plus the fact that participants usually did not come from small social communities where there would be more tendency to know about or talk about other people's behaviour.
I recognized in 1958 for certain that my sexual orientation was gay. One reason for locating to NYC was the expectation that I would be able to pass or hide better than elsewhere. But in fact, I came out at work in about 1966/67 because a fellow employee was going to "expose" me to the owner of the company as gay. And from that point on - the hell with this! - I refused to pretend or lie about myself. And through the supposedly debauched late Sixties, the Seventies I had negative experiences with landlords, employers, and some co-workers because I did not try to pass even though I did not rub it in anyone's face. The fact was that not concealing being gay was in itself considered rubbing it in people's faces by many individuals. Then the AIDS epidemic.
I have rattled on about this, because the total lack of negative reaction to my AIDS-related work, or the fact that I went out last Saturday with a he not a she, when I started attending a Buddhist center became almost stupefying...waiting for the shoe that never dropped. And it had the effect over time of making it easier for me walk through those unpleasant incidents that still occurred - though more rarely now - because of my sexual orientation.
My understanding is that the only explicit "injunction" against homosexual sex is in the Vinaya (the code of conduct for monks and nuns). Monks and nuns are expected to be celibate, and - I have been told - that homosexual sex is only part of the itemization of sexual misconduct. There are strong injunctions about parental and spousal conduct, but they come in the form of sermons/talks that are contained in the sutras.
But while Christianity may have had explicit rules against laypersons having homosexual sex, still and all whether it was a traditional non-industrial society in Catholic Ireland, Italy or Spain or a Buddhist one in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Vietnam some goals were the same. The need and expectations for a family to help with physical labor, make marital alliances reinforcing village/clan/tribal structures, provide support for the elderly and ill, etc. would all be goals that would be facilitated by marriage and children, and which homosexual relations could be easily seen as undermining....added to what the church/temple says. Thus, the culture would not be happy with homosexuality in a lay context either.
I am gay, non-Asian heritage American. Most of my experience in Buddhist group environments were ones in which almost all the other participants were of similar background. (This, by the way, was in the 80s when the U.S. was in the grip of really horrendous AIDS hysteria, homophobia, disinformation about both and even truly vile treatment of children infected AIDS.) I encountered a fairly small number of gay males in these Buddhist environments, but most participants were heterosexual. Some of the monks were Asian, some Euro-American. I was very involved in hands-on AIDS-related work with infected persons, and made no effort to camouflage that fact or my sexual orientation. The bottom line was that there was no bottom line, no one in all those years (including some Tibet Buddhists I knew) batted the proverbial eyelash. (I will add that this was in marked contrast to the very liberal work environment in which I was employed where in the same years I encountered routine homophobia from some people, but one occasion where my work with people who had AIDS caused an employee to complain that he did not want me to personally handle his paycheck.)
I am aware that in traditional ethnically-oriented centers there was strong antipathy to homosexuality, but it was based (I have been told) largely on cultural expectations. I can remember in the Seventies, I believe it was, when gay friend of mine became interested in a popular sect of Nichiren Shoshu that it was homophobic, and at that time emphasized that heterosexual marriage was the goal, homosexuality was a contamination. Some males friends of this person did comply and marry women despite being gay-oriented. So, I did have some anecdotal evidence that homophobia existed in American Buddhism to some (to me, unknown) degree. But when I became actively involved in a center in the second half of the Eighties after several years of solitary practice, I encountered nothing negative in that regard. Zip.
I have had two discussions over the years about this topic, both occurred in the U.S. in the 90's. One was with an Asian monk and the other with a married man who the leader of a Zen center. Both said essentially the same thing, which I will wrap up in a sentence or two: Many American Buddhist centers are not immersed in traditional Asian or American lifestyles or social environments, and these centers have less ritual and traditional activities that members get involved in. And, as a result, there was a stronger emphasis on understanding and practicing the Eightfold Path, and seeking to examine one's life and less on group activities. Plus the fact that participants usually did not come from small social communities where there would be more tendency to know about or talk about other people's behaviour.
I recognized in 1958 for certain that my sexual orientation was gay. One reason for locating to NYC was the expectation that I would be able to pass or hide better than elsewhere. But in fact, I came out at work in about 1966/67 because a fellow employee was going to "expose" me to the owner of the company as gay. And from that point on - the hell with this! - I refused to pretend or lie about myself. And through the supposedly debauched late Sixties, the Seventies I had negative experiences with landlords, employers, and some co-workers because I did not try to pass even though I did not rub it in anyone's face. The fact was that not concealing being gay was in itself considered rubbing it in people's faces by many individuals. Then the AIDS epidemic.
I have rattled on about this, because the total lack of negative reaction to my AIDS-related work, or the fact that I went out last Saturday with a he not a she, when I started attending a Buddhist center became almost stupefying...waiting for the shoe that never dropped. And it had the effect over time of making it easier for me walk through those unpleasant incidents that still occurred - though more rarely now - because of my sexual orientation.
Wonderful post. I admire you. I've spent more than a few late nights after gigs, sitting in hotel rooms, talking to gay friends who impressed on me the fact that being gay is not a choice. That's an important fact. It's more psysiological makeup. Their remarks included things like: "do you think anyone would deliberately choose this?" or "if you had a choice, would you rather be black or gay? " (both are fraught with difficulties, in other words). I've lost at least a half dozen friends from AIDS and a couple from suicide.
It appears obvious to me that social justice issues--human rights (the development of democracies), racial equality, feminism, gay rights, animal rights and protections, religious freedoms--are all of a piece, a phenomenon of the human race growing up.
Resistance is futile.
Last edited by KaraZetterberg153; 08-23-2019 at 07:57 AM..
Why should Buddhism take sides, or promote one side/view, in what is a personal matter and freedom? What's next, Buddhism's view on what colors of clothes a person should wear? Sounds like some are trying to push Buddhism into the western ways of modern fundie Christianity.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 08-23-2019 at 09:55 AM..
I don't see why Buddhism should take sides in what is a personal matter and freedom. What's next, Buddhism's view on what colors of clothes I should be wearing? Sounds like some are trying to push Buddhism into the western ways of modern fundie Christianity.
True.
But that is difference between follower of Buddha and member of institutionalized Buddhism. Last becomes a party and imposes its rules onto its members. First follows his heart and voice of The Supreme, guiding him. For him, there is no gay or straight, there is no man or woman, there is no black or white. In core, they are all same, only outward manifestations are different. True follower sees the core, not perishable appearance.
You ever read on Overtone Windows? This thread is typical example of them.
True. But that is difference between follower of Buddha and member of institutionalized Buddhism. Last becomes a party and imposes its rules onto its members. First follows his heart and voice of The Supreme, guiding him. For him, there is no gay or straight, there is no man or woman, there is no black or white. In core, they are all same, only outward manifestations are different. True follower sees the core, not perishable appearance.
You ever read on Overtone Windows? This thread is typical example of them.
I bet you're right. I'm not enough into Buddhism to see the more modern tendencies and ways that have undoubtedly infiltrated it over more recent years. I stick with basic teachings that are more pure and directly from Buddha. But very likely, as with Christianity, it's become highjacked by some for political or social agendas that Buddha (like Jesus) never would have approved of.
I don't see why Buddhism should take sides in what is a personal matter and freedom. What's next, Buddhism's view on what colors of clothes I should be wearing? Sounds like some are trying to push Buddhism into the western ways of modern fundie Christianity.
I wouldn't go quite so far as saying they are trying to push Buddhism into fundie mode, but basically I agree with your post.
I see Buddhism as a personal path, not a group movement.
I see Buddhism as a personal path, not a group movement.
That's an important distinction, and good reminder for all. Couldn't have said it better.
We probably disagree here, but I see Christianity - in its pure sense - as also a personal path, and not a group movement. I've always shunned the group dimension that came about, mostly because it was never advocated (as surprising as that seems), and partly to remain "purer".
Last edited by Thoreau424; 08-23-2019 at 10:19 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
