thanks for writing on this topic on and off list. I appreciate that.
I have read Dr Silva's article, and I am fuller aware of the Buddha's
advice on sexual desire. I agree with Dr Silva that
1. homosexuality was known in ancient India.
2. it is not explicitly mentioned in the Tipitaka, and probably the
Buddha meant to evaluate it in the same way that heterosexuality is.
3. in the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual
consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is
an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be
breaking the third Precept.
Frank, I am not sure if it is right to say that any kind of sexual
acts is a perversion (wrong view). As I understand, wrong view arises
from attachment and ignorance. In this case, it would mean attachment
to sensual objects, and ignorant that nothing is permanent.
Attachment and ignorance lead to suffering, because of that Buddha
says deeds, words and acts performed with attachment and ignorance
are unwholesome, and do not lead to end of suffering. So, the act
itself is not wrong view. However, I agree, as you quote later, that
the view to "enjoy sense pleasures without attachment" is wrong view.
As mature adults, we all know that when a person "enjoy sense
pleasures" there is always "attachment". It will be self-deceiving to
deny that.
I am actually looking at the mundane level at how gay people can live
a life of respect and dignity. For example, in Sigalovada Sutta, the
Buddha teaches Sigalovada about good relationships between husband
and wife in a family. I wonder if that can be extended to a gay
couple. What do you think?