Welcome home! Please contact
lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site.
New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days.
Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
How do Buddhism view same sex marriage?
Comments
The current prime minister in Australia does not support same sex marriage. She has stated publicly that she is an atheist and lives with her long term partner ( whom is a man ).
My opinion is that she has taken on the mining companies and introduced a controversial carbon tax ( which was politically unpopular ) and does not want to take on religion as well ( even in Australia this would be difficult politically ).
On the topic of bigotry, hatred, profiling, or what have you, it seems that some of our brothers and sisters who support same sex marriage are dishing out what they claim the "Christian gay basher" are doing. Every Christian who supports heterosexual marriage is a gay basher, bigot, or hater? Hmm
However, I do say that one of the fruits of being involved in this forum is that it in fact has affected my position on this particular subject greatly.
We know as long as far as limits and definitions go there will always be a disenfranchised segment, and they will suffer some form of inequality.
Where I once was leaning to a government recognized civil union instead of marriage I'm now in favor of them being abolished at both the federal and state level, and the ending of any related government benefits including those provided for raising children.
If we are really speaking about equality here it has to be fair for all segments of the population. If we only alter the definition of marriage to support another and exclude the rest, and define who gets benefits and who doesn't that's not true equality.
That being said, I look to my faith for illumination, and not my government.
Good night everyone!
Good night :-)
A same-sex couple is nearly the same situation, the only real difference being that their options for having children are all of those alternative methods that straight people already employ. But they don't have to have children, just as straight people don't have to have children. A lesbian couple has the ability to be at least half biologically linked to their offspring through artificial insemination, and a gay couple the same through artificial insemination of a surrogate, though with such things as adoptions biology is not a determining factor when it comes to heredity.
Marriage is just two consenting adults who love each other expressing a lifelong bond that is recognized by the government, which means there are certain rights and privileges and so on afforded to them (including tax issues), and those rights are available if they do decide to have children through any of those methods. And also importantly, they are considered equal, not oppressed by bigotry or discrimination. What it's like right now is segregation... straight people get married, gay/lesbian people get civil unions (if even that, and it's not the same); like they have to sit in a separate section of the bus and are marked as unequal, as not worthy. They're as worthy as anyone else!
The only reason not to amend marriage is the position that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, which society by and large has already said isn't so, with the marriage issue being the only hold-out on their equality. Allowing same-sex couples to get married is not an attack on traditional marriage, it's an expansion of the scope of traditional marriage. No one is taking away the rights of straight couples whatsoever, they're only recognizing the equality of same-sex couples. Only bigotry would really prevent this... whether right out in the open or in disguise as something else. It's a simple enough amendment. Allowing women to vote was not an attack on the traditional system of olden times, it was an expansion for equality, the same as this.
Time and again @Jason has all the relevant information, and I bow to his knowledge and wisdom.
And, even then, what society are you talking about? American society? World society?
This trend is the same as with racism. There's a lot less racism today than there was 40 years ago. The same process happens with homosexuality, with people eventually "getting it" that it's just another part of the variety of being human, it's not less-than (unequal). The one establishment in law that is still lacking is marriage, and that's mostly been because there hasn't been enough of a push I think. With an expanding consciousness of acceptance, a greater push is being generated... and just like the women's vote, just like slavery, this is something that I think will definitely happen at some point.
A more precise 'why' depends on how you consider the issue... for example, a valid answer may be that marriage provides for special schemes of property ownership - the logistics (and ultimately cost) of unwinding the legal status of marriage outweight the benefits...
It's just the same as every other equality issue, every other civil rights issue. There's going to be an initial majority that thinks it's wrong, but that doesn't make it wrong... that's just the force of opposition that isn't heading in the same direction that our actual collective consciousness is heading. We overcome inequality, that's what we've been doing for the length and breadth of history... the majority becomes smaller and smaller until it flips and heads in the other direction. This is human growth. It doesn't take much to come to this reasonable conclusion, if people divorce themselves from their prejudices for a moment and look to our history and our inclusiveness (rather than exclusiveness) as a species.
I agree. He has been bringing it!
BTW, Jason, I enjoyed the read on your blog
about the Chhik-fil-AA thing going on down here.
Your spreading good stuff from what I see.
Second, in terms of whether the society sees it as right or wrong, you've oversimplified it. There are not just those 2 opinions. There are at least 3 opinions in terms of public opinion. 1.) There's nothing wrong with it. 2.) It's wrong. 3.) It's wrong, but it's the choice of the individual.
Anyway, moving on.
As for the OP, the head zen master of my school is a gay woman who lives with her same sex partner, they even have a child I think. Nobody, in the zen school at least, thinks there is anything wrong with that.
There is a thriving Gay and Lesbian group within Orthodoxy.
Unfortunately as these states go through the voting and amendment process, many of the amendments don't leave room for unions OR marriage, so it just stops the entire process from moving forward, which is wrong.
Personally, ideally, I think "marriage" should be stricken from legal and civil definitions. If religions people want to hold marriage as their own, whatever. I don't care what my relationship with my husband is defined as as long as we have the rights. I think we need a change over to all civil/legal commitments being unions, allowing for gays to have them as well, and assign the legal etc rights to the union. Then if religious folk want a religious marriage, they can get one from their religious community. That is what we really need to be doing. Not witholding a right from gay people, but affording EVERYONE the same right, and religious people their own special ceremony as they see fit.
I'm very conservative with regards to my spirituality, but I'm also very liberal in my political beliefs, and I don't say this to be offensive, but you're not grasping the mind, purpose, and resolve of the Church as I previously stated.
For over two thousand years gay and lesbian persons have participated in the life of the Church and obtained salvation, and to suggest that cracks have now developed because of their presence, and that this will now start to bring about a change in how the Church minsters her holy mysteries is naive. The fact is the Church has always been full of cracks and fissures whatever they may be, but its not going to bow down to every wind or secular pressure from within and without.
We hear much and sympathize about the tragedy in Tibet, but the Holy Orthodox Church and its believers in Russia suffered terrible and comparable tragedies too at the hands of the state capitalists and their supporters. However, it did not change its holy traditions even while on the verge of elimination, and that is the typical mind set of the Orthodox Christian.
A neo orthodoxy will arise which will be Inclusivist.
Although what any of this has to with Buddhism and the OP I am unsure.