Many Faiths, One Truth

[Madeline]

I'm still back at square one. Trying to imagine how supporting gay rights is violitive of the command to honor one's mother and father. My folks would be terribly ashamed of me if I did not stand up for justice. Mebbe Sky Dancer also has such parents?

 

[logical4u]

There is NOTHING in the 10 Commandments that say "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's child".

You fucking idiot Christians are making shit up about your book again. Might wanna go back and re-read them, or at the very least, post the correct wording of the 10 Commandments, not some bastardized version that you are using to push your bullshit agenda.

By the way illogical4u, wanna explain exactly HOW homosexuality is sinful? What about lesbianism?

Careful on that...........I probably know more about this than you do.

Simple answer: it says you should not seduce your neighbor's child (adult or otherwise).
Homosexuality: one sex having sex with the same sex is 'perverse' and 'lewd' behavior. Yeshua spoke out against it.

Explain how homosexuality "honors" your parents. Not honoring them is sinful behavior.
Explain how homosexuals do not bear false witness. Bearing false witness is sinful behavior.

Yeshua had the woman that was about to be stoned for committing adultry in front of him, after he had shamed the men that would stone her. What did he say to her? Do you remember? Do you know? He told he to go and SIN NO MORE (in other words, stop doing that sinful behavior).

You are claiming I have an agenda. Please explain how elevating and giving preferential treatment to homosexuals is not an agenda. Explain how it makes society better. Try to do it calmly and rationally.

Okay stupid........tell me where the Commandment is that states you should not have seduce your neighbor's child? Got a bible verse for that?

How's about the verse where Yeshua spoke out against homosexuality? Guess what.....there isn't one.

* Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
* The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
* Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
* The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
* The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
* The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
* The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
* 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
* No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
* Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
* Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
* Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.

That's from a theological scholar site called Sacred Texts Archive.

Explain how homosexuality "dishonors" your parents?

As far as the bearing false witness thing? Straights do that as well as gays, so don't try to paint with that brush.

C'mon, just admit it, you're a bigoted asshole who is trying to pass off your version of spirituality as the only right one.

Good luck with that.........really.......

I did explain how homosexuality dishonors your parents. You did not explain how it honors them.

The mistreatment of strangers????? The town of homosexuals saw Lot's guests and wanted to rape them. When Lot offered his virgin daughters instead, the homosexuals rejected them and demanded he hand over his guests to be "raped". If you want to call that the mistreatment of strangers, that does not surprise me, you seem to have a problem with comprehension, I don't know if it is deliberate, or not.

In the Bible, the point of marriage was to have offspring, now there are times when you seem intelligent, can you explain how homosexuals could produce offspring before there was artificial insemination (and be true to their lover)? Why would the devout have to spell out that fact?

Your point was mine: "Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy." In the New Testament, you can be forgiven for these sins. Why do you want to deny one of those that is listed as sin, is not?

Yes, in the Old Testament there was polygamy. It was one of the reasons the kings of Israel and Judah fell into sin. Did you notice in the New Testament that Yeshua said a man will take a wife (again, no reason to define sex here), and the TWO shall become ONE. It is pretty simple; he is giving people a way to a better life. It is up to the people to follow.

Do a Bible search on lewd or perverse behavior. You will see when Yeshua spoke against it. You are the one claiming to know the Bible, thoroughly.

Name the Book, Chapter and verse that demonstrates "The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.".

Is there a Hindu nation (or other far eastern religious nation) you think offers more than this country? It is were Christians came to set up their lives without persecution. When they came together to make it a nation, there were safeguards for religious freedom as well as other freedoms built into the Bill of Rights. Now the politicians (and those with their own agendas) claim rights that infringe on others. Health care is the most recent example.

Not seducing your neighbor's child is part of the long form of the 10 Commandments. It is taking something that is precious to your neighbor for your own selfish purposes (if you were not being selfish, you would do the formal courting, and marriage).

"He did it too!!!" "As far as the bearing false witness thing? Straights do that as well as gays, so don't try to paint with that brush."
Seriously, is that your arguement, two wrongs make a right????
Would that be a formal agreement that homosexuals do bear false witness, reguarly?

Animals do it, so that makes it right? There is a sound justification. The male animals will often kill the offspring of a perspective mate (some will even eat it), do you want to 'elevate' that behavior too?

I am asking for an opposing view to clearly demonstrate why homosexuality is such a great thing that the people that practice it should be elevated above others. You calling me a bigot, implies you know a better way; I am asking you to present it. So far, all I get is ....well, they are sinners too. I have admitted that. You say my views are too hard. I did not say that people should be 'lawfully' prevented from committing these sins. I did ask, candidly, why, those sins should be overlooked. I would like to know with what authority, those that declare homosexuality not a sin, are using. The Bible clearly rejets this type of behavior (lewd and perverse). What Chapter and verse says otherwise?

Again, please stay calm and rational.

 

[logical4u]

I don't see how any of these relate to marriage equality. Honor thy father and mother--get married just like they did.

Be open about it. Deceive no one. Bear no false witness. Get out of the closet.

Stay with your own partner. Do not covet your neighbors wife (or husband). What a child has to do with it I don't know.

You confuse pedophilia with marriage equality?

This is hard for me. It is so clear that homosexuality is sinful. I am NOT saying that homosexuals will burn in hell. I would not wish that on the worst of the worst. We are all sinners in the Lords eyes.

Honor thy father and mother: how many parents are proud and 'brag' that their child is a homosexual. It is like saying your child is a drug addict: accepting and loving, but deep down, truly ashamed.

Bear false witness: how many homosexuals introduce themselves to a prospective mate's family as their 'date' or 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend'? They deceive the families and then reveal themselves when they think their families 'have gotten used to the idea' or finally guess. This would be like a drug dealer coming to a family's home and anouncing they wanted to lead the child (no matter the age) into a life of drug abuse.

Do not covet thy neighbor's ...., child: you are taking an important part of another family and enabling or encouraging them into sinful behavior. It does not matter what age that family member is (the law can be enforced under the age of consent). You are coveting your neighbor's family member for your own selfish purposes. Part of the marriage vow is to honor your partner; how can your partner be honored when the very act of being your partner is sinful and dishonorable in the Lord's eyes?

Intellectually, logically, this is understandable. For those that do not have strong beliefs, these can be twisted into a false love.
This results in a corrupt, immoral society that will eventually collapse. The rights of homosexuals or other 'select groups' are elevated above the rights of families. (Which will make a better community: homosexuals or families? Which can perpetuate a community without betraying the 'one' they love?)
If those with strong moral convictions do not hold others to high standards, there will be only low standards. It will acceptable to abuse anyone's unalienable rights that are not members of the 'select'. Then the terrible things that take place under dictatorships and communism will follow; there will be no one left to stand. The moral will be the first targeted (kind of like those that state they disagree with homosexual behavior). Moral decay happens slowly (to those that ignore the signs). They do not see that when groups are given rights over others, that all are loosing rights, and being subjugated (you have given them permission to "rule" you).

Try not using pure emotion, but logic to to consider my statements. If you think it is unsound, please explain how giving specific groups extra 'rights' will benefit society. No one is guaranteed the 'right' to marry. Each person must make their own decisions and decide if a mate is acceptable, to them to their family and to society. Every person has that opportunity. If someone chooses not to accept those choices, why should they, over everyone else be given additional choices? If people want to sin: live together, committ adultry, participate in homosexual acts; why should they be held as equal to those that marry and try to live without sin? Why elevate a sinful lifestyle as 'normal'? Why reward behavior that will damage society? Does your Buddhist beliefs address this?

You asked me about how Buddhism addresses precepts on sexuality. Here is the answer:

Third Training-

Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct.

How does homosexuality "cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society"? How does homosexuality "prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct"? I would say that, percentage-wise, homosexuals do not encourage integrity, and reguarly engage in sexual misconduct. Do you think this is false?

Please be intellectually honest. You write the words, but you will not say them, rationally. You skirt the facts. The truth is there, why do you ignore it?

 

[logical4u]

I'm still back at square one. Trying to imagine how supporting gay rights is violitive of the command to honor one's mother and father. My folks would be terribly ashamed of me if I did not stand up for justice. Mebbe Sky Dancer also has such parents?

So... if the gov decides that legalizing drugs will be beneficial for a more 'taxed' society, will you stand up for drug addicts 'rights' to get drugs, "however they can"? How is supporting sinful behavior standing up for justice? Do you think cleptomaniacs should be given special 'rights' to steal because it is such a temptation for them or 'because they were born that way'?

The best way to "stand up for justice" is to support the rights of the individual over the subjugation of gov (by the way, gay rights, does just the opposite). I have not suggested persecution or punishment for homosexuals, we will all, receive that when we are judged. I am saying that there are no other sins that have been declared null by society. Are you just the tiniest bit curious why it is so important that this sin is declared no longer a sin?

 

[Sky Dancer]

This is hard for me. It is so clear that homosexuality is sinful. I am NOT saying that homosexuals will burn in hell. I would not wish that on the worst of the worst. We are all sinners in the Lords eyes.

Honor thy father and mother: how many parents are proud and 'brag' that their child is a homosexual. It is like saying your child is a drug addict: accepting and loving, but deep down, truly ashamed.

Bear false witness: how many homosexuals introduce themselves to a prospective mate's family as their 'date' or 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend'? They deceive the families and then reveal themselves when they think their families 'have gotten used to the idea' or finally guess. This would be like a drug dealer coming to a family's home and anouncing they wanted to lead the child (no matter the age) into a life of drug abuse.

Do not covet thy neighbor's ...., child: you are taking an important part of another family and enabling or encouraging them into sinful behavior. It does not matter what age that family member is (the law can be enforced under the age of consent). You are coveting your neighbor's family member for your own selfish purposes. Part of the marriage vow is to honor your partner; how can your partner be honored when the very act of being your partner is sinful and dishonorable in the Lord's eyes?

Intellectually, logically, this is understandable. For those that do not have strong beliefs, these can be twisted into a false love.
This results in a corrupt, immoral society that will eventually collapse. The rights of homosexuals or other 'select groups' are elevated above the rights of families. (Which will make a better community: homosexuals or families? Which can perpetuate a community without betraying the 'one' they love?)
If those with strong moral convictions do not hold others to high standards, there will be only low standards. It will acceptable to abuse anyone's unalienable rights that are not members of the 'select'. Then the terrible things that take place under dictatorships and communism will follow; there will be no one left to stand. The moral will be the first targeted (kind of like those that state they disagree with homosexual behavior). Moral decay happens slowly (to those that ignore the signs). They do not see that when groups are given rights over others, that all are loosing rights, and being subjugated (you have given them permission to "rule" you).

Try not using pure emotion, but logic to to consider my statements. If you think it is unsound, please explain how giving specific groups extra 'rights' will benefit society. No one is guaranteed the 'right' to marry. Each person must make their own decisions and decide if a mate is acceptable, to them to their family and to society. Every person has that opportunity. If someone chooses not to accept those choices, why should they, over everyone else be given additional choices? If people want to sin: live together, committ adultry, participate in homosexual acts; why should they be held as equal to those that marry and try to live without sin? Why elevate a sinful lifestyle as 'normal'? Why reward behavior that will damage society? Does your Buddhist beliefs address this?

You asked me about how Buddhism addresses precepts on sexuality. Here is the answer:

Third Training-

Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct.

How does homosexuality "cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society"? How does homosexuality "prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct"? I would say that, percentage-wise, homosexuals do not encourage integrity, and reguarly engage in sexual misconduct. Do you think this is false?

Please be intellectually honest. You write the words, but you will not say them, rationally. You skirt the facts. The truth is there, why do you ignore it?

A monogamous gay couple is able to cultivate responsibility and integrity. There is no harm happening anywhere to a family.

Yes. I think your view of gay people is false.

I feel sorry for you. Your bias against gay people is evident. Buddhists allow gay people to wed in their temples. Why not? We all undertake the same sacred vows.

Here is some commentary on the matter:

Homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha’s discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society’s English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned.

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. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.

Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.
http://zendirtzendust.com/2010/05/03/open-forum-buddhism-and-homosexuality/

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey.......NotLogical4u, if you ever wanna be a complete human, you may wish to drop that Christian bias that you've got.

Remember...........the first 3 Commandments said to remember who God is, don't use His name in vain, and don't make graven images..........

Wanna explain the worship of the Crucifix? Me personally? I'd rather think of Yeshua as a teacher, something along the lines of Sermon on the Mount.

What is it that has caused you to bastardize the teachings of Yeshua and worship pain and death?

Just sayin'................................

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm still back at square one. Trying to imagine how supporting gay rights is violitive of the command to honor one's mother and father. My folks would be terribly ashamed of me if I did not stand up for justice. Mebbe Sky Dancer also has such parents?

My father was gay. I honor his memory when I stand up for marriage equality.

 

[logical4u]

You asked me about how Buddhism addresses precepts on sexuality. Here is the answer:

Third Training-

Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct.

How does homosexuality "cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society"? How does homosexuality "prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct"? I would say that, percentage-wise, homosexuals do not encourage integrity, and reguarly engage in sexual misconduct. Do you think this is false?

Please be intellectually honest. You write the words, but you will not say them, rationally. You skirt the facts. The truth is there, why do you ignore it?

A monogamous gay couple is able to cultivate responsibility and integrity. There is no harm happening anywhere to a family.

Yes. I think your view of gay people is false.

I feel sorry for you. Your bias against gay people is evident. Buddhists allow gay people to wed in their temples. Why not? We all undertake the same sacred vows.

Here is some commentary on the matter:

Homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha’s discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society’s English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned.

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. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.

Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.
Open Forum: Buddhism and Homosexuality Sweep the dust, Push the dirt

" A monogamous gay couple is able to cultivate responsibility and integrity. There is no harm happening anywhere to a family." So you have spoken to these families, intimately? They have told you, they think this is a great thing?

As far as "assume" that the texts included gay couples, you know what that means. If you assume you make an ass (out of) u (and) me.

You feel sorry for me? I am willing to see homosexuality as a sin (destructive behavior). There will be no homosexual, alone, on their deathbed, wondering why I lied to them about their behavior. I encourage them to fight the temptation to overcome sin, the same way I have for those on drugs, alcohol, or being promiscuous, or other types of destructive behavior. I want them to be happier people and to overcome sin (maybe I can make it to heaven with their support too!). I thought Buddhists tried to achieve the highest degree of awareness. Does destructive behavior bring you closer to awareness? Does denial of destructive behavior bring you closer to the truth?

 

[logical4u]

Hey.......NotLogical4u, if you ever wanna be a complete human, you may wish to drop that Christian bias that you've got.

Remember...........the first 3 Commandments said to remember who God is, don't use His name in vain, and don't make graven images..........

Wanna explain the worship of the Crucifix? Me personally? I'd rather think of Yeshua as a teacher, something along the lines of Sermon on the Mount.

What is it that has caused you to bastardize the teachings of Yeshua and worship pain and death?

Just sayin'................................

Is this your way of not answering the questions? You are pretty good at throwing without backup, now will you answer the questions, please?

I did explain how homosexuality dishonors your parents. You did not explain how it honors them.

The mistreatment of strangers????? The town of homosexuals saw Lot's guests and wanted to rape them. When Lot offered his virgin daughters instead, the homosexuals rejected them and demanded he hand over his guests to be "raped". If you want to call that the mistreatment of strangers, that does not surprise me, you seem to have a problem with comprehension, I don't know if it is deliberate, or not.

In the Bible, the point of marriage was to have offspring, now there are times when you seem intelligent, can you explain how homosexuals could produce offspring before there was artificial insemination (and be true to their lover)? Why would the devout have to spell out that fact?

Your point was mine: "Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy." In the New Testament, you can be forgiven for these sins. Why do you want to deny one of those that is listed as sin, is not?

Yes, in the Old Testament there was polygamy. It was one of the reasons the kings of Israel and Judah fell into sin. Did you notice in the New Testament that Yeshua said a man will take a wife (again, no reason to define sex here), and the TWO shall become ONE. It is pretty simple; he is giving people a way to a better life. It is up to the people to follow.

Do a Bible search on lewd or perverse behavior. You will see when Yeshua spoke against it. You are the one claiming to know the Bible, thoroughly.

Name the Book, Chapter and verse that demonstrates "The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.".

Is there a Hindu nation (or other far eastern religious nation) you think offers more than this country? It is were Christians came to set up their lives without persecution. When they came together to make it a nation, there were safeguards for religious freedom as well as other freedoms built into the Bill of Rights. Now the politicians (and those with their own agendas) claim rights that infringe on others. Health care is the most recent example.

Not seducing your neighbor's child is part of the long form of the 10 Commandments. It is taking something that is precious to your neighbor for your own selfish purposes (if you were not being selfish, you would do the formal courting, and marriage).

"He did it too!!!" "As far as the bearing false witness thing? Straights do that as well as gays, so don't try to paint with that brush."
Seriously, is that your arguement, two wrongs make a right????
Would that be a formal agreement that homosexuals do bear false witness, reguarly?

Animals do it, so that makes it right? There is a sound justification. The male animals will often kill the offspring of a perspective mate (some will even eat it), do you want to 'elevate' that behavior too?

I am asking for an opposing view to clearly demonstrate why homosexuality is such a great thing that the people that practice it should be elevated above others. You calling me a bigot, implies you know a better way; I am asking you to present it. So far, all I get is ....well, they are sinners too. I have admitted that. You say my views are too hard. I did not say that people should be 'lawfully' prevented from committing these sins. I did ask, candidly, why, those sins should be overlooked. I would like to know with what authority, those that declare homosexuality not a sin, are using. The Bible clearly rejets this type of behavior (lewd and perverse). What Chapter and verse says otherwise?

Again, please stay calm and rational.


I feel you tried to intimidate me with your vast knowledge: you know, don't try me on that..., etc. I thought we would have a great discussion. You see, I am no Biblical scholar, but the stuff you put out there was pretty easy to show holes. Where's the beef?

 

[elvis]

it dishonors your parents.....

what if one or both your parents are gay?

 

[logical4u]

it dishonors your parents.....

what if one or both your parents are gay?

If they are acting on their temptations, they are involved in sinful behavior. There are many incidents in the Old Testament where the parent sinned against the Lord and the child pleased the Lord by remembering the Lord. There is always hope for sinners. Yeshua taught us that. If we believe in Him, and try to follow His path, we can overcome sin. He even showed us how the faith of others could help a person that was incapable of asking themselves (when the man was lowered thru a hole in the roof, into a crowded house, Yeshua healed him because of 'his friends' faith').
Honoring your parents does not mean 'appeasing' your parents.
If your parents were convicts, would you strive to be like them? Do you think that would 'honor' them?

How can a person overcome sin when so many people are telling them their behavior is not sinful?

 

[Sky Dancer]

How does homosexuality "cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society"? How does homosexuality "prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct"? I would say that, percentage-wise, homosexuals do not encourage integrity, and reguarly engage in sexual misconduct. Do you think this is false?

Please be intellectually honest. You write the words, but you will not say them, rationally. You skirt the facts. The truth is there, why do you ignore it?

A monogamous gay couple is able to cultivate responsibility and integrity. There is no harm happening anywhere to a family.

Yes. I think your view of gay people is false.

I feel sorry for you. Your bias against gay people is evident. Buddhists allow gay people to wed in their temples. Why not? We all undertake the same sacred vows.

Here is some commentary on the matter:

Homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha’s discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society’s English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned.

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. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.

Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.
Open Forum: Buddhism*and*Homosexuality Sweep the dust, Push the dirt

" A monogamous gay couple is able to cultivate responsibility and integrity. There is no harm happening anywhere to a family." So you have spoken to these families, intimately? They have told you, they think this is a great thing?

As far as "assume" that the texts included gay couples, you know what that means. If you assume you make an ass (out of) u (and) me.

You feel sorry for me? I am willing to see homosexuality as a sin (destructive behavior). There will be no homosexual, alone, on their deathbed, wondering why I lied to them about their behavior. I encourage them to fight the temptation to overcome sin, the same way I have for those on drugs, alcohol, or being promiscuous, or other types of destructive behavior. I want them to be happier people and to overcome sin (maybe I can make it to heaven with their support too!). I thought Buddhists tried to achieve the highest degree of awareness. Does destructive behavior bring you closer to awareness? Does denial of destructive behavior bring you closer to the truth?

It's not destructive behavior to make a committment to be with the man or woman you love for the rest of your life.

Being in a relationship can bring you closer to awareness. It matters not if the relationship is same or opposite sex.

We have a number of wonderful gay couples--strong meditators and compassionate people- in our sangha and our community is completely supportive of them. We welcome them with open arms and hearts.

Your view of gay people is misguided and sad. Your hatred of gay people does not become someone committed to a spiritual life. I do feel sorry for you. You judge, condemn and hate others which is not what Jesus taught.

The gay people in our sangha will die with their hearts and minds open in a state of awareness surrounded by the community who will be praying and meditating with them. No one has lied to them, they have been taught how to live and die well.


Robert Aitken, Zen Buddhist teacher puts it this way--this is part of a letter he wrote in support of marriage equality:

The word Zen means "exacting meditation," descriptive of the formal
practice which is central for the Zen Buddhist. It is a demanding practice,
from which certain realizations emerge that can then be applied in daily
life. these are realizations that each of us is a boundless container, a
hologram, so to speak, that includes all other beings. The application of
this kind of ultimate intimacy can be framed in the classic Buddhist
teaching of the Four Noble Abodes: loving kindness, compassion, joy in
the attainment of others, and equanimity.

Applying these Four Noble Abodes to the issue of same-sex marriage,
I find it clear that encouragement should be my way of counseling.

There is, of course, a precept about sex which Zen Buddhists inherit
from earlier classical Buddhists teachings. It is one of the sixteen precepts
accepted by all Zen Buddhist monks, nuns and seriously committed lay people.

In our own Diamond Sangha rendering, we word this precept, "I take up the
way of not misusing sex." I understand this to mean that self-centered
sexual conduct is inappropriate, and I vow to avoid it. Self-centered sex
is exploitive sex, non-consensual sex, sex that harms others. It is
unwholesome and destructive in a heterosexual as well as in a homosexual
context.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/zen.buddhist.perspective.on.same.sex.marriage

The five precepts constitute an integrated set - each precept supports the others. To know what 'sexual misconduct' means you look at the other precepts. 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble. By contrast good sexual conduct is based on loving kindness, generosity, honesty, and mental and emotional clarity - conduct that has good results.

The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions. It calls for its very own precept! If we have a propensity to make fools of ourselves, to act stupidly and destructively - and we all do have this propensity - then we are likely to manifest it in our sex lives. On the other hand, each of us also has the opposite propensity to act out of friendliness, generosity and wisdom. With moral and meditative training our sex lives can powerfully express this propensity too. Hence the third precept expresses a tough and challenging sexual ethic. Not least for anyone who has grown up male and straight in a society like this one, with all its training in objectifying and predatory attitudes towards women, and deep fears of so-called deviance!

Lets look at the spirit of the precepts as a whole before returning to sexuality. Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. Often freedom takes the form of restraint, the ability to say no to an habitual or received compulsion, craving, fashion or dependency. Sometimes freedom takes the form of saying yes, a yes that overrides habitual or received fears, prejudices and inhibitions.

We can either treat other people and other elements of our environment as objects of our calculation, exploitation and consumption, or we can see other people as we see ourselves. All great religions more or less embody the latter ethic (like the Christian 'golden rule': "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). Buddhism does so in pure form. The precepts are a training in loving oneself and others, expressed in the intention to act skilfully so as to set us all free. Free from what and to do what? In traditional Buddhist terms, free from bondage, suffering, harm and danger, and free to take responsibility for our own wellbeing, and to contribute to that of others.

So back to the third precept. In ancient India the precept in its negative form was conventionally read as an injunction against abduction, rape and adultery. It has always carried the additional implication that we honour our sexual undertakings. If we have taken a vow of celibacy we should abstain from sex so long as the vow is on foot. If we have contracted into a monogamous relationship, we only have sex within that relationship. Anything else would be deceitful.

But the precept's ambit, especially today, is obviously much wider and covers violating behaviours that the women's movement among others has rightly politicised. An important example is sexual harassment, so prevalent these days when women and men share public space - workplaces, universities etc. Where power relations are prevalent, the power relations themselves have a gender component, and opportunities and cultural encouragement for abuse are ubiquitous. Among other things, sexual harassment is harming and involves taking the non-given, based on a deep-seated presumption - and delusion - in male conditioning about the constant sexual availability of women.

Rape in marriage is strikingly similar. Also violent and misogynist pornography which creates a hostile and unsafe environment for women and induces moronic and demonic mindstates in men, including delusions about the nature of women and what they want. So both sexes suffer harm. Publication or use of pornography which eroticises women's subordination thus plainly contravenes the third precept. But by no mean all pornography does so, and other sexually explicit material might be equally innocent.
http://www.buddhanet.net/winton_s.htm

 

[Sky Dancer]

We don't have a concept of sin in Buddhism. We speak of virtue and non-virtue. We emphasize taming our own minds rather than wagging judmental fingers at others. All beings have Buddha nature and want to be happy and avoid suffering.

We embrace our gay brothers and sisters and show them how to live virtuously. We support marriage equality for it leads to virtue--living in a committed monogamous relationship with respect and equal kind regard for each partner. Virtuous relationships are a way to be happy and avoid suffering. Buddhism seeks to end suffering by replacing greed with selflessness, hatred with compassion and delusion with wisdom.

Here is a Buddhist teaching story:

Two traveling monks reached a river where they met a young woman.
Wary of the current, she asked if they could carry her across.
One of the monks hesitated, but the other quickly picked her up onto his shoulders, transported her across the water, and put her down on the other bank. She thanked him and departed.

As the monks continued on their way, the one was brooding and preoccupied. Unable
to hold his silence, he spoke out. "Brother, our spiritual training teaches us to avoid
any contact with women, but you picked that one up on your shoulders and carried
her!"

"Brother," the second monk replied, "I set her down on the other side, while you are
still carrying her."



"My religion is kindness." HH the Dalai Lama

 

[ABikerSailor]

Is this your way of not answering the questions? You are pretty good at throwing without backup, now will you answer the questions, please?

I did explain how homosexuality dishonors your parents. You did not explain how it honors them.

The mistreatment of strangers????? The town of homosexuals saw Lot's guests and wanted to rape them. When Lot offered his virgin daughters instead, the homosexuals rejected them and demanded he hand over his guests to be "raped". If you want to call that the mistreatment of strangers, that does not surprise me, you seem to have a problem with comprehension, I don't know if it is deliberate, or not.

In the Bible, the point of marriage was to have offspring, now there are times when you seem intelligent, can you explain how homosexuals could produce offspring before there was artificial insemination (and be true to their lover)? Why would the devout have to spell out that fact?

Your point was mine: "Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy." In the New Testament, you can be forgiven for these sins. Why do you want to deny one of those that is listed as sin, is not?

Yes, in the Old Testament there was polygamy. It was one of the reasons the kings of Israel and Judah fell into sin. Did you notice in the New Testament that Yeshua said a man will take a wife (again, no reason to define sex here), and the TWO shall become ONE. It is pretty simple; he is giving people a way to a better life. It is up to the people to follow.

Do a Bible search on lewd or perverse behavior. You will see when Yeshua spoke against it. You are the one claiming to know the Bible, thoroughly.

Name the Book, Chapter and verse that demonstrates "The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.".

Is there a Hindu nation (or other far eastern religious nation) you think offers more than this country? It is were Christians came to set up their lives without persecution. When they came together to make it a nation, there were safeguards for religious freedom as well as other freedoms built into the Bill of Rights. Now the politicians (and those with their own agendas) claim rights that infringe on others. Health care is the most recent example.

Not seducing your neighbor's child is part of the long form of the 10 Commandments. It is taking something that is precious to your neighbor for your own selfish purposes (if you were not being selfish, you would do the formal courting, and marriage).

"He did it too!!!" "As far as the bearing false witness thing? Straights do that as well as gays, so don't try to paint with that brush."
Seriously, is that your arguement, two wrongs make a right????
Would that be a formal agreement that homosexuals do bear false witness, reguarly?

Animals do it, so that makes it right? There is a sound justification. The male animals will often kill the offspring of a perspective mate (some will even eat it), do you want to 'elevate' that behavior too?

I am asking for an opposing view to clearly demonstrate why homosexuality is such a great thing that the people that practice it should be elevated above others. You calling me a bigot, implies you know a better way; I am asking you to present it. So far, all I get is ....well, they are sinners too. I have admitted that. You say my views are too hard. I did not say that people should be 'lawfully' prevented from committing these sins. I did ask, candidly, why, those sins should be overlooked. I would like to know with what authority, those that declare homosexuality not a sin, are using. The Bible clearly rejets this type of behavior (lewd and perverse). What Chapter and verse says otherwise?

Again, please stay calm and rational.


I feel you tried to intimidate me with your vast knowledge: you know, don't try me on that..., etc. I thought we would have a great discussion. You see, I am no Biblical scholar, but the stuff you put out there was pretty easy to show holes. Where's the beef?

You know......being kind, doing charitable things and taking care of others as well as your parents is what honors them........not what you do in the bedroom. As far as I'm concerned, sexual orientation has no bearing as to whether or not you honor your parents. Do YOU get into your parents sexual proclivities by any chance? Probably not. It's actually the parent who dishonors the child by not accepting them as they are.

By the way.......quick question that I ask all Christians when they decide to quote Leviticus...........what are you as a Christian doing using a manual that was written for Jewish priests? Would you allow a Catholic mass to be performed in a Protestant church? If not, then as a Christian, you should not use that book, it's not yours.

Like I said dipshit, gimmie the chapter and verse for where Yeshua spoke out against homosexuality SPECIFICALLY. Clue for ya........He didn't.

As far as David and Jonathan? Here's your chapter and verse...........

David and Jonathan

There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.

This narrative far outweighs the two trivial aspersions against same-sex love in Leviticus. The bigots who use the Bible to assault gays are apparently blind to it.

The rest of your arguments are pure crap. Yes, if you lie, REGARDLESS as to whether or not you're straight, you're guilty of bearing false witness. However.......gays who are open and honest about their orientation DON'T.

Lots of those "good Christian GOP family values" types however........they lie about their affairs, and they're straight.

And.........just out of curiosity, what denomination do you belong to that encourages a "long form" of the 10 Commandments? Do you have a link for this that is part of a real church, or is this just some more bullshit you pulled outta your ass to try to prove your flawed points?

I'd guess the latter...........

 

[Sky Dancer]

Is this your way of not answering the questions? You are pretty good at throwing without backup, now will you answer the questions, please?

I did explain how homosexuality dishonors your parents. You did not explain how it honors them.

The mistreatment of strangers????? The town of homosexuals saw Lot's guests and wanted to rape them. When Lot offered his virgin daughters instead, the homosexuals rejected them and demanded he hand over his guests to be "raped". If you want to call that the mistreatment of strangers, that does not surprise me, you seem to have a problem with comprehension, I don't know if it is deliberate, or not.

In the Bible, the point of marriage was to have offspring, now there are times when you seem intelligent, can you explain how homosexuals could produce offspring before there was artificial insemination (and be true to their lover)? Why would the devout have to spell out that fact?

Your point was mine: "Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy." In the New Testament, you can be forgiven for these sins. Why do you want to deny one of those that is listed as sin, is not?

Yes, in the Old Testament there was polygamy. It was one of the reasons the kings of Israel and Judah fell into sin. Did you notice in the New Testament that Yeshua said a man will take a wife (again, no reason to define sex here), and the TWO shall become ONE. It is pretty simple; he is giving people a way to a better life. It is up to the people to follow.

Do a Bible search on lewd or perverse behavior. You will see when Yeshua spoke against it. You are the one claiming to know the Bible, thoroughly.

Name the Book, Chapter and verse that demonstrates "The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.".

Is there a Hindu nation (or other far eastern religious nation) you think offers more than this country? It is were Christians came to set up their lives without persecution. When they came together to make it a nation, there were safeguards for religious freedom as well as other freedoms built into the Bill of Rights. Now the politicians (and those with their own agendas) claim rights that infringe on others. Health care is the most recent example.

Not seducing your neighbor's child is part of the long form of the 10 Commandments. It is taking something that is precious to your neighbor for your own selfish purposes (if you were not being selfish, you would do the formal courting, and marriage).

"He did it too!!!" "As far as the bearing false witness thing? Straights do that as well as gays, so don't try to paint with that brush."
Seriously, is that your arguement, two wrongs make a right????
Would that be a formal agreement that homosexuals do bear false witness, reguarly?

Animals do it, so that makes it right? There is a sound justification. The male animals will often kill the offspring of a perspective mate (some will even eat it), do you want to 'elevate' that behavior too?

I am asking for an opposing view to clearly demonstrate why homosexuality is such a great thing that the people that practice it should be elevated above others. You calling me a bigot, implies you know a better way; I am asking you to present it. So far, all I get is ....well, they are sinners too. I have admitted that. You say my views are too hard. I did not say that people should be 'lawfully' prevented from committing these sins. I did ask, candidly, why, those sins should be overlooked. I would like to know with what authority, those that declare homosexuality not a sin, are using. The Bible clearly rejets this type of behavior (lewd and perverse). What Chapter and verse says otherwise?

Again, please stay calm and rational.


I feel you tried to intimidate me with your vast knowledge: you know, don't try me on that..., etc. I thought we would have a great discussion. You see, I am no Biblical scholar, but the stuff you put out there was pretty easy to show holes. Where's the beef?

You know......being kind, doing charitable things and taking care of others as well as your parents is what honors them........not what you do in the bedroom. As far as I'm concerned, sexual orientation has no bearing as to whether or not you honor your parents. Do YOU get into your parents sexual proclivities by any chance? Probably not. It's actually the parent who dishonors the child by not accepting them as they are.

By the way.......quick question that I ask all Christians when they decide to quote Leviticus...........what are you as a Christian doing using a manual that was written for Jewish priests? Would you allow a Catholic mass to be performed in a Protestant church? If not, then as a Christian, you should not use that book, it's not yours.

Like I said dipshit, gimmie the chapter and verse for where Yeshua spoke out against homosexuality SPECIFICALLY. Clue for ya........He didn't.

As far as David and Jonathan? Here's your chapter and verse...........

David and Jonathan

There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.

This narrative far outweighs the two trivial aspersions against same-sex love in Leviticus. The bigots who use the Bible to assault gays are apparently blind to it.

The rest of your arguments are pure crap. Yes, if you lie, REGARDLESS as to whether or not you're straight, you're guilty of bearing false witness. However.......gays who are open and honest about their orientation DON'T.

Lots of those "good Christian GOP family values" types however........they lie about their affairs, and they're straight.

And.........just out of curiosity, what denomination do you belong to that encourages a "long form" of the 10 Commandments? Do you have a link for this that is part of a real church, or is this just some more bullshit you pulled outta your ass to try to prove your flawed points?

I'd guess the latter...........

Maybe the Church of Neubarth wrote it's own long form of the Ten Commandments.

 

[Madeline]

This I can't wait to see. What are the long form commandments, Neubarth?

 

[Sky Dancer]

This I can't wait to see. What are the long form commandments, Neubarth?

In Neubarths long form version of the Ten Commandments every other word is Satan, demon or hell.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOErZuzZpS8[/ame]

 

[Madeline]

Could he be referring to the Torah, Sky Dancer?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Could he be referring to the Torah, Sky Dancer?

Dunno, Mad. Anything is possible. It's Neubarth.

 

[logical4u]

A monogamous gay couple is able to cultivate responsibility and integrity. There is no harm happening anywhere to a family.

Yes. I think your view of gay people is false.

I feel sorry for you. Your bias against gay people is evident. Buddhists allow gay people to wed in their temples. Why not? We all undertake the same sacred vows.

Here is some commentary on the matter:

Homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha’s discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society’s English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned.

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. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.

Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.
Open Forum: Buddhism*and*Homosexuality Sweep the dust, Push the dirt

" A monogamous gay couple is able to cultivate responsibility and integrity. There is no harm happening anywhere to a family." So you have spoken to these families, intimately? They have told you, they think this is a great thing?

As far as "assume" that the texts included gay couples, you know what that means. If you assume you make an ass (out of) u (and) me.

You feel sorry for me? I am willing to see homosexuality as a sin (destructive behavior). There will be no homosexual, alone, on their deathbed, wondering why I lied to them about their behavior. I encourage them to fight the temptation to overcome sin, the same way I have for those on drugs, alcohol, or being promiscuous, or other types of destructive behavior. I want them to be happier people and to overcome sin (maybe I can make it to heaven with their support too!). I thought Buddhists tried to achieve the highest degree of awareness. Does destructive behavior bring you closer to awareness? Does denial of destructive behavior bring you closer to the truth?

It's not destructive behavior to make a committment to be with the man or woman you love for the rest of your life.

Being in a relationship can bring you closer to awareness. It matters not if the relationship is same or opposite sex.

We have a number of wonderful gay couples--strong meditators and compassionate people- in our sangha and our community is completely supportive of them. We welcome them with open arms and hearts.

Your view of gay people is misguided and sad. Your hatred of gay people does not become someone committed to a spiritual life. I do feel sorry for you. You judge, condemn and hate others which is not what Jesus taught.

The gay people in our sangha will die with their hearts and minds open in a state of awareness surrounded by the community who will be praying and meditating with them. No one has lied to them, they have been taught how to live and die well.


Robert Aitken, Zen Buddhist teacher puts it this way--this is part of a letter he wrote in support of marriage equality:

The word Zen means "exacting meditation," descriptive of the formal
practice which is central for the Zen Buddhist. It is a demanding practice,
from which certain realizations emerge that can then be applied in daily
life. these are realizations that each of us is a boundless container, a
hologram, so to speak, that includes all other beings. The application of
this kind of ultimate intimacy can be framed in the classic Buddhist
teaching of the Four Noble Abodes: loving kindness, compassion, joy in
the attainment of others, and equanimity.

Applying these Four Noble Abodes to the issue of same-sex marriage,
I find it clear that encouragement should be my way of counseling.

There is, of course, a precept about sex which Zen Buddhists inherit
from earlier classical Buddhists teachings. It is one of the sixteen precepts
accepted by all Zen Buddhist monks, nuns and seriously committed lay people.

In our own Diamond Sangha rendering, we word this precept, "I take up the
way of not misusing sex." I understand this to mean that self-centered
sexual conduct is inappropriate, and I vow to avoid it. Self-centered sex
is exploitive sex, non-consensual sex, sex that harms others. It is
unwholesome and destructive in a heterosexual as well as in a homosexual
context.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/zen.buddhist.perspective.on.same.sex.marriage

The five precepts constitute an integrated set - each precept supports the others. To know what 'sexual misconduct' means you look at the other precepts. 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble. By contrast good sexual conduct is based on loving kindness, generosity, honesty, and mental and emotional clarity - conduct that has good results.

The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions. It calls for its very own precept! If we have a propensity to make fools of ourselves, to act stupidly and destructively - and we all do have this propensity - then we are likely to manifest it in our sex lives. On the other hand, each of us also has the opposite propensity to act out of friendliness, generosity and wisdom. With moral and meditative training our sex lives can powerfully express this propensity too. Hence the third precept expresses a tough and challenging sexual ethic. Not least for anyone who has grown up male and straight in a society like this one, with all its training in objectifying and predatory attitudes towards women, and deep fears of so-called deviance!

Lets look at the spirit of the precepts as a whole before returning to sexuality. Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. Often freedom takes the form of restraint, the ability to say no to an habitual or received compulsion, craving, fashion or dependency. Sometimes freedom takes the form of saying yes, a yes that overrides habitual or received fears, prejudices and inhibitions.

We can either treat other people and other elements of our environment as objects of our calculation, exploitation and consumption, or we can see other people as we see ourselves. All great religions more or less embody the latter ethic (like the Christian 'golden rule': "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). Buddhism does so in pure form. The precepts are a training in loving oneself and others, expressed in the intention to act skilfully so as to set us all free. Free from what and to do what? In traditional Buddhist terms, free from bondage, suffering, harm and danger, and free to take responsibility for our own wellbeing, and to contribute to that of others.

So back to the third precept. In ancient India the precept in its negative form was conventionally read as an injunction against abduction, rape and adultery. It has always carried the additional implication that we honour our sexual undertakings. If we have taken a vow of celibacy we should abstain from sex so long as the vow is on foot. If we have contracted into a monogamous relationship, we only have sex within that relationship. Anything else would be deceitful.

But the precept's ambit, especially today, is obviously much wider and covers violating behaviours that the women's movement among others has rightly politicised. An important example is sexual harassment, so prevalent these days when women and men share public space - workplaces, universities etc. Where power relations are prevalent, the power relations themselves have a gender component, and opportunities and cultural encouragement for abuse are ubiquitous. Among other things, sexual harassment is harming and involves taking the non-given, based on a deep-seated presumption - and delusion - in male conditioning about the constant sexual availability of women.

Rape in marriage is strikingly similar. Also violent and misogynist pornography which creates a hostile and unsafe environment for women and induces moronic and demonic mindstates in men, including delusions about the nature of women and what they want. So both sexes suffer harm. Publication or use of pornography which eroticises women's subordination thus plainly contravenes the third precept. But by no mean all pornography does so, and other sexually explicit material might be equally innocent.
BuddhaNet Magazine Article: Buddhist Sexual Ethics

Can you show me where I said "I hate homosexuals!"? I have never said that I hate homosexuals. I have said that homosexual acts are sinful. I have said that homosexual lifestyle is a destructive lifestyle. I have never said that I hated homosexuals. I said that I wished for their salvation and to join "them" in heaven. I know that it is convenient for you to twist my direct statements, but you are now bearing false witness against me by claiming that I hate homosexuals (that, also, is a sinful act).

""I take up the way of not misusing sex." ",
" 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble.", "Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. Often freedom takes the form of restraint, the ability to say no to an habitual or received compulsion, craving, fashion or dependency. ",
"The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions.",

forgive me for cherry picking, but these are the points I was making: homosexuality violates family values, and takes (by seduction) what is not freely given (a family member). Homosexuality targets the young and inexperienced specifically by deceit or phychological conditioning.
Ask a homosexual about their 'first' homosexual experience; the majority will tell you they thought the activity was totally different than it turned out to be. A homosexual will not go to a family home for a 'date' and be honest about their intentions to enter into a homosexual releationship with the intended target. They will introduce themselves as a 'friend' or an associate; they will not tell the family that they have come to 'date' the child (don't go off on age, please, an offspring is a child, no matter what the age). If the child is homosexual, they will not tell their own parents that they intend to seduce another family's child using deceitful methods. My interpretation of your posting would lead a person to believe that homosexuality has no integrity, little honesty, and is a completely selfish act.

If two people of the same sex want to pledge to live and support each other as friends and are not engaged in homosexual activity, there is no harm, no sin. They maintain their integrity as people. Once they engage in homosexual acts, and pretend to be straight for situations of convenience, they no longer have integrity and have become deceitful. Once they are 'deceitful' that deceit increases, I am sure you know the tale, once you tell a lie, you must tell another, and another....

I think it is compassionate of you to try to include 'most people' in your high opinions of people. I just do not think that you are being truthful according to your faith's precpts, to yourself or to those that engage in homosexual acts. How can you help a person improve if you enable or accept bad behavior? Every person makes their own choices of how they live.

Our society used to reward honor and integrity. Ask yourself: if homosexuality was rejected for millenium, why is it so important that it is given an elevated status, now, today? What is the beneficiary? How can enabling this behavior improve society? Look at it through 'rose-colored' glasses and consider the very best homosexuality has to offer. Now be brutally honest, and look at the other side: look at the destruction and harm the "acceptance" of homosexuality and the extended rights the homosexuals want given to just them will cause. I doubt you will do it, those that claim the eastern religions, rarely look at the downside. Individual rights are being reduced to increase the status and power of specific groups. This has been done throughout history, it results in abuse and subjugation. "Every time" individual rights are replaced by specific groups or government power it starts with: it will be different this time. But through the millenium, "every time" it ends the same, ugly.

I wish you the best with your faith. I hope that by using it, you will search out the truth, and embrace it. The worst atrocities in history have happened because good people would not believe the evil being done, and would therefore do nothing to stop it, until those committing the atrocities came for them and theirs. It is your choice: eyes open, or eyes closed to determine how to live.