Dalai Lama point of view is summed up in the following:
In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he described a traditional Buddhist definition of an appropriate sexual act as follows: “A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else… Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact.”
He elaborated in 1997, explaining that the basis of that teaching was unknown to him and acknowledging that “some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context,” while clarifying the historical Buddhist position (in contrast with his personal opinion) by saying, “Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand… From a Buddhist point of view, lesbian and gay sex is generally considered sexual misconduct”.
The next morning in his diplomatic suite in the Fairmount, I asked him, "If the Buddha is our teacher, where and when did he teach that homosexual partners are inappropriate, that homosexual behavior is sexual misconduct?" The Dalai Lama candidly responded, "I don't know."
His Holiness was invited to participate in a private meeting between with seven gay and lesbian leaders in San Francisco in 1997. He agreed and clarified his remarks there by saying:
"We have to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers. From a Buddhist point of view, men-to-men and women-to-women is generally considered sexual misconduct…Even with your wife, using one’s mouth or the other hole is sexual misconduct. Using one’s hand, that is sexual misconduct."
In preparation for the meeting [with gay activists in San Francisco in 1997] the Dalai Lama had traced the sexual misconduct teachings back to the Indian Buddhist scholar Ashvaghosha, and said they may reflect the moral codes of India at the time, “which stress moral purity.” He was open to the possibility of Buddhist tradition changing eventually in response to science, modern social history, and discussion within the various Buddhist sanghas.
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/05/ ... n-gay-sex/
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?o ... ew&id=1977
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dannyfishe ... -comments/
in the Nikayas we find the following:
Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta (AN 10.176) wrote:Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.
Saleyyaka sutta (MN 41) wrote:He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are  protected by their mothers,  their fathers,  their brothers,  their sisters,  their relatives, or  their Dhamma;  those with husbands,  those who entail punishments, or even  those crowned with flowers by another man.
first thing apparent in the definition of objects for sensual misconduct is that it is always (save for ,  and ) implied to be necessarily a female, with the subject being 'HE' (gahapati - a housholder in Pali text)
so sexual activity is considered misconduct for a MAN if it involves
A. minors and incompetent individuals both male and female
B. those who willfully maintain abstinence or belong to a different varna/caste both male and female
C. criminals both male a female
D. engaged women
Walshe's rendering of the passage (sutta source is unknown) is more decisive
Buddhism and sex wrote:He avoids unlawful sexual intercourse, abstains from it. He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls.
according to this rendering only females are implied as objects and so possible cases of misconduct can be understood as purely heterosexual
at least in this stock passage there's no confirmation of Dalai Lama's point of view on 'unnatural' way of an intercourse
so as far as homosexual behavior is concerned, regarding MALEs a few possible conclusions can be drawn
A. adult male homosexual relationship by default is not misconduct and thus not even considered
B. adult male homosexual relationship by default is misconduct and thus not even considered
C. since both discourses are response to layMEN inquiries, Buddha simply saw discussing homosexual relationships with them (most likely heterosexual) as inappropriate
D. Homosexuality was outlawed and Buddha couldn't openly speak favorably of it
with regard to the status of female sexual misconduct even heterosexual, inference cannot be even attempted due to use of the 'HE' pronoun in the passage
possible explanations can again be multifarious but invariably speculative, one of which, applicable to male homosexuality as well, is that the decision on appropriateness of cases not covered in the list the Buddha would relegate to social customs and legislation, without taking stance on them personally