Talk:Buddhism and sexual orientation

Pandakavatthu?

This is listed as the fourth source yet I can't find a transcript of this. Is there any way of verifying sources like these posted as books without looks? It's important I think for people to be able to locate the source and check exactly what it says. It might be alternately spelled Pandaka Vatthu. I did find something mentioning it on Google Books but it seems to be almost verbatim, which makes me worry if it is too close? If someone could find a website which explains "the Pandakavatthu section of the Mahavagga. 1:61, 68, 69" it would be valuable. If we could provide links in the references, that would be great. The article here on Mahavagga links to AtI.org as a reference, yet the word 'Pandakavatthu' is not one I can find there. The latter two have similar-ending names "Kucchivikara-vatthu (The Monk with Dysentery)" and "Dighavu-kumara Vatthu (The Story of Prince Dighavu)". Since vatthu lacks an article I can only guess at it's meaning (monk, prince?) and I'm similarly mystified as to what Pandaka would refer to. If we are going to be citing oddly-named texts in explaining Buddhism, a link is essential, not everyone compiling and verifying information on it can be expected to be familiar with the existance (or nonexistance) of works like these. Tyciol (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tyciol, you're probably referring to this story, which I paraphrase here:

A paṇḍaka got ordained as a monk. [Meaning, he looks like a male.] Later, he approached some young monks and asked them to defile him. [Meaning, he's sexually attracted to males.] They shooed him away, referring to him as a “paṇḍaka”. Then he approached some large novice monks (less than 20) and asked them to defile him. They too shooed him away, referring to him as a “paṇḍaka”. Then he approached some wranglers and mahouts and requested the same. They obliged, then spread it about, “These Sakyan-son monks are paṇḍakas. And those among them who are not paṇḍakas defile paṇḍakas. They are all not divine-practitioners (celibates).” Mahavagga 109.

From the above, it's obvious that he is gay, besides one who can't adhere to celibacy.

Elsewhere, there's a reference to a female paṇḍaka (itthipaṇḍaka) with little context to draw from. Nonetheless, paired with the above, this seems to refer to “lesbian”.

The above should be classified as manussapaṇḍaka (human paṇḍaka), which is contrasted with amanussapaṇḍaka ('unhuman' paṇḍaka), and tiracchānagatapaṇḍaka (animal paṇḍaka). I swear I've seen 2 male dogs engaging in a sexual act!

JamesWangi (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

about in Chinese Buddhism

I strongly questioned the credibility of the sources. I am pretty familiar with Buddhist canons. None of them even mentions homosexuality. Since the source says it's a sin which is to be punished in one of the hells. Which canon is he source referring to? It's pointless to quote some second handed source if the original canons are available.Tricia Takanawa (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the author forced his own belief upon his interpretation of Chinese tradition.Tricia Takanawa (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually a sin punished by hell doesn't sound buddhist at all. It sounds more like something found in one of the Abrahamic religions. Misinterpretations of buddhist concepts is quiet commen, so lets guess thats the case. Just delete it. Siru108 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pali Canon is full of sins punished in hell, & I'm sure this applies to other canons too. The difference is that Buddhist hells are temporary. Homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Pali Canon, except in the Vinaya, unless we accept the commentary's interpretation of an obscure term. Peter jackson (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC) (NOT the one mentioned)

I am honestly not very familiar with the pali cannon, but just a question: Who translated it? If it is someone with a Christian background (or limited knowlegde of english), words like sin and pubnishment seems to have a tendency to sneak in, despite this may actually not be the precise original meaning (I have seen this a number of times with vajrayana texts). Siru108 (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was using the terms loosely. Behaviour that results in rebirth in hell. Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gyatso source

There are no page numbers, and I find the analysis to paint the picture with too broad a brush. Can anyone explain just what she says? Mitsube (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In particular what is "the developing Vinaya tradition"? I have removed the Gyatso material until it can be explicated. Mitsube (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Input into rebuilding a section of the lead

Early Buddhist texts do not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers and so the determination of whether or not homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson is not a religious matter.

This line is just not true and needs rebuilding. Follow my logic:

• Sexual Misconduct is explicitly mentioned as a hindrance to wisdom and is a religious matter.
• Homosexuality is a sexual conduct
• Does homosexuality fall into acceptable conduct or misconduct?
• Discussions of Sexual Misconduct are a religious matter.
• Discussions of homosexuality as classifying as not sexual misconduct is a religious matter.

At least for many Temples Lay people and Sangha the discussion would be a religious matter. The article needs views from published and notable secondary and primary sources and the lead-in paragraphs need to summarize what the rest of the article has to say. Alatari (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the source for the statement is, as it is not cited. There seem to be no Buddhist wide guidelines regarding homosexuality in the earliest Buddhist texts. Of course there is the advice to avoid sexual misconduct. An important thing to remember though is that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and not conduct. I am not aware of anything that discusses homosexual behavior(conduct) either, however. There are rules/vows that apply to Monks and Nuns requiring abstinence from intercourse of any kind. The laity do not follow those however, nor need they.

SO, in response to the opinions you offered. I agree that Sexual misconduct is a hindrance, and a religious matter. Homosexuality is not sexual conduct, it is an inborn orientation. The judgment of whether homosexual behavior is sexual misconduct is up to the individuals involved, and not a religious matter, unless they are monks or nuns. This is in the same way as determining if intercourse between heterosexuals is sexual misconduct or not. In both cases there are some circumstances where it certainly would be misconduct, and other were it certainly would not be. Discussions of homosexuality as classifying as no sexual misconduct is not a religious matter, only discussions of whether intercourse would be misconduct. The judge of that behavior is the individual, and not their Sangha, their tradition, Buddhism or other religions.

Homosexual sex is a sexual conduct. Homosexual orientation that is unexpressed is obviously not sexual conduct because no sex is had. But there are Sangha in traditions that express opinions about homosexual behavior. Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Every Sangha offer their teaching and their viewpoints on what they view as sexual misconduct. Speaking of sexual misconduct, essentially anything of a sexual nature can by hypothetically discussed from the perspective of whether it is misconduct or not.

Based on that logic, and generalizing to all of Buddhism and not just one Sangha or one tradition, but backing up all the way to Gautama Buddha, I think the statement made is accurate.

• Early Buddhist texts do not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers (True)

This needs to be sourced. A Buddhist scholar needs to make the statement. We can not make this statement. Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• The determination of whether or not homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson is not a religious matter. (True)

This needs a source. Not our personal opinions. Because of AIDs there are Thai monks with positions dead set against homosexual behavior. That is a group of Sangha making it a religious matter. Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there are people (some of whom are Monks) concerned about AIDS and some of them have personal opinions regarding homosexuality does not make it a religious matter. Buddhism does not judge. Each Buddhist is responsible for judging their own behavior. Opinions of others in a Sangha are teaching and guidance only, and are not binding on a layperson. Atom (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For someone coming from other religious backrounds this is odd tasting. How can I source the lack of catechism in Buddhism in this context? Alatari (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Early texts offer guidance as to what things can be a hindrance. They offer no absolute definitions to right and wrong within this context.

This needs a source. I and others have provided Theravadan sources with very specific definitions about what is misconduct. Saying that early text have no specific definitions is untrue. The Tens are some of the earliest written suttas of Buddhism. Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the second sentence could say something like "Although guidance is offered on avoiding sexual misconduct, the determination of whether homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson is not a religious matter, but a personal one." Atom (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless the statement can be taken from the mouth of a religious scholar it is unacceptable statement. Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This statement is not a summary of the rest of the article and reads as a personal statement by an editor of Wikipedia. It needs support by WP:Reliable Sources. Until you source the comments we can not leave the statement in the article. If you believe homosexuality is in born orientation you need to source that. Homosexual activities is obviously sexual conduct. If you have homosexual sex then that is sexual conduct. Whether is is mis-conduct or not needs to be decided by Buddhist sources. Not our own opinions. Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See the article on sexual orientation for discussion and sources about orientation being biologically determined, and not a matter of choice. Please do not confuse the terms homosexuality and homosexual behavior. An orientation of Homosexuality is never sexual conduct. Homosexual behavior (same sex intercourse) is sexual conduct. Whether it is misconduct, for a layperson, is always a personal matter. For it to be a religious matter the religion would have to have some standing or authority over a layperson. In Buddhism there is no central authority. If we were speaking of Catholicism, it would be a different matter. No Buddhist tradition, Sangha, Monk or Nun is ever in a position to judge the behavior of a Buddhist layperson. A layperson may not be acceptable to a Sangha, however they can seek and find enlightenment on their own, and without the need of following the arbitrary rules of others.

Atom (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure all Buddhism is like this. Dalai Lama is a central authority and his statements carry great weight. A member can be asked never to show their face at the temple again. Eating meat at the table that the Sangha presides at is enough to have you asked to leave. Sangha can and do modify lay people's behaviors. There is always some central authority even if it comes down to publications and maintaining the integrity of the published works. Alatari (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is in WP:Attribution that states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. I just wish reliable sources supporting that:

• Early Buddhist texts do not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms
  • This is proving the negative and hard to say There is no early Buddhist text anywhere that does not define what is right and wrong absolutely but if there is a respected Buddhist scholar(s) supporting this statement it needs to be referenced. But like is said in other talk pages, the Tens Sutta spells out clearly what is improper sexual conduct and it is an early text.
• determination of whether or not homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson is not a religious matter. Alatari (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Lower in the article this statement is made: 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.. The Dalai Lama has made it a religious matter. This sentence can not be made in the lead. Alatari (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The opinion of the Dalai Lama (as much as I respect him) does not make it a religious matter. He is a teacher, and he offers his guidance. He is not a judge, and his opinion does not prohibit a layperson from that behavior, or from continuing to be a Buddhist, or from finding enlightenment. He has said elsewhere "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask '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'". Again, our teacher offering his opinion. Not a judge enforcing a law. Atom (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We will not be able to agree on this point. If he believes the behaviors are a hindrance and hindrances prevent enlightenment (the goal of this religion) then these behaviors become a religious matter. All behaviors that are hindrances to enlightenment become religious matters. Alatari (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to revert your removal again.

• We are currently discussing the paragraph, and it is hard for people to evaluate and discuss it when to keep removing it.
• It has been in the article a long time and has had consensus. Trying to remove it before we finish discussing, and without the input of others is not helpful. Consensus requires others to give feedback on the material.
• You commented that you were removing the material being discussed per WP:Bold. I respect that. Note that wp:Bold describes the cycle as be bold, revert, discuss. We are in the Discuss portion of this.
• WP:V verifiability does not require that all statements are cited, but that they must be citable. I think it is pretty likely that we can and will find citations for this material as it is not controversial. We should leave the material in the article for some period of time so that this can be done. Adding a citation needed tag to disputed material would be the correct method for dealing with this. Please add that tag to material that you think needs to have citations added.

Atom (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you be specific about which suttas you are referring to that seem to define what is "right and what is wrong in absolute terms"? I am fine with finding some kind of compromise. I think the problem here is that you read a sutta offering advice as a rule or law or judgement or prohibition. Can you give me one example of a Buddhist text that defines (for lay followers) what is right and wrong regarding sexual misconduct in absolute terms? Can you give me one example where homosexuality is clearly listed as sexual misconduct?

"Early Buddhist texts do not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers"

Atom (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Tens description that sexual misconduct includes sleeping with a woman under the care of her mother, father, etc. is precise about what is misconduct. I don't see references to homosexuality in the Tens but the sentence we are discussing is repeated in three articles on Religion and Sexuality, here and Sexuality and Buddhism so what we decide here will radiate to those spots. Of course that is Theravada tradition. What you mean by 'Fundamental Buddhism' (Buddhism in it's fundamental form) and then how the other major traditions differs are what I see past disputes over this phrasing. Alatari (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the citation means by "fundamental". My view is that he means that Buddhism before breaking into different traditions, early in its history. Or perhaps, Buddhism at its core, setting aside current philosophical differences that vary from community to community. I will try to go read the citation and determine.

In my view the statement is accurate. Even the Theravada reference does not define what is right and wrong in absolute terms. Atom (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Leadin build discussion

I made sure that statements in the paragraph in question had citations. In this case, Higgins, De Silva and Coleman. Atom (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A page header should only be a brief introduction. This page is big enough and its content is big enough, that the page header should be no more than that. If it doesn't fit into an appropriate category below, it should be deleted or made into an appropriate section. The language used in the intro (which could be its own page) is ridiculously vague, and does not reflect any common consensus among scholarship or in Buddhist countries. Moreover, the term "Buddhism" is almost meaningless when speaking about views on such things and morality. The real matter here is Buddhist traditions and their views on the subject, as well as historical views and textual findings presented by scholars. Anything else is just some random guy's opinion. Tengu800 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's true that there's nothing in the early texts about homosexual relations being immoral. I know the Dalia Lama has said that they are, basing himself on certain medieval Indian works. Mitsube (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the intro still needs work. Do you have any suggestions? Tengu pointed out that it was too long. I had to agree. I will try to look at it later with fresh eyes. Atom (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tengu!!! Very well put. I was just coming here to post Wikipedia:Lead section and discuss how the lead should mention items in the body of the article and not really introduce new information. A discussion about what Buddhism in it's fundamental form and views on sexuality has it's own section then it's logical to summarize in the lead. So take the one line I disputed above and build a section around that POV. With proper sourcing then the lead can be unsourced. Is it possible the lower sections of the article grew but the lead was never updated? Alatari (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• from the sermon:

  In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers. Therefore the interpretation of whether homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson or not, is not a religious matter as far as fundamental Buddhism is concerned.

• from the article

  In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers. Therefore the determination of whether or not homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson is not a religious matter as far as fundamental Buddhism is concerned.

  That is almost word for word what is said in the article and that can't sit. It's WP:Plagarism since it's not in quotes. Is a sermon a WP:reliable source? Do you mind if we ask on the WP:RS Board? I Thought the sources had to be from officially published texts, dissertations, commentaries, primary sources (like suttas) and the like. Alatari (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no it isn't plagiarism. Plagiarism is when someone takes credit for someone else's words. If attributed, then it is not plagiarism. It does not have to be in quotes, although quotes are desirable. To keep within fair use, the text should be fairly small in proportion to the entire copyrighted document. Large sections of copied text, without attribution would be plagiarism. The source does need to be cited. If you want to put it in quotes you can. It was my understanding that the text was not identical, but paraphrased with attribution. I agree (and have said in other places) that a sermon is more of an editorial or opinion. It is more a matter of how well know the person is who said it (notability) than anything else. Opinions from exserts are welcome in Wikipedia. Editorials in the ne3wspaper are one persons opinion. And if they are not an expert on the matter, not wp:RS for Wikipedia. Atom (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read carefully the line If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless duplication is limited and clearly indicated in the article by quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations).'. This is straight out of WP:Plagarism and as the line stand it is in clear violation of the WP rules especially since when I pulled it the first time it was NOT sourced. Alatari (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. "unless duplication is limited" is the key phrase there. Duplicating a sentence or two (with attribution) is not a violation of copyright, or of Wikipedia policies. When you mentioned it initially it was not properly cited, you are correct. I am not sure who put it there originally. It is cited now. The two primary things to consider when quoting from a text and staying within fair use are 1) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

2) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. The two sentences used are small in proportion to the entire copyrighted work. Using it in Wikipedia, if it affects the potential market for that work, raises its visibility, and does not impede the market value.

What I am wondering, is why you are throwing as much Wikipedia legalese as you can to try to take out the thought from the article? I mean, it is accurate and factual, and a majority of Buddhists certainly would agree with it. Does it challenge your understanding of Buddhism in some way? You have cited a discussion from a Suta that is unique to the Theravad tradition to try and say that the statement is incorrect when 1) Not all traditions use that Suta and 2) The Suta and the statement do not conflict. The statement does not say that there is no guidance or teachings as to sexual misconduct in early texts. It says that there are no absolute definitions of right and wrong. Which is true. The suttas are parables and teachings, not rules. Buddhism is not dualistic like Christianity is, there is no good and evil. Right and wrong is contextual (relative) and not absolute. Getting to the main point here in this article is that Buddhism (with a big B) does not in any place say that sexual conduct or misconduct is viewed any differently with homosexuals as it applies to heterosexuals. Both can depending on the circumstances, be acting in a way that is not sexually responsible (sexual misconduct). Both can have relationships that are completely within the bounds of sexual responsibility (and are not sexual misconduct.) If you succeed in removing a section that in the lead clearly indicates that Buddhism does not have rules that judge sexual misconduct, you do the article, and the readers a disservice. Atom (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not Wikipedia appeals to authorities and I'd like to see 'what the majority of Buddhists would agree with' sourced somehow. I've already mentioned above that the sentence is NOT accurate to my knowledge and reliable sources are necessary to define what 'fundamental Buddhism' means and what percentage of Buddhists from different sects belief sexual conduct is not a religious consideration. Sexual misconduct is clearly defined for many Buddhists and I'm not the first editor even this month to object to the phrasing. If you leave in a universal statement leading people to believe that Theravada has no explicit rules on sexual misconduct then you are falsely representing Buddhism. You need to define what sects of Buddhism believe as you do and represent them but don't claim that POV speaks for every Buddhist. That violates WP:NPOV. Alatari (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If sexual misconduct is clearly defined someplace, can you cite that? You have given teachings that define what some Buddhists view as misconduct, but nowhere have you indicated where Buddhism teaches that homosexuality is wrong, or sexual misconduct. Also, again, keep in mind that we are talking about homosexuality(sexual orientation), and not talking about anal sex(behavior). Atom (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I agree with you that there are teachings and Suttas that discuss what they feel are examples of sexual misconduct. The statement you have talked about does not say otherwise. In Christianity there are absolute rules given. In Buddhism there are not. We *SHOULD* most certainly give the variety of perspectives in the article. But in the summary portion, saying that fundamentally Buddhism is not a judge of a lay persons actions is accurate. Later, giving the various traditions and sub sects and what their views and teachings are above and beyond that is what is called NPOV. All sects of Buddhism believe that Sangas are not the judge of your(a layperson) action, and all of them believe that there are no absolute terms that apply to lay followers. Theravada does not have any explicit rules that apply to lay persons regarding sexual misconduct. They have teachings about what things a lay person should consider to be misconduct, and what they consider will be a hindrance to enlightenment. We should express those, yes. I have never said that the article should not express viewpoints. Those do not conflict with the summary given.

I think the base problem here is that you misunderstand that statement. For instance "Buddhism in its fundamental form does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers." You seem to read as "Buddhists do not discuss what things are right and wrong." Two very different statements. And "the interpretation of whether homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson or not, is not a religious matter as far as Buddhism is concerned." You read as "sexual conduct is not a religious matter" or "belief sexual conduct is not a religious consideration." The statement was regarding homosexuality. It said that it is not a religious matter as to whether homosexuality is acceptable for a lay person." I asked before if you could tell me where Buddhism has stated that homosexuality is not acceptable. And you were not able to do that. The things that you have dropped out of the sentence that makes it different are important. "does not define ... in absolute terms" doesn't mean that it is not discussed or taught about, it means that it is relative to the situation, and there is no pronouncement that certain activities are always right or always wrong. Also, recall that this is within the scope of "sexual misconduct" and not a general statement that Buddhism does not say anything about what is right and wrong in all cases. The second sentence, of course sexual conduct is a religious matter... But the sentence says "the interpretation of whether homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson", and not all sexual conduct. Sexual conduct for monastics is very much a religious matter. What monastics think may be proper or not for householders (laypersons) is not important. The goal of a layperson is not enlightenment, generally, and the monastics are their teachers, not their gateway to God, as is the case with Catholics. Atom (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers. Therefore the interpretation of whether homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson or not, is not a religious matter as far as fundamental Buddhism is concerned.

Leadin can summarize the various themes of each of the sections. Organize the lead by describing the view on LGBT as being tinted by the culture within each Buddhism practice evolved, the distinctiveness between what's expected of Sangha and layiety and also the views evolution from earliest oral traditions and texts till now. Guess each topic sentence from the first paragraph of each section can be pulled together and then molded into a lead. Alatari (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. Certainly the lead should summarize what is said in the article. One issue to cover though is that although we can describe how different traditions or Sangha view the topic, we should not give the reader the impression that it is important what those views are. That is, that the point of view of an individual or a Sanga does not change how Buddhism views sexual misconduct. We don't want them to misunderstand and think that a Sangha has authority over lay followers. They should understand that only a given lay follower may judge their own sexual conduct. As long as we are clear that fundamentally Buddhism does not (for lay followers) define what is right and wrong, and that different communities offer various teachings on what their view is on the topic. (and not rules or laws, etc.) Atom (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be telling me that a Sangha can not eject you from the Temple or the rest of the laypeople turn their backs on you because you have committed rape...

This is a quote from ReligiousTolerance.org To summarize: Buddhism's basic teaching discourages sex, and particularly condemns adultery, rape, non-consensual sex, and unsafe sex. This would seem to apply to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally. However, some groups within Buddhism condemn homosexual sex because of cultural teachings that have merged with their religious beliefs.. Also Samma kammanta: Right conduct or right behavior. It has been stated as: Do not destroy any living creature; take only what is given to you; do not commit any unlawful sexual act. The Samma Kammanta is part of both Theravada and Mahayana traditions. condemns adultery, rape, non-consensual sex, and unsafe sex. - this comes from a Western tradition Buddhist paradigm. It's obvious there are clear actions that are misconduct and have the penalty that you will not achieve enlightenment in this lifetime if you continue to take these actions. If we define fundamental Buddhism as in part the Samma Kammanta then unlawful sex is considered wrong by fundamental Buddhism. It's amoral and a hindrance to achieving enlightenment. Notice that the word "LAW" is used in the text and so is "CONDEMN" and "DO NOT". Alatari (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source that calls unlawful sex "SINS' and "EVIL DEEDS". And these words have nothing to do with "RIGHT" and 'WRONG"? Evil and wrong are synonyms. Alatari (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that one can choose to do whatever they like. Of course a Sangha can tell you that you are unwelcome, but they can't tell you that you won't be allowed to find enlightenment. It is not up to them. They can't prevent you from finding it on your own, or joining another Sangha. Every action one takes affects their capability to find enlightenment. But one action does not condemn you to waiting until another lifetime. No other person may judge your actions and whether that will affect enlightenment or not. Lets speak though in the same context as the article, and not the end of the spectrum. If you happen to be born homosexual or bisexual, would it be right for a Sanga to eject you if you chose not to abide by their teaching that same sex activity was not proper? Of course they could do that, but that would not affect your karma negatively, as you know that you had done nothing wrong, or nothing that was sexual misconduct. What if you dates someone with the intention of having sex, and then rejected them after you got what you wanted? Regardless of the sex of that other person, your actions would be sexual misconduct, and it would hinder you finding enlightenment. How you personally feel about it really has little to do with it. You can do something you think is right that will hinder you anyway. Since it is sometimes not easy to tell, or is hard to be objective, we can usually rely on the teachings of others to guide us, which is the purpose of a Sangha. So that we may gain wisdom from others experiences. As useful (and I feel necessary) as that is, the Sangha is not your judge.

Samma Kammanta is just right action. There is no list of what is and is not right action. There is much teaching from others about what things they think may or may not be right action. As it is all relative to a situation or context, there can be no such list. If one kills their neighbor to take the land, most would say that was not right action. If one kills a person who is about to kill their wife and children, is that bad action, or right action? Atom (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously "sexual misconduct" (kamesu micchacara) includes rape and adultery. It is any kind of harmful sexual act. So the third precept rules it out. The lead of the article should make these main points: nothing in the early teachings says LGBT behavior is wrong for laypeople, but having certain gender identities does bar one from ordination, and this was put in place so that the monastic sangha would not lose lay support. Mitsube (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is only somewhat related to the real content of this discussion, but there are serious problems with invoking any "fundamental form" of Buddhism (which, as a side note, pretty much always has a big B). Lack of consensus about the similar concept of a "common core" in the teachings has several times debilitated discussions over at Talk:Buddhism, and it is clear that among different Buddhist schools, communities, and traditions, the beliefs and practices considered "fundamental" differ – sometimes widely. I don't get the sense there's serious POV-pushing here; I just think the phrase "Buddhism in its fundamental form" needs to be more specific about what it is referring to (the early teachings? Buddhist scripture?). /ninly_(talk) 01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

With some further thought, I've taken another stab at the wording here – I ultimately think this was just some unnecessary verbiage. My changes address the "plagiarism" issue discussed above, as well – rewording the phrase wasn't problematic. /ninly_(talk) 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The five precepts do not say one should not have craving. The third precept simply restricts certain expressions of sexual craving. Mitsube (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• That leadin looks nice. I'm still having trouble reconciling the usage of the word right in the context of Buddhism in its fundamental form does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers. and the terms right action, right speech, etc in Noble Eightfold Path. Someone completely uneducated about Buddhism could come here to learn and think: "It says there is no defined right and wrong but then it says there are 8 right ways to live, is this a mistake?"
• The phrase Buddhism in it's fundamental form is found in another 3 articles at least. Is there a consensus to substitute the new wording in those articles? Alatari (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am still thinking about the changes. I see your view about the use of "right". Also, I have found that when there is conflict about wording, that usually the best approach is to move toward exact and precise quoting of the source, rather than paraphrasing. Yet, in this case moving away from the citation seems to be the approach. I just wonder that six months from now someone will come along and debate the wording, and when looking at the citation will change it to reflect what the citation said. *shrugs*. I have been doing quite a bit of reading lately on the many different variations of Buddhism and their philosophies. Atom (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is between skillful and unskillful. Instead of talking about a "fundamental form" we can say according to the early texts. Mitsube (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The leading page is full of inconsistencies. See the theravada part of the article,and compare with the introduction regarding theravada and early buddhism. Both are incompatible. The introduction says that theravadins dont consider homosexuality to be bad sexual conduct,while the main part of the article regarding theravada clearly states homosexuality as having a bad karmical consequence. Maybe if a eastern based theravada SOURCE were used,instead of a western one,things would be more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.250.232 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

weasel words

The opening sentence of this article reads: Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions take a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behavior in particular. Yet, Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand and India have the worst incidence of child prostitution in the world. Official United Nations statistics state that one third of prostitutes in these countries are children. In Thailand and India the figure is as high as 40%. Furthermore, according to UNODC Thailand and Japan are home to some of the worst forms of modern-day sex slavery in the world in which thousands of young women are forced to be prostitutes against their will. I bring these facts up to highlight the fact that the first sentence constitutes weasel words which should not be used in Wikipedia articles.

The second sentence of the opening reads: 'However, the Buddha himself did not speak negatively of homosexual relations, as one do [sic] not find homosexual cases during his time' These statements are also questionable because although the Buddha did not speak negatively of homosexual relations (presumably what is meant here is specific prohibition for lay people - because the Buddha does explicitly forbid homosexual acts between monks in the Vinaya) per se he does speak negatively of all sexual activity (there are so many references to this in the Pali scriptures that to deny it would be to know nothing about the Buddha's teaching) which therefore includes sexual activity between homosexual couples. All indulgence in sexual activity is an outside path with respect to the dhamma-vinaya. So, if you are a gay couple the Buddha recommends - just as he does for married heterosexual couples - that you practise Brahmacarya (sexual abstinence). The first part of the second sentence, therefore, also constitutes weasel words.

Lastly, is it true that one does not find homosexual cases in the time of the Buddha? Well, the idea that there were no homosexuals in the time of the Buddha is of course ridiculous. However, as for what guidance the Buddha gave to people who are exclusively or principally attracted to the same sex, we are left only with the scriptures. It is true that there does not seem to be the phenomenon of 'the gay couple' coming to the Buddha for advice in the Pali Canon but there are many accounts of interesting and diverse personages having exchanges with the Buddha which does suggest that there was just as much human diversity two and a half thousand years ago as there is today. The only real candidate in the scriptures is the so-called pandaka which has been discussed elsewhere but which Buddhist scholar and monk A.L. De Silva believes "does not refer to homosexuals in general but rather to the effeminate, self-advertising and promiscuous homosexual." (Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism by A. L. De Silva) So I am just highlighting the fact that the opening sentences of this article constitutes what in Wikipedia are called weasel words - statements that are unverifiable and present a biased view. Because of this they are in the proces of being removed. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro in-fighting

The most common formulations of Buddhist ethics are the five ethical precepts for laypeople and the monastic rules, which contain precepts against sexual misconduct (for the former) and all sexual activity (for the latter). These precepts take the form of voluntary, personal undertakings, not divine mandate or instruction. But, as per Buddhism rebirth in any of 31 planes depend upon observance of these precepts. Those who break these precepts take rebirth in lower planes while those who observe these precepts may get rebirth in upper planes. For the Theravada commentary's explanation of the precept against illicit sex, see [1]; the commentary does not list homosexual partners as being illicit, however any coercive sexual act is a violation, homosexual or otherwise.

Early Buddhism appears to have placed no special stigma on homosexual relations.

People in two gender categorizations in use at the Buddha's time are barred from ordination; this reflects the need for the early monastic community to retain the respect and material support of the lay community of the time, without which Buddhism would have died out.

The above text was the INTRO to the article, however the subject was never even introduced. Instead it just appears like a bunch of childish in-fighting. NO CONCLUSIONS should be drawn in the introduction to an article. NO PERSONAL VIEWS should be drawn in the introduction of an article. These things should be common sense, but apparently some Wikipedians are not mature enough to write a decent article that accurately covers the subject at hand. For now, I am moving this content to the discussion page, and those who want to use the material or references in more appropriate areas may do so. Hopefully responsibly. Tengu800 01:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

References

WP:SPAM and organizations

There is a growing list of LGBT groups being added to the article and this is a violation of Wikipedia Spam except under some circumstances. Each organization has to have had significant coverage in scholarly publications or in several reliable news organization s over an extended period of time. Even so, just generating a list of organizations like below is Spam and significant organizations as I described above would be included in the body of the article as part of the 'story' of the article.

Which of these groups qualifies as significant under the criteria of notable?

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.

Remember according to Wikipedia:External links even links to web sites that ARE mentioned in the article are not necessarily considered to be added. Alatari (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

LGBT Buddhist groups

• Heartland, Gay Buddhists Fellowship – Singapore.
• Gay Buddhist Fellowship
• E-Sangha With A Dedicated Forum For Gay Buddhists
• Gay Men's Buddhist Sangha
• TGBuddhist.net, Transgender Buddhist support group
• Dharma Buddies, Gay/Bi/Trans Men's Buddhist fellowship – Seattle, WA.
• Extra Fancy Lotus Sisters – Seattle, WA.
• International Transgender Buddhist Sangha

Buddhism views on same-sex marriage

I think a section should be added relating to this. For example, a couple weeks ago, the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils announced their support for same-sex marriage, reference in [2]. --DrkFrdric (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Organizations that have done so in America:

• Buddha's Light International Association (Fo Guang Shan)
• Buddhist Churches of America (Jōdo Shinshū)
• Juniper Foundation
• Shambhala Buddhism
• Soka Gakkai International (Soka Gakkai)
• Unitarian Universalist Association via Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship (International Council of Unitarians and Universalists)

I wish I could have had references for all of them rather than just most of them. 2601:D:3582:2C0:F954:738D:2DF0:ACF3 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a group tp the list that was missing from the list earlier. 2601:D:3582:2C0:503A:2B98:2A70:A38C (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The list and references were for American branches of international Buddhist organizations for some groups so I added the American branches and put the international one in parentheses. 2601:243:C502:3650:31B5:3BD:27C6:100A (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Council, not covenant. 2601:243:C502:3650:31B5:3BD:27C6:100A (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Word "misconduct" seems to have first been recorded in the early 1700s... Misconduct, in nature, would seem, by definition, to be anything that is out of harmony or goes against the natural way of action. In the physical world, we can clearly see what is meant to be a "sexual act", since man still has a penis, and woman still has a vagina. Theewtgy (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

One, this isn't a section on the definition of sexual misconduct. Two, you assume the word contains an intrinsic eighteenth century worldview in it due to when the English word was coined. Three, it's the translation of whatever Sanskrit or Pali or whatever other language terms original to translated texts. Four, sexual misconduct is a literal Wikipedia page and has a literal meaning depending on a country's legal system. Five, Asian societies have a more loose definition of harmony and nature, than Western societies have traditionally held. Mahayana East Asian Buddhism is my particular focus for example in research. Buddhism in China, Buddhism in Taiwan, Buddhism in Hong Kong, Buddhism in Macau, Buddhism in Singapore, Buddhism in Japan, Buddhism in Vietnam, and Korean Buddhism are the specific national variants. The page has sections on Chinese (Taiwanese) and Japanese Buddhism as well as Buddhism in the West which is Westerners following Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Chinese/Taiwanese schools. Your flawed argument makes the Buddha and Buddhists traditions to have been eighteenth century Anglicans/Brits. 2601:243:C502:3650:BD63:100A:6725:C736 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Dalai Lama’s pov

The Dalai Lama’s pov is a bit more complex. I added a link to an academic paper that expresses his views and the background on them:

Thinking through Texts: Toward a Critical Buddhist Theology of Sexuality by José Ignacio Cabezón, Public Lecture, Naropa University, September 23, 2008 213.182.68.42 (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhist monks and homosexuality

Homosexual practices were tolerated in Tibetan monasteries as long as they were limited to the thighs and did not involve anal penetration.

http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanMonks/documents/Tibetan_Buddhism_and_Mass_Monasticism.pdf

http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/Drepung.pdf

https://tibetanhistory-20thcentury.wikischolars.columbia.edu/The+Struggle+for+Modern+Tibet

http://www.academia.edu/1470188/_Macho_Buddhism_Gender_and_Sexualities_in_the_Diamond_Way_in_Religion_and_Gender_1_2011_pp._85-103

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7538.html

http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2014/07/Stoltz-Tibetan-Polyandry-final1.pdf

http://www.iep.utm.edu/santideva/

https://collab.itc.virginia.edu/wiki/tibettourism/Gay%20%26%20Lesbian%20Travelers.html

Rajmaan (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Precepts

Talk of Buddhist ethics and The Five Precepts here on the talk page has been mostly, if not all, Theravada centered despite being only about 30% of the world's Buddhists. Bodhisattva vows and the Brahmajala Sutra form the Mahayana basis for morality. The Diamond Chalice Precept does it for Nichiren Buddhism which is a unique case in Mahayana where that one precept takes the place of all other precepts. Samaya does it for all forms of Vajrayana.

Despite all of the above facts, the focus has been on what Theravada commentaries on the Five Precepts say is or isn't a sexual misconduct to the exclusion of all other forms of Buddhism that aren't Theravada basically. The article doesn't do this so much as the talk page.

Basically the talk page needs the conversation to take a compete view of Buddhism rather than a Theravada centric one. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:LGBT in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Buddhism and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123025839/http://www.tpuuf.org:80/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/ to http://www.tpuuf.org/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://badpuppy.com/gaytoday/garchive/events/051397ev.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.q-notes.com/top01_040905.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040804014757/http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1993/7/1_7.html to http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1993/7/1_7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buddhism and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tpuuf.org/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091129000209/http://www.shambhala.org/about_shambhala.php to http://www.shambhala.org/about_shambhala.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thai shanga and theirs attitude towards LGBT people ordination

I'm pretty interested in attitude the different branches of Theravada in thailand towards ordinating LGBT people. I see that section was changed and I read that lgbt are more friendly seen in sangha than previous year. But I predict that quotaion of this monk can be only his personal attitude not all thai sangas at all. I doubt if sanga attutude towards lgbt ordination has so much rapedly change in perspective of 1-2 years. I think that in this section iformation about former lgbt ordionation ban should be mentioned. We dont know if it's opinion of one monk given to interview or official pssition of any brunch of thai theravada. I'm so sceptical that attitudes towards ordinations has changed at all in the structure of some thai branches of sangha. I'm convinced it was only one monk's opinion rather any official statement or official tendencion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wolak (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Relating pederasty to homosexuality?

The section on Japanese Buddhism contains the following; Despite the fact that isolated reports of homosexual cases date back to the earliest period of written history in Japan (the eighth century AD), Buddhists were the first to engage in public rationalization of pederasty, and it is due to them, therefore, that a homosexual culture emerged in Japan in subsequent centuries.

I'm sorry, but this is clearly written by someone - (Rafe87) - with an anti-gay agenda, who has previously been suspended for other politically nonsensical edits. I've removed it.

Theravada Buddhism misrepresented in the article

On the 16th of August, 2024, I removed a section that misrepresents Theravada Buddhism and added the below based on the Pali Canon, the authentic sacred text and the commentaries:

Theravada Buddhism does not encourage homosexual behaviour. Desire that men have towards men and women have towords women is called "micchādhamma" and can be found mentioned in the Paloka sutta of Aṅguttaranikāya and the Cakkavatti sutta of Dīghanikāya of The Pali Canon. The commentary and subcommentary of Cakkavatti sutta support the same. Both Paloka sutta and Cakkavatti sutta describe the dreadful effects of homosexual behaviour.

However the user @Archon_2488 has reverted the change stating "obvious hate speech". This is baseless and is without proof. Trekmentor (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Trekmentor, I decided to revert your version of this section because it was unsourced and seemed to my view to be written from a very tendentious perspective. I appreciate that this might be your personal reading of Theravada traditions and scriptures, but ultimately Wikipedia isn't here for giving a platform to one's personal views, especially when they are emotively expressed and do not cite appropriate sources in the way the community (and readers) expect. This is a big reason why administrative sanctions are often put in place on topics that are likely to attract controversial and overly emotional input of a sort that isn't encyclopedically appropriate. I'd more than welcome input from a third party, but on my reading your contribution to this article wasn't of the standard that Wikipedia articles are held to, for the reasons I've sketched above, and this is why I felt it was best to revert it to the previous version. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Buddism is based on Lord Buddha's words and not anyone else's words - not even your or my words. Pali Canon is the place where Theravada tradition is preserved. That's why I gave the exact locations from the authentic source of Theravada tradition. Why do you say that I have written my personal view? Others also read the scriptures the same way. I believe that you have not checked the sources or you don't accept scriptures. Please let me know, what made you to classify my writing as "obvious hate speech"? To refuse what I say, what do you have as the proof? Show alternative interpretations if you have. You are contradicting to yourself. You have written your personal views. It's not that I did it. I had been precise and clear. Trekmentor (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)