http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/05/gay-tragedy.html  (credited from Ven. Dhammika)

Occasionally someone, usually a young man but sometimes a young women
or an older man or women, will approach me and after a few minutes of
hesitation or beating around the bush, ask me what the Buddhist
position on homosexuality is. When they do, I tell then that
intentional actions (kamma) modify consciousness and that our kamma
conditions our future.

Positive intentional acts have positive effects (vipaka) and negative
intentional acts have a negative effect. Sexual acts motivated by the
usual intentions, feelings and emotions which exist between two people
who love each other, would have a positive effect and would not
infringe the third Precept, whether they be homosexual or
heterosexual. I underline this point by saying that Buddhist ethics
about sex are primarily concerned with the motives behind out sexual
behavior, rather than the gender of our partner. This being so, if two
people of the same gender express their love for each other physically
there is no good reason why the kamma this creates should be any
different from when two people of the opposite gender do the same.
Having said this I then try to change the subject, not because I am
embarrassed talking about homosexuality, but because I do not like the
`single issue’ approach to Dhamma. However, a few years ago I had an
encounter which made me realize that inquiries about homosexuality,
whether from gays themselves or their families, should be given my
whole attention. However theoretical or marginal this issue may be to
me it is likely to be of considerable import to the people who ask
such questions.

A young man named Julian rung me asking if he could come and talk to
me about Buddhism. I said he could and on the appointed day and time
he came. Julian turned out to be about 20 old, of slight build and
with pleasant features. He was well groomed and neatly dressed. He
started by asking me a few questions about some aspects of Buddhism
but I sensed that these were not really what he was interested in.
Finally the question came, “Venerable, can a gay person be a good
Buddhist?” I gave my usual reply but it soon became clear that this
did not please him. He kept interjecting and expressing doubts about
what I said. I answered all his objections but he remained unconvinced.

Arriving at a deadlock and not knowing what more I could say I asked
him if he was gay. He blushed, cleared his throat and said that he
was. Then he told me his story. Since his early teens he noticed that
he was attracted to other boys and had a particular interest in
woman’s clothes. Horrified by these feelings he kept them well under
control. A year ago while doing his national service he had met
another soldier who was gay and since that time they had been having a
relationship, although a guilt-filled and fugitive one. Once or twice
a month they would pool their recourses and book a hotel for the
night. He would dress in woman’s clothes, put on makeup and they would
spend the night together. For Julian at least, this would be followed
by days of self-loathing and resolutions never to do it again. After
he had finished telling me this he hung his head and said, “This must
be wrong.” “Well,” I said, “some people would find it a bit strange.
But from a Buddhist perspective I really can’t see that it is
particularly harmful. Satisfying sexual urges is a perfectly natural
thing to do and it is acceptable where it does not involve adultery or
harming others.

The conflict you create within yourself by hating what are completely
harmless feelings hurts you much more than being gay ever could. There
is no reason why you can’t practice the Precepts – respecting the
life, the prosperity and the sexual feelings of others, their right to
know the truth and keeping your mind free from intoxicants – while
being gay.” He was silent but I could see that I had not been able to
still his doubts. Julian visited me two more time over the next two
month and our conversations were about the Dhamma in general although
we also went over the same territory concerning homosexuality with
very much the same results.

Then, after not having seen or heard from Julian for nearly six month
I got a call from him. He told me that a famous Taiwanese monk was in
town giving a series of talks and that he had managed to get a few
minuets with him. He had asked the monk the same question he had asked
me and the monk had told him that homosexuality was a filthy, evil
thing and that homosexuals get reborn in the lowest hell where they
are boiled in excrement for eons. Julian said this with in an almost
triumphant tone, seemingly glad that he had proved me wrong or that he
had found someone who agreed with him. I asked him what else this
venerable monk had said. “Nothing,” he replied. “He was going
somewhere and only had a few minuets to talk.”

How often has this happened to me? I have told an inquirer something
about Buddhism which I know to be sound, sensible and in accordance
with the Tipitaka, they go to another monk who tells them the exact
opposite and then they come back to me asking me to explain the
anomaly. Then I am stuck with the problem of either saying that the
other monk doesn’t know what he is talking about (which is often the
case) and appearing to be an arrogant upstart, or biting my lip,
saying nothing and letting the person go away with yet another
half-baked notion or superstition thinking that it is Dhamma. How
often? Very often! In most cases this is just frustrating. In this
case it had tragic consequences.

“Look Julian” I said, “You asked me what Buddhism would say about
homosexuality and I told you based on my 20 years of studying the
Buddhist scriptures and thinking about various issues in the light of
the Buddha’s Dhamma. I don’t know what else I can say.” I told him
that if he wanted to talk with me at any time he was welcome to do so
and then we hung up.

Four days later I was browsing through the paper and a small article
tucked away on the eighth page caught my eye. The heading read `Man’s
Body Found in Park.’ I scanned the article briefly and was about to
turn to something else when the name Julian sprung out at me. In an
instant my attention was riveted. I read the part where this name
appeared and sure enough it was about the Julian who had come to see
me. I returned to the top of the article and read it all the way
through. Four days earlier, perhaps only a few hours after ringing me,
Julian had gone to a park in the centre of Singapore late at night,
taken an overdose of sleeping tablets and been found dead the next
morning. A suicide note had been found in his pocket but the article
did mention what it said. I was overwhelmed by sorrow. The thought of
him lying there utterly alone, hating himself and in such despair that
he would kill himself almost made me cry.

But soon anger was welling up through the sadness and diluting it
until it had completely replaced the sadness. I pictured the Taiwanese
monk blithely dispensing his ignorant and ultimately toxic opinion
before rushing off to give a sermon about compassion or receive the
accolade of the crowd.
I became so angry that I resolved to write him
a letter and tell him what he had been responsible for. Then I thought
it would probably be a waste of time. He probably wouldn’t even
remember talking to Julian.

It seems to me that most thoughtful people would agree that sex
without love is a pretty unattractive thing. Physically, it is little
more than `exchanging fluids’ as the AIDS awareness literature so
delicately puts it. What lifts sex above the fluids exchange level is
the motives and emotions behind it – affection, tenderness, the desire
to give and receive, the bonds of companionship, fun even. This fits
well into the Buddha’s famous statement, “I say that intention is
kamma.” Is sticking a knife into someone a positive or a negative
action? It depends! If the knife was held by an enraged violent person
it would probably be negative. If it is held by a surgeon performing
an operation to save someone’s life it would certainly be positive.
From the Buddhist perspective, sexual behavior is not judged primarily
by the gender of the people involved, by the dictates of a code of
behavior drawn up in the Bronze Age or by whether a legal document has
been signed, but by its psychological components.

Homosexuals are as capable of wanting and of feeling love and
affection towards their partners as heterosexuals are and where such
states are present homosexual sex is as acceptable as heterosexual sex.

This is a simple and logical truth and it is in accordance with
Buddhist teachings but circumstances were such that I was unable to
help Julian see it. All his experience had told him that being
attracted to people of the same gender is wrong. Those around him had
always expressed disapproval towards homosexuality and sniggered at
gays. The law (in Singapore) told him that homosexuality is so heinous
that it must be punished by 10 years imprisonment, more than for
manslaughter. He knew that religious teachers, Christian, Muslim and
even some Buddhists, consider it so evil that it will have dreadful
consequences in the life hereafter. All this denigration and ignorance
prevented him from hearing the gentle, reasonable and kindly words of
the Buddha. It caused him inestimable suffering and finally drove him
to suicide.

I am reminded of Julian because three weeks ago I represented Buddhism
in a seminar on religion and homosexuality at Catholic Junior Collage
(Boy! Haven’t Catholic collages changed!). Of the 800 students in the
audience I assumed that a certain number would probably be homosexual
and may be struggling to understand their feelings. Knowing that what
I said may well have something to do with them growing up either happy
and well-adjusted or tortured and self-loathing, I did took great care
to explain the Buddhist position on homosexuality.

Advertisements