I see that this discussion ended awhile ago but I thought I would add a few more reflections....
The Dalai Lama seems to be a bit confused in distinguishing between monastic and lay rules, which is surprising since he is usually considered to be such an "expert" and revered by the masses as "enlightened". It is not difficult to distinguish the differences of the rules between monastic and lay practitioners. Even junior monks are skilled at that, therefore someone who has studied the discourses for many many years should easily be able to point out the difference.
There is no mention in the suttas and vinaya , that homosexuality is misconduct, but in the vinaya in regard to monks rules it is only misconduct if acted upon, in fact any sexual act- except a sexual thought- is misconduct for a monk (fully ordained), whether enlightened or not. In the sutta form the Anguttara Nikaya regarding the Buddhas standard for celibacy, even the thought of sex is misconduct, whether one is straight or gay doesn't apply, and if one is purely celibate in regard to the Buddhas standard oncelibacy then gay and straight no longer applies to you either.
The monks rules are very clear in regard to sexual practices. If there is an INTENTIONAL emission of semen then it requires rehabilitation and a reinstating process involving confessing in front of many monks and the loss of ones position in the community for a particular period no less than six days but can be much longer. This process is meant re-establish a sense of shame in the monk, since that is the basis for the holy life because attachment to sexual pleasure is an obstacle for attaining the goal of Nibbana. One cannot have non attachment to pleasure when acting sexually.
If a monk has sexual intercourse with anyone, then he is automatically no longer a monk, whether or not others find out.
So the practice of having "Drombos" (passive male sexual partners) in the Tibetan Buddhist monastic system is quite disturbing, since they claim to be upholding the Buddhas Teaching. But it seems that those monks get around the rules- Vinaya laid down by the Buddha, by inventing their own set of more modern rules which differ from monastery to monastery. Therefore if they do not keep the actually Vinaya of Buddhist monastics then they cannot be regarded as Buddhist monks who follow the actual Buddha.
There actions are very wrong on many levels, for it sets up others in going the wrong direction, i.e people who want freedom from suffering, end up going in the wrong direction and actually end up adopting new wrong ideas on top of their own wrong ideas.
Here is a link to a talk regarding the Dalai Lama stance on homosexuality in monastic life....
In many Theravada Buddhist monasteries there is the acceptance of Tibetan monks as being "equal" in ordination, but I think that these supposed facts about the sexual practices of Tibetan monks , particularly from the lineage of the Dalai Lama, brings the validity of their ordination, in regards to Theravada Bhikkhus, in to question. If the Tibetan monastic system follows a completely different set of rules to that of Theravada monastics and-or to the rules laid down by the Buddha then, regarding the Dalai Lama as an "equal" is invalid, and even asking the Dalai Lama his opinion whether or not women can be ordained as Theravada Bhikkhunis is ridiculous, as some have done in the past.
So, if one is interested in finding out about what the Buddha said about sexual misconduct, its probably best to look in the Nikayas oneself, rather than asking the Dalai Lama.