Re: How do gay Buddhists explain this one?
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:23 pm
Still a strawman. To make comparisons to bible-belt fundamentalists is plain silliness. So what if bible-belt fundamentalists also happen to disagree with homosexuality. I'm opposed to just about everything that bible-belt fundamentalists and neo-conservatives stand for.
And I won't debate more about the Dravidians here. Huseng recently started a related thread called Harrapan Yogis in either the Lounge or Dharma-free-for-all where this could be maybe be discussed more later.
As for the rest:
That's not what I said. What I said is that to imply that many who disagree with homosexual acts are in the closet, is a typical reactionary text-book response. There may exist a few people who act like they dislike homosexuality as some sort of psychological way of dealing with their own homosexual tendencies; but really, there are many who just disagree with homosexual acts and see them as incompatible with the Dharma, and that's it.treehuggingoctopus wrote:So 'defending homosexuality' is now reactionary?
And I won't debate more about the Dravidians here. Huseng recently started a related thread called Harrapan Yogis in either the Lounge or Dharma-free-for-all where this could be maybe be discussed more later.
As for the rest:
Hsuan Hua on HomosexualityAnd:Will wrote:The Dharma has always been "conservative".Remm wrote:Whether people want to accept these teachings or not is up to them. If they find it offensive and are turned away by it, then fine--their good roots were insufficient so they cannot listen or hear the truth of the matter. You have to start examining your own ideologies if they start to contradict what eminent masters have said. If HHDL, Karmapa, Ven. Hsuan Hua, Chin Kung state that the act of homosexuality is prohibited, then you might want to reevaluate your own ideas and perceptions about this. Firstly, who are you to question what these teachers have taught, and have you even attained a single realization beyond them? If not, why do you insist that they are wrong simply because what they said goes against your own interpretation of Buddhism?