Does Dhammawheel Still Consider Pro-LGBT as Moral?

[Eko Care]

I have read quite strange article Why Buddhists Should Support Marriage Equality http://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/1430/ It looks like author has some personal views - indeed strange for monk who on the first place should support idea of celibacy - views which perhaps can be classify as ditthi-upadana.

For example autor says:

His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose. So any form of sex that is not for procreation is out.
This is, to my mind, an extreme and unrealistic position. The Dalai Lama says it is based on certain medieval Indian scholars (Vasubandhu, Asanga – but I have never seen the passages myself). It certainly has no basis in the Suttas.

....
What is even more strange, commentaries under Ven Sujato article are for the most part positive.

Ajahn Sujato and Marriage Equality

By looking at the responses to the above post, it seems, by the time of OP (2013), many active members of Dhammawheel were Pro-LGBT or Pro-"All-forms-of-equality". They seem to consider it as a good moral practice and seem like getting angry when someone speak against it.

[Coëmgenu]

DhammaWheel is progressively becoming more and more right-wing. It's likely only a matter of time before Judeo-Christian-style gay and trans bashing becomes more popular and even mainstream. Maybe you'll fit in better then?

[Eko Care]

Judeo-Christian-style gay and trans bashing becomes more popular and even mainstream.

Dear, don't get angry.
Buddhism, by definition, doesn't bash anyone.
There is some form of equality every time.
My question was about whether "All forms of equality" is moral or unmoral?

[Coëmgenu]

I'm not particularly angry. It takes a lot more than comments on an Internet forum to get me properly angry. That being said, just because you've decided that you think I'm angry, there's no need to "Dear" me.

"All forms of inequality" is something that no one believes in. No one believes that murderers should be completely equal to non-murderers. That's why we put them in jail.

[Ceisiwr]

Judeo-Christian-style gay and trans bashing becomes more popular and even mainstream.

Dear, don't get angry.
Buddhism, by definition, doesn't bash anyone.
There is some form of equality every time.
My question was about whether "All forms of equality" is moral or unmoral?

I don’t know what “all forms of equality” means. As to recognition of LGBT rights, is that a negative thing?

[Eko Care]

"All forms of inequality" is something that no one believes in. No one believes that murderers should be completely equal to non-murderers. That's why we put them in jail.

So do you still think advocating for gay marriage as a monk is moral or not negative?

[BrokenBones]

"All forms of inequality" is something that no one believes in. No one believes that murderers should be completely equal to non-murderers. That's why we put them in jail.

So do you still think advocating for gay marriage as a monk is moral or not negative?

I'm definitely of the couldn't care less/what business of mine is it and a little bit 'don't push any form of sexuality in my face' brigade... but exactly which precept are the lgbt group breaking? None that I can see unless they're cheating on their partner, forcing sex on others etc.

As for monks weighing in on the whole lgbt issue... I don't see why it's something they should concern themselves with.

[Eko Care]

I don’t know what “all forms of equality” means. As to recognition of LGBT rights, is that a negative thing?

"All forms of equality" means believing every human being has the same qualification and same right in each and every case.
eg:

• Lay people are as morally qualified as monks

• Children are as qualified as Elders

• LGBT people are as qualified as Other people for ordination/ marriage

• Bhikkhunis are as qualified as Bhikkhus for the elder seats

• Women can do anything Men can do

[Ceisiwr]

I don’t know what “all forms of equality” means. As to recognition of LGBT rights, is that a negative thing?

"All forms of equality" means believing every human being has the same qualification and same right in each and every case.
eg:

• Lay people are as morally qualified as monks

• Children are as qualified as Elders

• LGBT people are as qualified as Other people for marriage

• Bhikkhunis are as qualified as Bhikkhus for the elder seats

• Women can do anything Men can do

Right ok. Well, I don’t get the use of “qualified” here. Some laypeople are more moral than monks, even non-Buddhist “laypeople”. I don’t get the children and elders bit. In terms of marriage, if you accept human rights as a concept then gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. The arguments against it tend to be religious in nature. There really isn’t a secular argument against gay marriage or even homosexuality at all. Western Europe decided a long time ago that it’s better not to force others to conform with your personal religious views. I think that’s right. I don’t know enough about the nun debate to comment on the 4th. In terms of the 5th, I think men and women have predispositions towards different jobs etc. There are however always deviations from the standard mean. If then a woman wants to work in a “manly” profession then there is no real reason why she shouldn’t be allowed to IMO. What matters then is equality of opportunity.

[DNS]

By looking at the responses to the above post, it seems, by the time of OP (2013), many active members of Dhammawheel were Pro-LGBT or Pro-"All-forms-of-equality". They seem to consider it as a good moral practice and seem like getting angry when someone speak against it.

What is your position? Are you opposed to "Pro-LGBT"? If so, on what basis? And what Buddhist teachings do you use (if any) to form your position?

[cappuccino]

The obsession this topic inspires

Is not good

A source of suffering

Just saying…

[BrokenBones]

Morals change... virtue doesn't.

We wouldn't be having this 'discussion' a hundred years ago because the morality at the time would have imprisoned the lgbt group.

Is the OP saying that a virtuous homosexual in a monogamous relationship is immoral?

Homosexuality is not really addressed by the Buddha as far as householders go... he obviously didn't think it needed special attention.

[Eko Care]

We wouldn't be having this 'discussion' a hundred years ago because the morality at the time would have imprisoned the lgbt group.

This might be only in the western world.
But in many other countries such as India, there was no any bashing of lgbt group by others.

The reactions to the previously existed faults may go too much towards the other extreme.

[JamesTheGiant]

The reactions to the previously existed faults may go too much towards the other extreme.

Equality and tolerance is an extreme to you?

[Jack19990101]

The less we remain non-differentiating beings, the more we can remain equanimous.
To the degree that it is enough for us to uphold sila (vinaya for monks), that is the extend we maintain the differentiation.

All are stressful, all under relentless kamma. what is the point to those petty classification.