Dear Bhante,

Thank you for the thorough analysis, I think it is well said. Just some
musings if I may:

> 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.

I am looking at it a little differently... Buddhism doesn't have much good
to say about sexual intercourse itself, let alone what kind of sexual
intercourse it is. I am thinking now that it might say something that the
Lord Buddha was clear here about what kinds of "women" a man was not to have
relations with. One can imagine this was a reasonable thing to say if
homosexuality was not accepted at that time, but I don't suppose it means
that the Lord Buddha condemned homosexuality Himself. I think it is
interesting to talk about the aga~n~na sutta which seems to suggest the
perverse nature of heterosexuality in the first place. If we are talking
about two men living together in harmony, this is one thing, but if we are
talking about some of the more obviously coarse sexual acts (heterosexual or
homosexual), I think this is another thing.

> 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.

Agreed, this was not the criteria for kaamesumicchaacaara, but there might
be another angle, as mentioned above about how crude one's attachment to
kaama is. If one is engaging in sexual intercourse just for fun, it is
certainly not to be praised.

> 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.

I am happy to agree, except there is another reality of the ordination of
homosexual men that has led to some amount of concern among many people I
have talked to. Men who like other men (in uniform, to boot) sometimes
ordain for the wrong reasons, and some caution is in order. This coupled
with the large number of seven to fourteen year old novices running around
should raise concern. I'm sorry, I'm trying to say something that is
probably not proper to raise on a newsgroup. So, rather than skirt around
the subject, I'll stop :)

Gracious welcome to all people, homosexual or not, but please may we all
control ourselves as much as possible, for our own welfare and happiness!

Suma"ngalaani,

Yuttadhammo