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?
footiam
Veteran
Would Buddhism or you advocate same sex marriage?
0
Comments
I saw a video on that once, and it was only made a few years ago! Some Christian organization was saying that all the Muslims are having loads of babies, and if the Christians don't start having more babies the Muslims will outnumber the Christians. It was like a call to breed.
It was completely and utterly nuts.
Acceptance is something hard-earned in this world. It seems to always be traditional views fighting against an expanding consciousness that recognizes we're only hurting ourselves. It's obvious that the expanding consciousness is winning over time... look at what else we've conquered, such as inequality of the sexes and slavery. It's only a matter of time before LGBT couples have equality, so people fighting against it seems a battle already lost. If they could see things in this way perhaps they'd be more accepting (instead of drawing out a fight that causes nothing but harm).
We're still growing up as a species.
I can't see Buddhism objecting, only whatever cultural associations that a particular form of Buddhism was foolish enough to adopt.
It's good that we all have different tastes and like different things.
Otherwise, you'd all be after my old lady!
~ George Carlin
This unconventional ceremony on Saturday was the first same-sex Buddhist wedding held in Taiwan, where a landmark bill to legalize same-sex marriage has been pending since 2003.
I find it interesting that the article notes that Taiwan is generally accepting of same-sex marriage, but even in Taiwan, there is a base of vocal anti-gay Christians.
It's a good point though.
Starting from blank. If you were to found a religion, what should that religion do? Or what should religions do in general? I think they should value compassion, equality, kindness, gentleness. Not only towards people who happen to like people of their own gender, but also amongst genders, amongst races and amongst different types of species.
So personally I would advocate for same sex marriage loudly. Because that's one of the jobs of religions as I see it, to advocate equal rights. Sadly, a lot of opposite sounds come out of certain corners of religion. To do that, is not practicing religion to me. Luckily, in my country it is very well accepted and it is already legal. This should be like that in the entire world. To me that's 100% obvious, for a body is just a shell, what's underneath doesn't have a gender. It's totally insane that people of equal gender can't marry one another if you see how little difference there actually is between men and women.
With all my kindness to anybody who is in a situation of liking their own gender, but doesn't feel like sharing it, can't act on it, or can't marry or is in another way limited.
Here is a video that may shed some more light.
And some reading:
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/1430/
There aren't many reasons people would make a ruckus over a gay dog for instance. Either they have a gay dog and don't like it going after the same-sex (because gayness disgusts them), or they have a straight dog and don't want a gay dog going after it (for the same reason). Generally people don't care what animals do, and consider humans to be something else.
Rebecca just mention something about an outrage over a gay penguin in a zoo.
So this is why people who are anti-homosexual want the greater society to also be anti-homosexual, to not allow for things like gay marriage. It's a direct hit on their ego if it's otherwise.
At least that's my opinion on the whole matter. If the government does anything toward establishing inequality rather than equality, like enforcing a ban on same-sex marriage or making it federally illegal, then I'll wash my hands of government entirely. I'd probably take to protesting at that point since I'd no longer consider the government to be performing its function and to have become something ugly.
LBGT people aren't trying to impose upon straights at all, they're not trying to take anything away from them, they just want equal rights (to marry) and to be otherwise left alone. They're not even trying to force any religion to marry them to my knowledge... there are religions that would marry them of course, and if not then they should be able to get a courthouse marriage like many non-religious people do. Marriage isn't something owned by straight people alone, or even by religion, and yet it's straight people and religions that are opposed to allowing gay/lesbian marriage.
Change Straight People to Slave-Owners... (Actually understand this as Slavery-Accepting Majority!)
Change LGBT People to Slaves...
Should Slave-Owners have the right to impose their will, through votes or any legal action, upon Slaves (to keep them enslaved)? We know the answer is No, so it should be the same for Straight People and LGBT People. The straights shouldn't be allowed to keep the gays/lesbians "enslaved" to unequal treatment through any means. There has to be a "higher humanity" that sees the discrimination and says this isn't right. We need another Abe Lincoln... so it's clearly something the government or the President should be fixing, as representing all of the people and not just a particular majority that doesn't like being told they're bigots.
We should be smart enough, cognizant enough of our history, to see this as fundamentally no different from other civil rights issues of the past, such as inequality of the sexes and slavery.
Traditionally religions have had an interest in marriage to protect the welfare and ensuring the needs of children and the women who mothered them are met by men in patriarchal societies. With this aim in mind, heterosexual marriage and having children is presented as the ultimate source of happiness and fulfillment and many do not question this.
However, you are correct that oppression of any group of people is wrong.
I'm very wary about the role of government in all of this. Passage of laws that protect the rights of every group...okay. But I think we have to be very careful when we want government to work at changing the way people think about almost anything. That gets into very dangerous territory.
However, immigrant populations are, conversely, increasing.
For example, the most common name for boys in the UK last year, was Mohammed.
Or as one young Muslim man said to me discussing political strife, unrest and terrorism: 'we don't need to bomb you. We'll just out-breed you.'
And that is precisely what is happening.
immigrant families are having as many children as they can, who are largely paid for and supported by the state, which means that illegal immigrants become completely impossible to deport and re-home.
Furthermore, they are actively encouraged by their faith to have as many children as they can.
whereas there is no such mindset amongst the white indigenous population, therefore there are far fewer domestic nationals being born.
and wow...
stunned
To the Orthodox Christian their sole purpose is illumination and union with God. Marriage is a spiritual mystery or sacrament given to the Church to support that purpose. If one is not blessed to live a monastic life then their blessing is marriage becoming one flesh in their offspring. A homosexual marriage is barren in this regard.
I know it’s difficult for people not associate this belief as a personal attack as there are many in our society in favor of heterosexual marriage that are ignorant and behave badly towards others.
Since “Marriage” as seen in most major religious traditions is a spiritual concern perhaps a civil union is more appropriate for a secular society.
Also, the Orthodox Church will never consider marriage as other than between a man and a woman. Does the government have the right to say and dictate to the Church its spirituality that it must do otherwise?
I try to keep in mind that the people on both sides of the argument think that their position is the most logical.
I do agree with you that governments shouldn't be able to tell a church what their religious beliefs are.
Interestingly, decades ago, a reporter asked Barry Goldwater what he thought of the concept of gay marriage, and he responded that government should be involved in marriage in any capacity...that it was basically something for churches to decide.
If the Catholic church doesn't want to marry same-sex couples, for instance, that's its business! However if other religions or the government want to marry same-sex couples, then it doesn't matter one iota what the Catholic church thinks or whether it recognizes that marriage (the Catholic church is just the Catholic church)... the only people left in a lurch would be Catholic same-sex couples who want to get married. They'd have to either go against Catholicism and have a government/courthouse marriage, and probably get excommunicated for doing so, or leave the Catholic church altogether. That'd be their choice. Religion maintains the power it has over its adherents.
It's really about the government recognizing marriages. That's what counts, because the government is all of us. Individual religions, some of which would actually perform same-sex marriages, are not the ones that speak for the rights of everyone. Religions are free to keep whatever beliefs they want, but that doesn't mean others have to abide by them!
The only real "humanity" argument is one of procreation, but were these people ever going to have kids of their own to begin with? No. They may in fact have artificial insemination or a surrogate, or adopt, but their activities would never result in any decrease or detriment to the population. So what's it about? "Love". They love each other the same as straight couples, and that's the real reason people get married. So there's no real hold-up in recognizing them as married and affording them all the legal rights and privileges of marriage in the States. Cutting out religion cuts out the bullshit, because obviously it's all about "one" religion and not about "all" religions (or none) like it should be anyway.
Personally, I'm baffled by people who view same-sex marriage as some sort of de-evolutionary step from what they perceive to be 'real' marriage (i.e., two committed couples of the opposite sex who love each other and want to be/start a family), as if same-sex relationships are somehow less than heterosexual ones in some fundamental way and don't deserve the host of rights, benefits, and protections that marriage confers, presumably because that'd mysteriously erode the legal and/or spiritual institution of marriage. However, I've seen nothing as of yet to suggest anything of the sort in states and countries where it's legal; and it's not like heterosexual marriages don't already attempt to do that, e.g., drive-thru Vegas weddings officiated by Elvis.
And as for the argument that marriage is all about creating a family and raising kids (a common one it seems, lately), a lot of married heterosexual couples can't or simply choose not to have children, so marriage obviously isn't just about procreation. Besides that, same-sex couples can adopt, as well as have children through in vitro fertilization, previous relationships, etc., just like heterosexual couples, so I don't really see that as a good arguments against two committed couples of the same sex who love each other and want to be/start a family.
I truly believe that it boils down to simple bigotry, that people fighting against it are fueled by their distaste/disgust for homosexuality. They'll put a different face on it, try and say it's because of their religion or something, but it's really just them (a hardened heart against homosexuality). We'll eventually move past this just like we moved past slavery, but it's still a battle... those who like it the way it is (and don't want it changed), versus those who recognize that it's wrong the way it is. In time we always seem to be able to overcome such issues, but when we're knee-deep in the shit it can seem like a never-ending battle!
If people just had a little hindsight and looked to our history, to all the similar issues we've had that we now clearly understand as wrong (but didn't then), perhaps they could open their minds and their hearts and see... but people don't seem to want to learn from our past mistakes. "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." (Douglas Adams)
This is what Imams are advocating in Mosques....