One of the side topics that was raised but not answered in the
previous thread was on the Buddhist attitude to homosexuality. Since
this is an important ethical question i beg leave to share a few
thoughts here.
First to the texts. It is quite remarkable that the early suttas,
despite listing many forms of moral decay and degeneration, never
mention homosexuality. This is certainly not because they were
prudish. It seems as if it was just not an issue. There is a false
reference sometimes mentioned in the Agganna Sutta (or is it
Cakkavattisihanada?), but the Pali just says something vague like
micchaadhammaa, which could mean just about anything.
This is confirmed in the Vinaya. Since the Vinaya discusses
misbehaviour of monks and nuns it mentions all kinds of often
bizarre forms of sexual conduct.
Homosexual acts are referred to fairly often; while they are
obviously not acceptable among sexual monastics, there is no
suggestion that they were considered any worse than 'straight' sex.
In fact, there are several rules where the offence is heavier with
women: for example, a monk touching a woman with lustful intent is a
sanghadisesa, but touching a man is only a dukkata. This should,
however, not be read as condoning homosexuality. It is purely
pragmatic, as it would make it impossible to live in a same-sex
community if one was afraid of committing a serious offence every
time one touched a fellow monk.
There is a certain kind of person called a pandaka who is not
permitted to ordain. They are described in very strange terms, and
seem to be more like, say, a hermaphrodite or eunech rather than
simply someone with homosexual tendencies.
It is also worth noting that the concept of a 'homosexual' is not
necessarily directly applicable to ancient texts such as the Pali,
in the sense of a person who's basic sexual orientation is to their
own sex. There is simply mention of various acts that we would class
as homosexual.
This issue needs to be considered within the wider context of
Buddhist ethics, especially sexual ethics. The intent of the third
precept is to prevent sexual acts that betray trust. It has nothing
to do with the kinds of sexual acts that are performed. Buddhism has
never insisted on a 'missionary position', or condemmed
masturbation, etc., etc.
At least part of the reason for this (apart from it being simply a
rational stance) is that Buddhism has never been a 'fecundist'
religion; that is, we do not believe that we have a divine duty to
maximise the population by producing as many children as possible.
Thus sexual acts not intended for procreation do not infringe the
third precept.
This being so, it would seem clear that same sex couples, if in a
caring, committed relationship, should be treated as no different
from man-woman relationships. Hopefully this kind of attitude would
help in extending a spiritual hand of friendship to a group of
people who have suffered greatly through being marginalized and
rejected by most religions.