Buddhism & Sexuality: My thoughts & Questions

[Still Searching]

Can Buddhists be gay? Is it wrong?
I understand that Buddhist Monks/Nuns cannot have sex nor even masturbate or have desires for another human.

As long as a lay Buddhist or non-Monk is faithful & loyal to their partner, are they allowed to be homosexual or bisexual?
Do they have to be married to have sex?
Is masturbation strictly prohibited?

How do Buddhists for about transgender people?
Is Gender Reassignment Surgery wrong?
Do they find Gender Identity Disorder disgusting?
Or are Buddhists okay with the LGBT community?

I do apologize for bringing this up, I know these questions can be very uncomfortable to answer for some Buddhists.

[David N. Snyder]

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality

[Still Searching]

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality

Thank you David

[Cittasanto]

Can Buddhists be gay? Is it wrong?
I understand that Buddhist Monks/Nuns cannot have sex nor even masturbate or have desires for another human.

Homosexuality isn't wrong, although for monastics there is a rule regarding who can be ordained which seems to ban homosexuals from ordaining. However, this is not always followed as it is not something which prevents them from staying ordained when they do become ordained.
Mendicants cannot have sex, period. However, masturbation is a rehabilitating offence. i.e. they do not loose the status as a mendicant due to it. But they should strive against desire, particularly sexual desire, although it should be remembered it is a gradual path and they are human.

As long as a lay Buddhist or non-Monk is faithful & loyal to their partner, are they allowed to be homosexual or bisexual?
Do they have to be married to have sex?
Is masturbation strictly prohibited?

Yes
No, but marriage is not how we see it in all societies, and can be a social contract more than a religious duty. I believe the commentaries distinguish several forms of wife and not all of them are what we would consider to be a wife today.
no. but it is advised against.

How do Buddhists for about transgender people?
Is Gender Reassignment Surgery wrong?
Do they find Gender Identity Disorder disgusting?
Or are Buddhists okay with the LGBT community?

this is more of an individual bias than a Buddhist bias, however the term I refer to earlier which may prohibit homosexuals from ordaining also covers transgender people and has been used to discriminate.
but again this is an individual bias, not something specific to Buddhism.
do remember that some rules came due to complaints from lay people and sometimes cultural influence is found within the rules.

[LonesomeYogurt]

It should be pointed out that there are many ways to interpret the prohibitions against Pandikas:

"A type of person called a pandaka is occasionally mentioned in the Vinaya in contexts that make it clear that such a person is some kind of sexual non-conformist. The Vinaya also stipulates that pandakas are not allowed to be ordained, and if, inadvertently, one has been, he is expelled. According to commentary, this is because pandakas are "full of passions, unquenchable lust and are dominated by the desire for sex." The word pandaka has been translated as either hermaphrodite or eunuch, while Zwilling has recently suggested that it may simply mean a homosexual. It is more probable that ancient Indians, like most modern Asians, considered only the extremely effeminate, exhibitionist homosexual (the screaming queen in popular perception) to be deviant while the less obvious homosexual was simply considered a little more opportunistic or a little less fussy than other 'normal' males. As the Buddha seems to have had a profound understanding of human nature and have been remarkably free from prejudice, and as there is not evidence that homosexuals are any more libidinous or that they have any more difficulties in maintaining celibacy than heterosexuals, it seems unlikely that the Buddha would exclude homosexuals per se from the monastic life. The term pandaka therefore probably does not refer to homosexuals in general but rather to the effeminate, self-advertising and promiscuous homosexual."

[tiltbillings]

there is a rule regarding who can be ordained which seems to ban homosexuals from ordaining.

No, there is not.

[Cittasanto]

there is a rule regarding who can be ordained which seems to ban homosexuals from ordaining.

No, there is not.

please explain this then tilt.

"A paṇḍaka, if unaccepted (unordained), is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled." — Mv.I.61.2

although I did make the mistake that they could remain. paṇḍaka is understood by some to incorporate homosexuality.

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1698#p22410

Regarding paṇḍakas, in the Vinaya Atthakathā these are classified as being of five types:

1) āsitta-paṇḍaka: — (literally, a "sprinkled one") a man who finds sexual fulfillment in performing fellatio on another man and bringing him to climax. (For some reason, other homosexual acts, even though they were known in ancient India, are not included under this type nor under any of the types in this list.)
2) usūya-paṇḍaka: — a voyeur a man who finds sexual fulfillment in watching other people have sex.
3) opakkamika-paṇḍaka: — A eunuch - one who has been castrated.
4) pakkha-paṇḍaka: — A half-time paṇḍaka - one who is a paṇḍaka only during the waning moon.
5) napuṃsaka-paṇḍaka: — A neuter - a person born without sexual organs.
(I have followed Ven. Thanissaro's translations of these terms)

Of these five kinds, the first two may ordain as bhikkhus, the other three may not. So, given that the āsitta-paṇḍaka —the type closest to what we call a "homosexual" today— is permitted to ordain, I think we have to take it that such persons are in fact capable of awakening.

[LonesomeYogurt]

paṇḍaka is understood by some to incorporate homosexuality.

Yes, but those who choose to believe such a definition of paṇḍaka are, in my opinion, completely without justification.

[tiltbillings]

there is a rule regarding who can be ordained which seems to ban homosexuals from ordaining.

No, there is not.

please explain this then tilt.

You have answered your own question with the quote from Ven Dhammananado.

[Annapurna]

Wasn't there also something about using the right or wrong orifices...?

Anybody have a source?

[David N. Snyder]

Wasn't there also something about using the right or wrong orifices...?

That is from a Mahayana Sutra, not in the Theravada Pali Canon. In this case, we (Theravadins) are the more progressive ones.

[Aloka]

Wasn't there also something about using the right or wrong orifices...?

Anybody have a source?

I think that's from Tibetan Buddhism.....this is from the Berzin Archives:

...... "Gradually, other forms of sexual behavior were added as being inappropriate. For instance, certain orifices of the body were listed as inappropriate for sexual intercourse, such as the mouth and the anus, even with one's own wife. The rationale behind this was undoubtedly that having sex in an inappropriate orifice would be motivated by obsessive desire. Dissatisfied with vaginal sex with one's wife, one would become a sexual explorer and adventurer, and feel that one had to try every posture and every orifice in order to have more pleasure"

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/world_today/issues_buddhist_sexual_ethics.html

.

[plwk]

Wasn't there also something about using the right or wrong orifices...?

It's attributed to sources like Vasubandhu in some of his works like the Abhidharmakosa and amusing to see the attitudes towards sexuality those days and culture and even today when one reads Mahayana Sutras like the Lotus Sutra, it has a brief mention in one chapter on those one should be watchful on in associating with certain sections of society (including 'Hinayanists'! lol) and again, like the Vinaya quotes above, the term pandaka is used but oft glossed over by many as to what this term mean and cover. In another, the Upasaka Sila Sutra, there is a lot of debate and glossed over misinterpretations on what is 'appropriate place, time and persons'...

That is from a Mahayana Sutra, not in the Theravada Pali Canon. In this case, we (Theravadins) are the more progressive ones.

Progressive? Depends on which Theravadin interpretation one is referring to... [url=http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/8.7-Sannoga-S-a7.48-piya.pdf]2. Abnormal sexuality[/i] And you should meet some of the Theravadins I met some years back, as fiery as the evangelist fundamentalists on this subject... at the very most, they express pity for the GLBTIs for stuff like 'bad past kamma'....

[Cittasanto]

You have answered your own question with the quote from Ven Dhammananado.

not really considering I only provided a list of interpretations of the term from the commentary, and not cited a story from the Mahavaga. And there is number four in the list which Thanissaro explains using this canonical story.

In the origin story for this prohibition, a paṇḍaka who had received Acceptance unsuccessfully propositioned some bhikkhus and novices, then succeeded in propositioning some horse- and elephant-trainers, who spread it about, "These Sakyan-son monks are paṇḍakas. And those among them who are not paṇḍakas molest paṇḍakas."

Yes, but those who choose to believe such a definition of paṇḍaka are, in my opinion, completely without justification.

Yet it is the understanding some have. and it didn't come from nowhere.