No strawman at all, Lhug-Pa. You're manipulating language so as to pass for a 'liberal' even though your views are deeply conservative. Not every Bible Belt fundamentalist is a frank outspoken redneck. The more educated ones tend to be quite skilled at language exploitation. As (in)famously is ND.
Lhug-Pa wrote:And implying that ones who see homosexual acts as unhealthy to exist as closet-cases, is typically a reactionary text-book response from those who defend homosexuality. In other words a cheapshot and logical fallacy.
So 'defending homosexuality' is now reactionary??
More Nouvelle Droite-style sophistry of yours, that's what it is.
Lhug-Pa wrote:I consider the true meaning of liberal to be basically synonymous with progressiveness, yet not libertinism. Libertines existing as more or less the same as or similar to Chalpas, Gyangphenpas, and Murthugpas.
And yet you suggested in this thread quite clearly than the kind of 'permissiveness' that accepts and cherishes gay/lesbian sex is libertinism.
Lhug-Pa wrote:And like I'd mentioned before, there's no evidence of homosexuality having existed within the Dravidian Harrapan and Mohenjodaro cultures for example; and the Dravidians were Matriarchal and therefore did not fit the 'conservative-patriarchal' bill which some attribute to the Vedics and/or Brahmins.
Firstly, there's no evidence of pretty much anything if you talk about the Dravidian Harrapan and Mohenjodaro cultures; we've got a a tiny heap of broken fragments, and most of the stuff we 'know' is just pure speculation. Secondly, there's no conclusive evidence that the ancient Dravidians were a matriachal society. The current consensus is that they may not have been a patriarchy, and that they're very likely not to have been misogynist; it seems, in any case, that they were less sexist than the later Indian civilizations were. And that's about it. Unless of course you want to believe a vast host of New Agers who 'intutively' know better.
Similarly, the whole proto-Indoeuropean matriarchy hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis. Much as I'd personally love Marija Gimbutas to have been right, so far her books are just riveting fiction.
Also, I have a question for you to ponder. Why the heck are you posting in the thread at all? What is your motivation? The OP is a self-proclaimed gay-friendly person, presently 'skeptical of Buddhism'. What you're doing here is telling him or her that basically, yes, Buddhism has been and is very much a homophobic ideology, and, in any case, certainly tantra is out of reach for gay/lesbian people. Which
1. is utter bollocks, and, perhaps much more importantly,
2. instead of making him or her overcome their skepticism, will in all likelihood only reinforce it, effectively driving them away from the Dharma.
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .