![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusProposition 8, California's gay marriage ban, has most likely passed. Even the Human Rights Campaign admits that it's unlikely that two thirds of the absentee ballots yet to be counted have all voted against the ban.
Jeffrey Jackson of Lynwood said he struggled with how he would vote on Proposition 8. On the one hand, as a black man casting his ballot for Obama, he said he had a deep and personal reverence for civil rights. On the other, he is a Pentecostal Christian. In the end, it was that religious faith that guided his decision. "It's straight biblical," said Jackson, 46. "It's just not right."
We need to start building support for gay marriage within religious groups. Clearly, there are religious people on the fence about gay marriage.
Let's start building that support with the people already on our side.
What? you say. Why would we do that? you say.
Religious leaders recognized and performed gay marriages long before it was conceivable to make it legal in the courts. The laws are catching up to many churches.
In addition, we have gay pastors and gay priests and gay monks. I know many (non-sexually active obviously) lesbian and gay Buddhist monastics.
There are many religious slash writers. I am good friends with Buddhist, Mormon, Christian, Islamic, and Jewish slash writers. And none of these are against their religion. They--we--just feel that more conservative voices in our religions are mistaken.
Yet gay rights supporters and slash writers don't treat these religious people well at all. (Heck, gay rights supporters don't treat multiracial supporters very well either.) Casual badmouthing and abuse of religion is common. I can't tell you how many times in my decade in fandom I've entered into a slash conversation, only to hear swipes at religion (all religions in general). When I object saying, "Hey, uh, I'm a former Buddhist nun" I've been told "well, religion hasn't treated gay people very well" -- and the badmouthing goes on. Thanks for suggesting that I deserve to be treated badly because of your experience with religion. I try not to take it personally, but it does rub me the wrong way. I suspect I'm not alone.
Gay rights supporters actually join in on the conservative world's mockery of gay priests with nasty, infuriating, insulting insinuations that they're all fucking altar boys. This is anti-gay hate, you fools! The insulting insinuations are even carried over to all religions, even those like Buddhism that have never, ever had ANY institutional bias against gay people.
Good work, folks. If you can't even be decent and respectful to those who are already on your side, how do you expect to draw in the ones who are on the fence?
Let me make this clear.
- Religious person = conservative is not true.
- No more than straight person = conservative is true.
But conservatives would like us all to believe it. Oh, yes.
If we believe that all religious people are conservative people, then we won't talk to religious people. We won't listen to their concerns. We won't speak to their personal beliefs that often aren't in line with the more heavy-handed of their leaders and congregations. We won't speak of shades of gray in religious teachings, or talk about weighing the spirit of the law with the letter of the law -- a vital concern to all genuinely spiritual people.
We won't ask Pentecostal voters if God is against civil rights. We won't ask Buddhists if their religion has anything against gay rights as opposed to certain Asian customs. We won't ask Catholics if they really follow everything the Popes say, past and present. We won't ask other Protestants if they have a personal relationship with God and what that means.
We won't allow those religious people on our side, who've already resolved these questions, to speak. They will be among us. They will support us. But they will hide. They'll hide the fact that they're spiritual, or only admit it in passing or to close friends. Because they don't want a confrontation.
It's time for spiritual people who support gay marriage to let you know they're here.
If you're religious and support gay marriage, then paste this meme in your LJ.
For myself: I am Tibetan Buddhist and I support gay marriage.
Why? Because Buddhism has never had a bias against sexual orientation. It has recognized gay sexuality and addressed it in the monastic vows (the vows are very specifically applied to both gay and straight people). Otherwise Buddhist texts mention nothing at all about homosexuality. It is irrelevant to enlightenment.
Culturally, I recognize many Asian societies have biases against homosexuality and Buddhism traditionally isn't very militant. Buddhism bends to local custom like a reed in the wind. But the Dalai Lama has stated that it is clear within the Buddhist teachings that is inappropriate to be "patient" when something is wrong. I consider opposition to the happiness and security of gay couples to be wrong.
Jeffrey Jackson of Lynwood said he struggled with how he would vote on Proposition 8. On the one hand, as a black man casting his ballot for Obama, he said he had a deep and personal reverence for civil rights. On the other, he is a Pentecostal Christian. In the end, it was that religious faith that guided his decision. "It's straight biblical," said Jackson, 46. "It's just not right."
We need to start building support for gay marriage within religious groups. Clearly, there are religious people on the fence about gay marriage.
Let's start building that support with the people already on our side.
What? you say. Why would we do that? you say.
Religious leaders recognized and performed gay marriages long before it was conceivable to make it legal in the courts. The laws are catching up to many churches.
In addition, we have gay pastors and gay priests and gay monks. I know many (non-sexually active obviously) lesbian and gay Buddhist monastics.
There are many religious slash writers. I am good friends with Buddhist, Mormon, Christian, Islamic, and Jewish slash writers. And none of these are against their religion. They--we--just feel that more conservative voices in our religions are mistaken.
Yet gay rights supporters and slash writers don't treat these religious people well at all. (Heck, gay rights supporters don't treat multiracial supporters very well either.) Casual badmouthing and abuse of religion is common. I can't tell you how many times in my decade in fandom I've entered into a slash conversation, only to hear swipes at religion (all religions in general). When I object saying, "Hey, uh, I'm a former Buddhist nun" I've been told "well, religion hasn't treated gay people very well" -- and the badmouthing goes on. Thanks for suggesting that I deserve to be treated badly because of your experience with religion. I try not to take it personally, but it does rub me the wrong way. I suspect I'm not alone.
Gay rights supporters actually join in on the conservative world's mockery of gay priests with nasty, infuriating, insulting insinuations that they're all fucking altar boys. This is anti-gay hate, you fools! The insulting insinuations are even carried over to all religions, even those like Buddhism that have never, ever had ANY institutional bias against gay people.
Good work, folks. If you can't even be decent and respectful to those who are already on your side, how do you expect to draw in the ones who are on the fence?
Let me make this clear.
- Religious person = conservative is not true.
- No more than straight person = conservative is true.
But conservatives would like us all to believe it. Oh, yes.
If we believe that all religious people are conservative people, then we won't talk to religious people. We won't listen to their concerns. We won't speak to their personal beliefs that often aren't in line with the more heavy-handed of their leaders and congregations. We won't speak of shades of gray in religious teachings, or talk about weighing the spirit of the law with the letter of the law -- a vital concern to all genuinely spiritual people.
We won't ask Pentecostal voters if God is against civil rights. We won't ask Buddhists if their religion has anything against gay rights as opposed to certain Asian customs. We won't ask Catholics if they really follow everything the Popes say, past and present. We won't ask other Protestants if they have a personal relationship with God and what that means.
We won't allow those religious people on our side, who've already resolved these questions, to speak. They will be among us. They will support us. But they will hide. They'll hide the fact that they're spiritual, or only admit it in passing or to close friends. Because they don't want a confrontation.
It's time for spiritual people who support gay marriage to let you know they're here.
If you're religious and support gay marriage, then paste this meme in your LJ.
I am [insert religion here] and I support gay marriage.
Why? Because... [answer].
For myself: I am Tibetan Buddhist and I support gay marriage.
Why? Because Buddhism has never had a bias against sexual orientation. It has recognized gay sexuality and addressed it in the monastic vows (the vows are very specifically applied to both gay and straight people). Otherwise Buddhist texts mention nothing at all about homosexuality. It is irrelevant to enlightenment.
Culturally, I recognize many Asian societies have biases against homosexuality and Buddhism traditionally isn't very militant. Buddhism bends to local custom like a reed in the wind. But the Dalai Lama has stated that it is clear within the Buddhist teachings that is inappropriate to be "patient" when something is wrong. I consider opposition to the happiness and security of gay couples to be wrong.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 08:10 pm (UTC)True! One of my best friends is lesbian and catholic, and being happy to be both. Personaly I sure, people like her will manage to reform the church in the future, since it comes from inside.
P.S. Oh and there shouldbe this wonderful movie somewhere, is called Struggling for Djihad and is telling about muslim lesbians and gays, who are trying to find to semselves while keeping their faith.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 12:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 08:37 am (UTC)May I ask to which school of tibetan Buddhism you belong to?
no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 07:19 pm (UTC)Well, I just wanted to know.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 07:30 pm (UTC)There are no thriving Nyingma centers in Seattle so I mostly go to the Kagyu, since Nyingma and Kagyu are fairly close, and I've had several Kagyu teachers who are important to me (Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso, Thrangu Rinpoche, Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche). The Nyingma lineage owes a lot to the Kagyu. When the Gelug was successfully stamping out the Nyingma at end of the 19th century, a Kagyu teacher by the name of Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye compiled all the extant Nyingma empowerments into to one 108 volume text to preserve the tradition.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 08:51 pm (UTC)I met Karmapa in our European Center, in Immenstadt in Bavaria.
If you want to take a peek, then
http://www.europe-center.org/ and
http://www.international-summercourse.org/
It were one of the strongest moments in my life. I mean it in the best positive way. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 08:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 09:16 pm (UTC)Well. Obama's victory has proved that a "fifty state" approach works. It's time to bring that to gay rights.
Let's include our religious pro-gay rights slashers! Let's learn the arguments from the perspective of the religious people themselves who are on our side.
I can give you the Buddhist arguments. I can only guess at the other religions.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 08:07 am (UTC)http://maraceles.livejournal.com/133366.html?style=mine
http://scrollgirl.livejournal.com/600507.html?style=mine
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 08:58 pm (UTC)It's the same bitterness I see in the Pagan Population, too- a bias against all Christo-Judaic faiths because of the Religious institutions being warped to conservative bias. Both sides are wrong.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 09:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 02:05 am (UTC)In the country we came from OUR marriage was illegal not all that long ago. Attitudes can be molded.
The idea that my marriage would be harmed by a different sort of couple having legal status is absurd. It offends me that this is the tack that was used with success here in AZ.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 05:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 04:25 am (UTC)But I'm happy to support the idea that "religious" doesn't mean "close-minded bigot." And I do get tired of the word "religious" being used to mean "Christian (or maybe Jewish)."
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 05:12 am (UTC)Right on.
And I do get tired of the word "religious" being used to mean "Christian (or maybe Jewish)."
Hear, hear. And thank you.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 06:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 08:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 04:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 12:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 06:25 pm (UTC)I'm a little sad that I've never heard of or seen a same-sex yab yum--it doesn't seem to make it even into the tantric imagery, unless I'm missing something very important. But at least the Western teacher that I was talking about was amenable to the idea, though I got the feeling that she was charting her own territory on that issue.
Very long answer: yab-yum deities
Date: 2008-11-07 07:24 pm (UTC)The only reason people think yab-yum depicts sex (other than Jack Keroauc, sigh) is due to our ordinary minds. We look at these representations of non-physical sambogakaya deities and think they're depicting a physical act. Which if you think about it, is laughable. We imagine that "oh, these are ordinary" and "oh, we do that."
The deeper teachings that explain what those images depict really can't be given until you've completed a lot of retreat. You need to know your ABCs before you go on to something more advanced. Most of the people I know who can explain them have completed three-year retreat. But deities are very profound and you should not view them as ordinary in any way. Please don't think that they're fucking. That's just... *wince.*
We do not show the deities with ordinary modern t-shirts and jeans, wearing wristwatches or holding cellphones and ipods either. Yes, no one tends to use a damaru these days but the lotuses and other implements they hold don't represent ordinary things either.
Re: Very long answer: yab-yum deities
Date: 2008-11-10 12:19 am (UTC)Re: Very long answer: yab-yum deities
Date: 2008-11-10 03:33 am (UTC)There's a lot of criticism and misunderstanding of Tibetan Buddhism by other Buddhist traditions that hinge on their belief that yab-yum deities represent sex acts. Many Asian Buddhists can't rectify Buddhist monasticism with these deities, and so assert that Tibetan Buddhism isn't Buddhist at all. No shit, it's that bad. They assume that because they misunderstand of yab-yum images that Tibetan monasticism must be impure.
Then there's a whole generation of flower child western Buddhists who want yab-yum deities to represent sex acts because of their own personal belief systems.
These guys actually have the balls to assert that Buddhist monasticism is "outmoded" and "out of touch" -- yet when I've asked them about the philosophy of Buddhism and monasticism's place within it, they can't even quote what the monastic vows are. They've never read the Vinaya texts. They were utterly ignorant of Buddhism and simply projected their own beliefs onto it.
Of course, this is the reason why esoteric practices in Tibetan Buddhism used to be secret and treated with some respect. They are difficult and subtle for the crass-minded to understand.
My own teachers have been moving away from giving tantric teachings to the public because so many misconstrue them.
Re: Very long answer: yab-yum deities
Date: 2008-11-11 02:12 am (UTC)Re: Very long answer: yab-yum deities
Date: 2008-11-11 04:42 am (UTC)And really, often even professors of Buddhist studies know very little about this topic.
Re: Very long answer: yab-yum deities
Date: 2008-11-11 07:56 pm (UTC)Good to know. I understand how it could raise a lot of feelings.
Very long answer: Monasticism
Date: 2008-11-07 07:27 pm (UTC)The question the Dalai Lama was asked that I know he answered was about the Genyen vows. Genyen vows are monastic vows for (often married) lay people.
It's "monasticism light" where you take the three main monastic vows (do not kill, do not steal, do not lie) and then in place of the vow of celebacy, you take a vow not to commit adultery. The theory with the lay vows is that you do not engage in excessive sexuality.
Again, it's a form of monasticism. But people were unhappy when they learned that "monasticism light" prohibited oral and anal sex and restricted sex ideally to procreation. Well, duh. It's monasticism!
It's setting the stage to become a monk or nun later in life and was designed for lay people who wanted to be monks but couldn't because of family obligations.
But a bunch of people wanted the "veneer" of monasticism without doing monasticism and got all bummed out when they learned that they'd have to behave like monks in marriage. *eyeroll* Which is, you know, the whole point of the lay monastic vows.
Now gay people were bummed out because they
were looking very hard for anything that seemed it might exclude themfelt this automatically meant that they couldn't take lay vows, since gay sex isn't procreative, and is largely oral and anal sex. The Dalai Lama said that it was their choice how strictly they would keep the Genyen vows.You see, not to get too technical here, but just before the Buddha passed away he said that not all of the 265 monastic vows were essential. But he died before he could say which ones. So which vows are essential and which aren't has been a point of debate since 600 B.C.E.
The tradition is that we maintain the original list of vows strictly. The Vinaya texts maintain the context within which each of the vows were created so we can understand for ourselves what they're for. Each monastic lineage has a slightly different list. Everyone does know what the "root" or "core" vows are. Then it's left to the individual how strictly they keep the peripheral ones.
The Dalai Lama was referring to this debate in his answer on Genyen vows, which was aimed at people who were interested in taking them. He wasn't going to undercut anyone who leans towards a strict interpretation, but he suggested that the restrictions on oral and anal sex might be peripheral when compared to the main vows.
If it were me, I would understand his answer to mean that ideally, you'd take full monastic vows complete with celebacy and robes -- the works. But if you're not, then you keep the Genyen vows as strictly as feasible.
If you're gay, wish to take lay monastic vows, and in a committed relationship, obviously something like oral sex is going to be part of that relationship. It's normal and not "excessive." But if you don't want to keep vows to the best of your ability, you've missed the point and shouldn't be taking them in the first place.
If you do want to be a lay monastic, you should look for ways to keep those vows to the best of your ability, because it's something you're interested and you care about maintaining as purely as possible.
Genyen vows aren't a status symbol, to be taken and then abused or ignored. They're a responsibility and an honor. They're also a very important step to assist us in maintain ethics and personal discipline on a spiritual path. But they aren't for everyone.
Of course, I get how people took this response completely out of context and reinterpreted it according to their personal view of Christian dogma, then glossed it with "the Dalai Lama's conservative" or something like that.
Re: Very long answer: Monasticism
Date: 2008-11-07 08:50 pm (UTC)Heh. We often hear what we want to hear, regardless of what people have actually said. Thanks for giving the long answer :)
Re: Very long answer: Monasticism
Date: 2008-11-10 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 09:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 12:43 am (UTC)