Gay Buddhist

Buddhist teachings prescribe, and anticipate from, adherents a specific standard of ethical conduct. The fundamental expectations for lay Buddhists are encapsulated in the Five Precepts (panca sila), with the third precept pertaining to sexual conduct. A pertinent inquiry here concerns whether same-sex sexual behavior constitutes a breach of this third Precept.

Homosexual relations were recognized in ancient India; the Vinaya (monastic rules) explicitly mentions and prohibits such actions. Same-sex acts were not singled out for unique condemnation but, instead, were classified alongside various sexual acts as violations of the monastic vow of celibacy. Sexual interactions, encompassing both same-sex and opposite-sex acts involving bodily orifices (vagina, mouth, or anus), carried the penalty of expulsion from the monastic order. Other sexual behaviors, such as mutual masturbation or interfemoral sex, though considered serious infractions, did not result in expulsion but rather required confession within the monastic community.

The Vinaya occasionally references a category of individuals, pandakas, clearly signifying a kind of sexual nonconformist. Monastic ordination was forbidden for pandakas, with expulsion for any who, through oversight, had been ordained. Commentary describes pandakas as being "filled with lust and insatiable desires." Translations of pandaka encompass both hermaphrodite and eunuch, though recent scholarship suggests a possible meaning of homosexual. Likely, ancient Indians, similar to many modern Asians, considered overtly effeminate, exhibitionistic homosexuals (the stereotypical "screaming queen") as deviant, while less flamboyant homosexuals were viewed as more opportunistic or less constrained than other "normal" males. Given the Buddha's insightful understanding of human nature and apparent absence of prejudice, it seems improbable that he would outright exclude homosexuals from monastic life. The term pandaka, therefore, most likely described effeminate, outwardly promiscuous homosexuals, rather than homosexuals in general.

Lay Buddhists are not required to be celibate, but are encouraged to abstain from certain sexual behaviors. The third precept explicitly states: "I undertake the training rule (veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami) of refraining from illicit sexual behavior (kamesu micchacara)." The term "kama" encompasses all sensual pleasures, with particular emphasis on sexual pleasure; a literal translation of the precept might be "I vow to refrain from pursuing sexual pleasure in an improper manner (micchacara)." The definition of "improper" will only become clear upon scrutiny of Buddhist ethical evaluation criteria.

The Buddha's teachings lack a systematic exploration of ethics, as found in classical Greek philosophy. However, an ethical framework can be derived from various passages within the Pali Tipitaka, the foundational scripture of Theravada Buddhism. The Buddha questioned societal norms, including moral precepts, aiming to establish an ethical system rooted in reason, compassion, rather than traditional dogma, superstition, and taboo. In the renowned Kalama Sutta, he declared that revelation, tradition, scriptural authority, and personal interpretation are insufficient means for determining right and wrong.

Having questioned customary morality, the Buddha proposed three criteria for ethical judgment. The first, which might be termed the "universalizability principle," encourages acting toward others as one would like them to act toward oneself. In the Samyutta Nikaya, this principle is applied to discourage adultery. The Buddha explains: "What kind of Dhamma practice leads to great good for oneself? A noble disciple should reflect: 'If someone were to commit adultery with my spouse, I would not like it. Similarly, if I were to commit adultery with another's spouse, they would not like that. For what is unpleasant for me must be unpleasant for another, and how could I cause another distress?'" This contemplation leads to refraining from wrong sexual desire, encouraging others to do the same, and extolling abstinence.

In the Bahitika Sutta, Ananda is questioned about distinguishing commendable from blameworthy conduct. He replies that any actions harming oneself or others are blameworthy, while actions causing no harm (and potentially beneficial) to oneself and others are commendable. Consequently, judging right and wrong involves assessing the tangible and potential ramifications of actions on the actor and those affected. The Buddha echoes this point in the Dhammapada: "An act regretted afterwards, leading to sorrow and tears, is an evil deed. An act without remorse, leading to joy and happiness, is a good deed." This principle might be classified as the "consequential principle," emphasizing that actions are evaluated based on their effects.

The third principle, sometimes referred to as the "instrumental principle," suggests that actions are evaluated based on whether they support the attainment of one's goals. Nirvana, a state of mental clarity and tranquility, represents the ultimate Buddhist aspiration; therefore, any actions that contribute to its achievement are considered virtuous. The Buddha, upon being queried about discerning authentic teachings after his passing, responded: "The doctrines that lead to detachment, renunciation, tranquility, peace, higher understanding, enlightenment, and Nirvana - you can be certain these are the true teachings of the Teacher."

This utilitarian perspective on ethics is reinforced by the Buddha's frequent use of "kusala" (skillful or appropriate) and its opposite "akusala" when assessing actions, rather than "punna" (good) or "papa" (bad). Crucially, intentions (cetana) hold significant weight. An action motivated by positive intentions (derived from generosity, love, and understanding) is deemed skillful. Evaluating ethical behavior in Buddhism demands more than adherence to strictures; it necessitates developing empathy for others, heightened self-awareness, clear goals, and aspirations.

Having briefly analyzed the rationale underpinning Buddhist ethics, a clearer understanding emerges of which sexual behaviors Buddhism considers undesirable and why. The Buddha explicitly mentions several inappropriate sexual behaviors, with adultery being the most prevalent. Adultery is deemed inappropriate because it often involves deceit, breaches solemn vows made in marriage, and compromises trust. In another passage, the Buddha cautions against engaging with girls under parental or familial guardianship, married women, incarcerated females, or those already committed to others. Girls under guardianship are presumably too young for informed consent; prisoners lack freedom of choice; and committed women have prior commitments. While only women are explicitly mentioned, similar constraints would apply to men in analogous circumstances.

As homosexuality isn't directly addressed in the Buddha's teachings (as represented in over 20 volumes of the Pali Text Society's English translation), it is inferred to be evaluated in a similar manner to heterosexuality. Indeed, this likely explains its omission. For lay individuals, where consent is present, adultery is absent, and love, respect, commitment, and affection are involved, same-sex or other-sex relations would not violate the third precept. Likewise, promiscuity, recklessness, and disregard for others' feelings would render any sexual act unskillful, regardless of sexual orientation. The same principles used to assess heterosexual relationships are used to evaluate homosexual ones. In Buddhism, the object of sexual desire is less crucial in determining the appropriateness of a sexual act than the quality of emotions and intentions involved.

However, the Buddha sometimes discouraged specific behaviors, not due to inherent unethicality, but because they clashed with social norms or were subject to legal penalties. Homosexuality frequently falls into this category. In such cases, homosexuals must decide between accommodating societal expectations or striving for attitudinal change. In Western societies, deeply influenced by Old Testament tribal taboos and the highly neurotic perspectives of figures like St. Paul, there is a significant rationale for altering societal views.

We will now briefly examine common objections to homosexuality and respond from a Buddhist perspective. A frequently cited Christian and Muslim objection to homosexuality is its perceived unnaturalness. This assertion lacks substantial evidence. Miriam Rothschild, a prominent biologist advocating for the decriminalization of homosexuality in Britain, highlighted that homosexual behavior is observed in nearly every known animal species. Additionally, while reproduction is the biological function of sex, most modern sexual activity focuses on recreation and emotional fulfillment, establishing these functions as equally legitimate. Therefore, although homosexuality cannot lead to reproduction, it remains natural in providing emotional and physical fulfillment to homosexuals. Conversely, heterosexual behavior might be unnatural for homosexual individuals.

Furthermore, even if unnaturalness were a factor in ethical judgment, many human actions, including certain religious practices, contradict natural order. The Roman Catholic Church, condemning homosexuality on grounds of unnaturalness, simultaneously idealizes celibacy - a practice equally susceptible to the unnaturalness critique. Moreover, arguments for condemnation based on scriptural condemnation resonate only with those who accept the Bible's infallibility, but carry little weight for the majority. While the Bible condemns homosexuality, it also stipulates women should be isolated during menstruation, parents should kill children for worshipping false gods, and those working on the Sabbath should be executed. These are widely rejected by contemporary Christians, despite stemming from supposed divine pronouncements. Consequently, the condemnation of homosexuality, while found in some scriptures, doesn't necessarily hold moral weight.

One often hears the claim: "If homosexuality were not illegal, many people, including youth, would become gay." Such statements frequently reflect a profound misunderstanding of homosexuality, or a latent homosexual tendency in the speaker. This argument is akin to asserting that widespread suicide attempts would result from the decriminalization of suicide. The source of homosexuality is a subject of considerable debate, but choosing homosexual feelings is no different from choosing tea over coffee. Homosexuality is either inherent or develops in early childhood. This equally applies to heterosexuality; altered laws do not change sexual inclinations.

Some suggest a link between homosexuality and emotional distress, citing disproportionate rates of mental health issues, substance abuse, and obsessive behaviors in some homosexual populations in Western societies. Increased rates of suicide among homosexuals have also been observed. However, such problems show no more pronounced tendency among homosexuals in non-Western societies than in those societies themselves. Homosexuals in Western societies are likely more negatively impacted by societal bias than by their sexual orientation; equitable treatment would diminish issues and differences.

Christianity emerged from and is indebted to Judaism, with its tradition of public, vehement denunciation of perceived moral lapses or injustice. Jesus, drawing upon this tradition, shaped Christian responses to public and private morality. The tradition's strength lies in its high level of social conscience. Conversely, it can lead to severe persecution of those who do not or cannot adhere to Christian norms. The Buddhist monk, however, uniquely focuses on teaching the Dharma, serving as a quiet and exemplary role model. This, combined with Buddhism's rational approach to ethics and pronounced tolerance, distinguishes the Buddhist response to homosexuality, notably from that in Western societies. In countries influenced by Confucianism, like China, Korea, and Japan, homosexuality was sometimes viewed with disapproval and even punished. Nevertheless, tolerance was a prevailing sentiment. Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit missionary, was appalled by the open tolerance toward homosexuality, viewing it as evidence of Chinese societal degeneracy. In Korea, the hwarang ideal often implied homosexuality, especially during the Yi Dynasty. In Japan, a genre of love literature focused on same-sex relationships developed during the late medieval era.

Theravada Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Burma had no legal restrictions on consensual same-sex relations until British colonization introduced such laws. Thailand, without colonial influence, remains without such laws. This has led some Western homosexuals to mistakenly believe that homosexuality is accepted in South and Southeast Asian Buddhist societies. Such acceptance is absent. Instead, if considered at all, it is most often with a degree of pity or good-naturedness. Unlike Western experiences, there is less loathing, fear, and hatred directed toward homosexuals in these regions, largely due to Buddhism's humane and tolerant influence.