What is the attitude toward homosexuality in Buddhism?

1st of all Buddhism does not prohibit or have anything against being gay. But Hethorosexuality is unwholsome as it is rooted in desire, though lay people may engage in such activities, within Sila. Homosexuality activity needs to have stronger attraction than is Hethorosexual avtivity, which is more unwholsome. When engaging in any sexsual activity if compaired to a fall, Hetrosexuality say is a 3 foot fall, hence you get hurt in the long run less, Homosexuality is a 6 foot fall, which you you are likely to get more hurt by this in the long run than Hethorosexuality, as weight of attaction is stronger between partners. Incest is more grave like say a 9 foot fall. There will be future society when this also may become accepted, according to the quote below. In each case the attachment is relative. Also historically hetrosexsual people have been less liberal, but current liberal practices have more attachment than in the past so more unwholesome mind moments.

Any form of sexual attraction including being gay is based on desire which is unwholesome and result experiences which are painful in the future. Buddhism deals with correcting you metal tendencies by getting rid of the roots which creates misery. This is done through practicing Vipassana and is a gradual process. Through Vipassana you can transcend any sexual preferences and orientation. To get more insights into this it is best you take a course at: https://www.dhamma.org or http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/

See: Saññoga Sutta

Homosexuality is considered a deviant practice. This is rooted in excessive lust.

Now, bhikshus, amongst those humans whose life-span was 500 years, three things were widespread,

that is, abnormal lust, excessive desire and deviant conduct.

With the increase of abnormal lust, excessive desire and deviant conduct,

the life-span of beings declined, their beauty declined, too.

For these humans whose life-span and beauty were declining, whose lifespan was 500 years, that of some of their children was 250 years, and some 200 years.

More lust in deviant practices is worse off that non deviant pratice like hetrosexuality, which in some cases in the past may have been less rooted in desire, but both are rooted in unwholesomeness.

See: Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta

According to the Dīgha Commentary, here “abnormal lust” (adhamma,raga) refers to incest, that is, “lust between mother and mother’s sister and father’s sister and maternal uncle’s wife and other such improper situations” (mata matuccha pituccha matulanī ti adike ayutta-t,thane rago); “neurotic desire” (visama,lobha) refers to excessive greed by way of consuming things (paribhoga,yuttesu pi thanesu atibalava,lobho, in other words, excessive materialism and consumerism); and “deviant practices” (miccha,dhamma) refer to sexuality “between men and men, women with women.” (DA 3:853)

Is is bit unclear as to whether this is a transgression of morality but it is considered less ideal than being straight. Being straight also is based on unwholesome roots of attachment. In any case lack of fidelity and cheating in a sexual relationship would be a moral transgression.

Also Buddhism do not hold any specific attitudes towards anything as such but your choice of action is shaped by the expected results of a action or view which you cling onto. Has iterated before, h*m*sexuality is a result of excessive lust, one should approach these practices more cautiously and perhaps practice meditation to overcome lust. If you die with lust the chancesare that your next birth will be bad.

Though in the time of the Buddha these practices would have been there this would not have been widespread as now due to longevity during the period would have resulted in the amount of lust would have been less. Hence would have not come up much. If you look at resent history h*m*sexuality this was not wide spread as it is now.

Having said this you should not have prejudice or negative attitude towards h*m*sexuals. This could lead to you creating negative Karma for your self if you follow through with any action.

In Paarajika, where a Bhikku lost his state of Bhikku, it is described that h*m*sexuality is one of the reason to lost the state of Bhikku.

If other monk is accidently falls over another Bhikku while sleeping, the Bhikku should stay without shake his body. The Bhikku who shake his body will loose the state of Bhikku.

When you tread the path according to the Dhamma, whatever that you come across in life, you must assess the object for cause and effect (hetu-pala dhamma) and understand whether there is harm to self, others and to the nature before taking any action (be it mental, physical or verbal).

If one assesses the matter at hand for cause and effect (hetu-pala dhamma) and understands whether there is harm to self, others and environment before taking any action, one lives in accordance with a code of moral conduct without being indebted to anyone in the infinite samsara. This means one treads Dhamma Path.

If 1000 novices ordain at age 7, how many will turn out gay and what happens to them?

Obviously some of that sample will probably turn out to be gay and nothing special will happen but they will face different challenges, trials and tribulations.

There is a sutta about Vakkali, he was fond of the Buddha so much that he had to be sent away.

The texts do not spell out that Vakkali was gay but Buddha sent him away and there is a sutta saying that he was fond of Buddha's form;

"For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see the Blessed One."

"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."[3]https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.087x.wlsh.html

It's a very controversial disciple but as i personally understand it, he was more likely than not gay.

There is also an allowance for a monk in whom female characteristics appear to join the nun sangha.

It is my impression that there is nothing inherently different to being gay but some should probably not be living in close quarters with other monks.

Sexual perversion or disfunctions, abnormalities, have causes, do not arise without. And what are the causes that one, if gaining a human existance, finds him caught in such misery? Disloyalty, going after lust, sexual misconduct. Knowing the outcomes of this, the instructed abstains from conducts leding to such misery, is devoted to loyalty, doesn't go after lust and leads a life not centered on pleasure of the flesh. Now thinking on how many are after p**ns, what does one think: Will sexual perversion increase or decrease fastly? And wher would you stand, becoming again?

"miccha dhamma" is never about h*m*sexuality, as the comment of the Cakkavattisuttaṃ (DN 26) is wrong.

The word "miccha dhamma" and other two words are also appear in the Palokasuttaṃ (AN.3.56), and no comment about h*m*sexuality here (as far as I know).

Obviously, "miccha dhamma" just means any bad practices or something away from sammā (involving greed to others' belongings or possessions) which happening in natural and man-made disasters, not some specific action.

The three words (adhamma-rāga), (visama-lobha), (miccha dhamma) have the similar meaning. The meaning of rāga is similar to lobha, and the meaning of visama is similar to adhamma & miccha dhamma. So, it does not mean some specific action, and the three words are just some ancient pali collocations.

That wrong comment just came from some medieval h*m*phobic buddhists like any h*m*phobic Buddhists in the Modern times, whether he is living in Sri Lanka or not, whether where he living colonized by Britain's CHRISTIAN CUSTOM or not.

Non-majority is not deviant practice, as left-handers are not. However discrimination against minority is deviant practice, so anyone does so is deviant.

And I must say if h*m*sexuality involving any of this, then Buddha would say more in other suttas, not just appearing in the mouth of some medieval h*m*phobic commentators and their h*m*phobic followers.

Again, I can not comment, so I will post here. Vinaya does mention pandakas, but the meaning of pandaka is about impotence or eunuch.

The category of pandaka is limited to five, and every category has its specific meaning involving impotence or eunuch.

It's just because some pandakas having sex with men, thus interpreted that it is connected to h*m*sexuality by some people. (However, In the Chinese version of sarvāstivāda-vinaya, the pandaka also trying to have sex with women)

[十誦律(the Chinese version of sarvāstivāda-vinaya)：是時，跋難陀釋子，與不能男出家(this paragraph mentioned the pandaka)。是人，夜捫摸諸比丘，諸比丘驅出(this paragraph mentioned trying to have sex with bhikkhu, namely men)。到比丘尼邊式叉摩尼沙彌沙彌尼邊，皆捫摸諸比丘尼學戒尼，諸沙彌沙彌尼盡驅出(and this paragraph mentioned trying to have sex with bhikkhunī, namely women)。]

The following articles introduce the five types of pandaka and its meaning :

• Semen, Viagra and Pandaka: Ancient Endocrinology and Modern Day Discrimination
• The Two Meanings of the Pali Term "pandaka"

The vinaya does not say anything about h*m*sexuality or heterosexuality affect the qualification of bhikkhu. (definition of h*m*sexuality/heterosexuality: the sexual desire for the same gender or opposite gender.)

你應該懂中文？我直接用中文。

1. 黃門/不能男是同一個詞彙的翻譯，律典當中已經表明，黃門只限制在五個類別裡，每一個類別的定義，都不是同性戀的定義。

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BB%83%E9%96%80_(%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99)

《決定藏論》：不能男人有三種異。一者具足不能。二者有時非時。三者毀傷損害。出生以來本無男根。是名具足不能人。又半月能男。謂前十四日不能。唯第十五日能。又使他摩觸則能。不觸不能。又見他行慾則能不見不能。是名有時非時。又復刀杖傷損病壞墮落值毒觸火呪術所斷。先有男根後則失壞悉不能男。是名毀傷損害不能男人。一者本是黃門而不能男。二者本非黃門而不能男。三者本是黃門非不能男。使他觸身則能生樂。是名人根不具。

決定藏論說見他人行淫才能勃起、半月才能勃起，使他摩觸(按照巴利語和印度醫書的解釋，指灌撒[精子]來治療不能勃起）才能勃起，這些都屬於「有時非時」。有時非時，不是指一種特定情況的陽痿類別，還能是其它的什麼嘛？

2. 律典問「汝是丈夫不」。根據南山律學辭典的定義，丈夫與否，根本和其性欲對象無關。

http://www.buddhaspace.org/dict/nvd/data/%25E6%25AF%2594%25E4%25B8%2598%25E5%258F%2597%25E6%2588%2592%25E6%25B3%2595.html

律本云，年滿二十者，能耐寒、熱、風、雨、飢、渴、持戒、一食、忍惡言，及毒蟲十事，是丈夫相。僧祇云，二十已上，‌​七十已下，有所堪能，是丈夫位，得與受戒。‌​若過若減，縱有所堪，及是應法而無所堪者，‌​並不得與授戒。

把丈夫翻成(husband-man) 來解釋，是只看中文的望文生義。

3. 《摩訶僧祇律》很清楚的把「向男比丘求歡的男子」以及「向男比丘求歡的黃門」區分開來。清楚顯示了，在律典中，一個對男人有性欲的男人，和一個對男人有性欲的黃門，根本不是同個概念。

次佛住舍衛城。廣說如上。有一比丘。時到著入聚落衣持鉢入城。次行乞食至一家。爾時家中有一男子謂比丘言可前大德共作如是事來。比丘答言。世尊制戒不得行婬。彼言。我知制戒。不得與女人行婬。而我是男子。是比丘便隨彼意。隨彼意已尋生疑悔。具白世尊。佛告比丘。汝不知佛制戒不得行婬耶。世尊我知制戒。自謂不得與女人行婬。不謂男子。佛言。比丘男子亦犯波羅夷

復次佛住舍衛城。廣說如上。有一比丘。時到著入聚落衣持鉢入城。次行乞食至一家。有一黃門謂比丘言。可前大德共作如是事來。比丘言。世尊制戒不得行婬。彼言我知制戒。不得與男女行婬。我非男非女。是比丘便隨彼意。隨彼意已即生疑悔。具白世尊。佛告比丘。汝不知佛制戒不得行婬耶。世尊我知制戒。自謂不得與男女行婬。今此黃門非男非女。佛言比丘婬黃門亦犯波羅夷。

以上這些證據都很清楚指向黃門的定義，和同性戀的定義根本是兩回事。不過有些人總要拿自身的偏見，來進行無謂的指責和混淆。

順便補充我找到的，關於(adhamma-rāga), (visama-lobha), (miccha dhamma)的解釋：

大薩遮尼乾子所說經:「大師。於何時中。諸小王等。行王論法。答言。大王。於末世時。轉輪聖王隱沒不現。正法不行邪法競興。眾生心惡起三種過。*一者樂於非法貪心。二者起於顛倒貪心。三者邪法羅網纏心。*彼諸小王。自無智慧退失明解。是故聖人說諸小王治國論法。為行正法護世眾生。王言。大師。云何名為樂於非法貪心。答言。大王。於十不善惡業道中生於樂心。是名樂於非法貪心。云何名為顛倒貪心。自己手力得諸資生。依時節得。依正法得。依如法得。不生足心。更求他財。如是名為顛倒貪心。王言。大師。云何名為邪法羅網之所纏心。答言。大王。於諸外道非義論中起義論想。於無益論生利益想。於非法中生是法想。於末世時。非是智者所作論中。以為正論。生於信心。熏修邪見。以為福德。是名邪法羅網纏心。」

「大王。於諸外道非義論中起義論想。於無益論生利益想。於非法中生是法想。於末世時。非是智者所作論中。以為正論。生於信心。熏修邪見。以為福德。是名邪法羅網纏心」，這個才應該是miccha dhamma的意思。正好說明我之前的推測是有依據的。那種把miccha dhamma縮小成特定行為的解釋，反而無法在「經典」和「構字」上找到根據。

What is the attitude toward h*m*sexuality in Buddhism?

Buddhism doesn't concern itself with superficial stuff like that. Buddhism is on a much deeper and more internal level. It's about purification of mind through the practice of The Noble Eightfold Path.

It doesn't matter how you look, what your sexuality etc. is. Desire or craving for a male body or a female body is still just desire and craving and the same methods (meditation, mindfulness, guarding the sense doors, right view) for working with these defilements apply.

In respect to the cultural context of the Pali suttas, I have only read references to: (i) parents arranging the marriage of their (pubescent) children (DN 31) &; (ii) sex in marriage between husbands & wives (AN 4.53; AN 4.55; DN 31); as wholesome or Buddhist sexual conduct.

In that cultural context, sexual misconduct (per AN 10.176) means to have sex in a way that harms existing family relationships between husbands & wives, parents & children, etc.

In other words, there is obviously nothing in Buddhism that supports the recent 'Sexual Revolution' & sexual liberalism that occurred due to the technology of universal birth-control.

Just because today's culture has significant numbers of 'consenting adults' with no strings attached does not necessarily mean sexual liberalism is considered wholesome in Buddhism.

DN 31 explicitly states 'sexual liberalism' is a road to ruin.

With these cultural contexts in mind, the suttas are silent on h*m*sexuality. Therefore, it can be assumed Buddhist principles hold that h*m*sexual activity outside of committed (h*m*sexual) relationships is unwholesome.

For example, Buddhist principles would support h*m*sexual rights & h*m*sexual marriage but would not support Gay Pride parades & Mardi Gras where gay people perform public sexual acts and promote a liberal/hedonistic gay culture.

Many worthy social crusades, such as 1st wave feminism (which sought equal rights for women) or the decriminalization of homsexuality, end up degenerating, such as into 2nd wave feminism, which campaigned against motherhood & family values and promoted sexual promiscuity for women.

Many good & proper causes get easily hijacked & perverted.

Thus, when it is said Buddhism is not against h*m*sexuality, this does not mean Buddhism supports all actions h*m*sexuals perform. If h*m*sexuals transgress the five moral precepts, Buddhism does not support or endorse those transgressions.

I think that the reason you only find references to h*m*sexual activity in the vinaya is BECAUSE the vinaya is the only place where there is a need to be specific regarding sexual acts... Oral sex is still oral sex whether it's performed by a man or a woman, an animal or even yourself.

In the Suttas, the teachings, it doesn't matter if you are attracted to the opposite sex, same sex, etc. it's all about craving,clinging, desire, attachment, and aversion all underpinned by ignorance. These come from the mind and go far deeper then sexual identity and attraction.

As for Homosexuality and the Theravada tradition, buddhanet.net strikes again:

http://www.buddhanet.net/h*m*sexu.htm

As h*m*sexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned.