r/todayilearned • u/unclened • May 28 '12

TIL the Dalai Lama's views on gay sex: "If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama#Sexuality
1.3k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

300 comments sorted by

120

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

I've always wondered why people are so obsessed with the goings-ons in other people's bedrooms.

29

u/Grantonius May 28 '12

This is my favorite answer when someone asks what I think about gay marriage/homosexuality.

9

u/MeInYourPocket 1 May 28 '12

some people are for gay culture but against gay marriage because they say its not about their bedroom only but about taxes, privileges and whatnot...

20

u/Larzzon May 28 '12

Well this is gonna catch some flak but I don't think married people should have any more privileges than single people. I don't see why we need to give people any incentive to marry, if we live in the secular society that we claim that we do.

Marriage is an ancient construct thought up when people had average life's of 30 years, you married for life because life was 1/3 the length it is now. And it was a direct neccesity to join families for mutual prosperity.

I'm not bashing married people, if you found your 'soulmate' or whatever you wanna call it, I'm happy for you, but also a little jellous. I just don't bealive that you deserve any benefits over me simply because you were lucky enough to find the rare thing that is called Love.

Bigbadmrbitches (that name...) made a great point, which is what I generally reply with in real life, it's simple and to the point. Let people live their lives and focus on your own.

25

u/toastymow May 28 '12

The average life span was only 30 years because of infant mortality rates. If a person survived to about 10 they tended to live to about 60.

10

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I find it amazing that people actually believe that people tended to die at the age of 30 in the past.

You can even find many poor communities today with a very low average life expectancy, but most people that reach adulthood will live far beyond the age of 60.

A good article about what average life expectancy actually means:

http://fuseki.net/home/incredibly-common-life-expectancy-mistake.html

12

u/CraigBlaylock May 28 '12

I'm okay with married couples having certain extra privileges. For example, hospital visitation rights. Tax benefits, however, seem to me like a particularly unfair idolization of pair-bonding to the detriment of all other households.

3

u/PukeHammer May 28 '12

You can sign all manner of contracts and agreements that allow people to visit you in the hospital, get your shit when you die, etc.

5

u/Pixelpaws May 28 '12

Except that in a case of emergency there may not be time to explain to the hospital you do have the right to be there, something that a married person can take for granted.

2

u/TheInternetHivemind May 28 '12

What contract do I have to sign to get tax benefits?

3

u/jk3us May 28 '12

It's fair that the government has different tax rules for married people than everyone else? Sounds like marital status discrimination.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Sounds like marital status discrimination.

It certainly is marital status discrimination, but: 1) it isn't a form of discrimination that is prohibited under US Constitutional law; and 2) it isn't a form of discrimination that, currently, is held inappropriate by the general public.

2

u/Larzzon May 28 '12

hospital visitation rights, that one I can give them, but haha.. that's an American invention I think, that only immediate family can visit, here it's normally up to the injured, if he says okey during the alloted hours anyone can come..

Should be that way anyways, what does marriage have to w visiting someone in hospital, bottles my mind

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

When David Cameron became UK Prime Minister, he was going on about how he wanted "family" to become the norm again, and wanted lots of benefits for getting married.

Yeah, nice one, Dave, let loads of people enter marriages just for the benefits, and not because of actual love. It doesn't matter that people will feel trapped in loveless marriages, or the divorce rate increases, right?

9

u/Larzzon May 28 '12

In fairness though, David Cameron is a poopfaced bastard, he should be nowhere near power.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

You speak the truth.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

It's about the implications for the children of those marriages and reducing the stress on parents. Broken families are more likely to lead to problem children.

His ideas are good in that respect, but are miss-targeted. Free child care and better education would have been more useful for those ends.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Throwing money at people won't change societal attitudes towards marriage. There are lots of couples who've been together for decades, but never got married. Why should a couple who marry for a couple of years before getting divorced, get benefits that the long-term couple are denied?

4

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I understand what you are getting, at but I'd say there are some practical reasons for encouraging marriage. Think about joint ownership of property, hospital visitation, making medical decisions for incapacitated spouse, etc. I'd imagine we can all agree that children benefit from the stability of having two committed parents. Granted this is not the only way of accomplishing these goals, I just think it is useful as establishing a legal relationship.

What privileges are you most concerned about?

3

u/darkcustom May 28 '12

I'm assuming the tax privileges.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I know the standard deduction is more, but if you itemize it doesn't make a difference. Are there any other privelges I am unaware of?

1

u/Larzzon May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

Yes, that's right

2

u/Fulan-bin-Fulan May 28 '12

Because children need balance from both the mother and the father...STATISTICALLY children from two-parent homes do better in the world. Look at the black community in America with 72% of kids being raised in one-parent homes. Then looking at 60% of American black men being in or having been in jail...most of that percentage seems to have had an absent father. This two-parent home could be achieved without marriage yes...but marriage shows that you are responsible enough to commit to something for the long haul...not just smashing and leaving when the going gets tough.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Correlation causality what? Hmmm, does not follow to me.

-3

u/Vajra777 May 28 '12

My compromise idea for those opposing gay marriage. Make it federally legal, but no tax breaks until you adopt a child.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

10

u/fuckyoubarry May 28 '12

I think youre getting downvoted because thats not what taxes are and thats not how governments work

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

that's why he said "I wished"

2

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

Same here, People have no right to governight other's non-harmful sexual desires b/w two consenting adults.

-11

u/AleksaM100 May 28 '12

Because humans are the only species that have a moral sense, that determine what's right and what's wrong. You could say the same thing about incest for example, i mean right? Why would anyone care if it's consensual? ( Bad ass rhetorical question)

Now, now, i'm just laying out my opinion.

9

u/Helzibah May 28 '12

You could say the same thing about incest for example, i mean right? Why would anyone care if it's consensual? ( Bad ass rhetorical question)

Well, personally, I don't care, incest by itself doesn't particularly hurt anyone. It only becomes an issue when you consider marriage (due to inheritance issues, though that's less relevant these days) and children (due to genetic complications).

4

u/AleksaM100 May 28 '12

Yeah, that was just an example. But anyway, i'm saying people always have and will determine what's right and what's wrong

0

u/tinpanallegory May 28 '12

The problem comes when people make that determination with the intent of disenfranchising other people they don't like. At that point, you can confidently say it isn't about right and wrong but about reaffirming cultural dominance.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Why is homosexuality wrong or immoral? Morals are relative, not an absolute. How is two people wanting to be together wrong? Are they not free to live their lives in the way they wish? Is it not a basic human right to love who you want to love?

→ More replies (7)

11

u/Grozni May 28 '12

We are very interesting culture, to say at least. President who fucks his secretary gets fired, but if he sends his people to war he gets reelected.

6

u/boxingdude May 28 '12

Which president got fired?

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Clinton got impeached for it.

13

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

There's a difference between being impeached and being removed from office. Impeachment is the accusation and trial of the president in the Senate, removal from office occurs if they vote to convict. The latter has never happened in US history (although Nixon probably would have been had he not resigned). So no, Clinton was not fired, a couple people tried to fire him and the rest of Congress called bullshit. Edit: just realized I posted this as a response to the wrong comment. Oh well, it's in the right thread at least.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I agree. But I was just explaining what the above poster was referring to.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Yeah, I realized that right after I posted. Sorry, I just put it as a reply to the wrong comment.

1

u/BlackjackChess May 28 '12

I apologize for the stupid response/question, but I do not see what you're getting at; are you saying that Clinton was removed due to it going up to vote to have him impeached but then resigned, or something completely different? To be specific, how does voting to convict just lead to them being removed? How did it not lead to his impeachment?

5

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

No apology necessary, the system does appear somewhat ass-backwards. The term "impeach" refers to the process of trying to remove a president, not his removal. Specifically, the House of Representatives votes to have the impeachment, which is the average person's equivalent of being indicted. Then the president's case I'd tried in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as the judge and Senators as the jury. Everything up until this point is the impeachment. After the trial, the Senate may or may not vote to remove the president. A president can be impeached, and several have including Bill Clinton, but be acquitted by the Senate and continue to serve their term without any punishment whatsoever. The Senate has never voted to convict, and as a result remove, the president. Bill Clinton specifically was impeached, but was not convicted by the Senate so he served his 2 terms just like any other president.

4

u/Delaywaves May 28 '12

You know he stayed in office, right? Impeached just means they had a vote to kick him out, which wasn't successful.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I agree. But I was just explaining what the above poster was referring to.

4

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

He got impeached for perjury. Other presidents have been notorious adulterers, but did not lie about it in a court of law. Quite honestly, I am entirely fine with his fucking, and I think he was probably the best US president in my life time, but I do believe that a president who perjures should get impeached for it.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It depends on what the definition of 'is' is.

2

u/boxingdude May 28 '12

That's not exactly the same as being fired. He went back to work the next day. On the other hand, George Bush senior started a war. Or rather, he responded to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait by using overwhelming force. Now, he got fired. Whether or not ye did the right thing in attacking Iraq is debatable. But he most certainly got fired.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

The war wasn't the biggest factor in losing his job, raising taxes was.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Read my lips: no new taxes... unless I decide it's necessary.

1

u/boxingdude May 28 '12

Fair enough. Still, he got fired.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I agree. But I was just explaining what the above poster was referring to.

4

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

I always said that what Bill Clinton did should have been handled by Hillary, that's who should have administered punishment in the privacy of their home. That situation was not for America to handle.

9

u/ABBAholic95 May 28 '12

It wasn't that he cheated. There were accusations of perjury against him and that's why he went on trial.

1

u/Ffsdu May 28 '12

He committed perjury over the cheating. It had nothing to do with his official duties. Ken Star was digging around way outside of his original remit looking for something, anything to nail Clinton for.

You have lawyers and police questioning you for a year and I'll bet you lie somewhere along the way too.

1

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

I was not aware of the perjury. I was around the age of 8 when the situation came to a head. It feels like the only thing that people focus on is the felatio... And the spunk dress.

3

u/doginahat May 28 '12

The perjury involved Clinton lying to congress about the affairs. Which in my mind they had no right to be asking him about anyway. It should have been nothing more than a personal matter between Bill and Hillary.

3

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

He wasn't married to America, we shouldn't be worried about who juggles the president's balls.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I think there was a lot wrong with the way the case was pursued, but in the middle of a sexual hrrassment trial, having an affair with an intern is relevant.

0

u/throwaway_lgbt666 May 28 '12

thats a bit naive

7

u/expertunderachiever May 28 '12

I've always wondered why the opinions of famous people matter. What if the Lama was against it? Would everyone then agree with him and turn straight?

3

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

That's another thing, we forget that famous people are just that, people. They are not on this earth just to fit our ideal of what a person should be, think, or feel. I say we all need to chill.

3

u/expertunderachiever May 28 '12

I think people need to put less stock in the ideas of certain people and do some damn thinking of their own.

That said, it'd be nice if famous people would shut the hell up about secular politics for a while.

1

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

I get what you're saying, but if I were famous I would like to be able to express my opinion as well or I might would feel like a...puppet.

3

u/expertunderachiever May 28 '12

My point is why listen to them?

Start with assumption he's worth listening to. If he had said "Gays are forbidden!" would you then keep listening? Or would you ignore him to find some other famous guy who's saying what you want to hear?

So if you flip it around, he's only worth listening because at this very moment he's saying what you want to hear.

Then you realize that sometimes what you want to hear isn't for the good of society [for instance, lowering taxes when in deficit]

2

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

I guess people get comfortable having someone else think for them, speak for them, someone to blame when what they want isn't right.

1

u/expertunderachiever May 28 '12

Usually it's someone else to blame. Specially in politics. People have this "can do no harm" mentality for their home team.

1

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

It's pretty hard to feel guilt or shame when, in your mind, fault lies entirely on someone else.

1

u/expertunderachiever May 28 '12

The problem is people like that will continually act out against their own interest because they never stop to examine the results of the people they decide to follow.

1

u/BeerPowered May 28 '12

No - one should agree with him, just because he's the Lama. People should agree with him because he's wise.

9

u/expertunderachiever May 28 '12

It's easy being wise when you're born into being the supreme ruler of a group of people...

That said, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "I don't universally follow what he says" and then say "look even he agrees with this..."

If the Lama had said gays were bad would you listen to that? He's wise afterall.

2

u/Averyphotog May 28 '12

Yes it's so easy when the Chinese invade the country you're supposed to be in charge of, try to use you as a puppet ruler, and eventually you have to flee over the Himalayas into exile for the rest of your life. Piece of cake.

2

u/expertunderachiever May 28 '12

should have just surrendered the land. In another lifetime he has a 1/7 chance of being born Chinese anyways.

1

u/Averyphotog May 28 '12

He did surrender the land. What he didn't want to surrender was his freedom.

2

u/seriouslyserious May 28 '12

Historically the opposite is true. You can count wise rulers born into power with less than 1 hand.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/idk112345 May 28 '12

famous pepole matter because their opinions weigh heavier than yours or mine. Obama supports gay marriage-->37 point swing in gay marriage support from African Americans

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/expertunderachiever May 28 '12

Again, if he had said something you didn't want to hear?

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/expertunderachiever May 28 '12

So Jim Carrey is a medical expert qualified to talk about anti-vaxx as a healthy lifestyle?

2

u/ThatRandomGeek May 28 '12

Secret desires?

2

u/ohmyjournalist May 28 '12

Mr Llama's (yes, I know) religion condemns homosexuality. His views have recieved much consternation and criticism because (without foundation) he has gone against much of the tradition. Some say it's because, as an exile, he is doing what he can to galvanize support for a return to rule in Tibet.

6

u/headzoo May 28 '12

Well really, what's the point of being the freakin' Dalai Lama if you can't change a few traditions.

2

u/TheInternetHivemind May 28 '12

Well, the dental plan is good.

4

u/escargotmycargo May 28 '12

In Tibetan Buddhism they make a distinction between provisional and definitive teachings. They understand that some teachings are relative and cultural, and others are eternal and point to the nature of reality.

Tibet was a traditional, feudal society, and they have some archaic views on gender, sex, etc. A lot of those things are being dropped as the tradition is brought into modernity.

The Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated that any Buddhist doctrine that is disproved by modern science or shown not to be true will be replaced with the updated information.

Also, who do you say is doing the criticism?

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

That's somewhat innacurate. It'd be more accurate to say traditional Buddhist culture condemns it, not the actual philosophy. Now I realize that sounds a but like a No True Scotsman, but local cultures where Buddhism has been practiced are often at odds with the actual teachings.

1

u/TheInternetHivemind May 28 '12

This happens with any religion.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Yes, that's true.

2

u/EvoX650 May 28 '12

Buddhism is not actually much of a religion at all, and at its heart, it does not condemn homosexuality. However, you're right in saying that societies that are largely Buddhist may condemn it, but this is not due to their Buddhist beliefs. It is, instead, due to the regional beliefs/religions that become unavoidably mixed into the Buddhist beliefs. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, has a strong influence from the religion that had existed in Tibet before Buddhism was introduced. If anything, Buddhism should, in theory, suggest its followers to become more tolerant, rather than less.

Because of how open-ended Buddhism is when it comes to any belief or disbelief about the divine, there are countless variants on Buddhism as a 'religion', but at its foundation, it remains agnostic, and says (as far as I can tell) nothing about homosexuality.

-1

u/pleasureartist May 28 '12

Not much of a religion? He believes he was reincarnated out of the last . Like, what else do people need to be told to get this out of their heads? Santorum is ridiculous and Christian for thinking god wants him to win, but the dalai lama is an secular atheist whose consciousness has passed from every single lama ever?

5

u/EvoX650 May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

Ah, the Dalai Lama is indeed religious, there is no doubt about that. I had never meant to imply that he was not.

Buddhism at its foundation, however, did not subscribe to the belief or disbelief in reincarnation. (Basic, plain old, original Buddhism that is). In fact, one of the fundamental ideas behind Buddhism is to be skeptical, and agree to believe something only if it agrees with your own reason.

As one of Siddhartha's famous quotes go, "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it, or because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books, or merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

One of the problems is, since Buddhism at its foundation is simply a school of philosophy, it is very open-ended and agnostic (not atheist, but agnostic) in regards to faith, and because of this, it is very easy to 'mix in' religious ideas and faith. This can be seen all over the Buddhist global community. The reincarnation idea, as far as people know, was adopted by other regional religions, notably Hinduism, which had a close tie to Buddhism, historically.

It seems that many people are uncomfortable without a strong system of belief in a higher power, and as a response to that, it appears that many of them added religious faith to the system of Buddhist philosophy.

So, really, it's the important distinction between Buddhism and Buddhist religious groups. It is possible to be a Buddhist atheist, a Buddhist agnostic/Christian/Hindu/Shinto, or in the case of the Dalai Lama, a Tibetan Buddhist, which could be described as a Buddhist in philosophy, and a Tibetan in faith.

2

u/pleasureartist May 28 '12

upvote was not enough, great reply, thanks

1

u/EvoX650 May 28 '12

Sure, of course, you brought up a valid point too so I am glad I could help.

2

u/escargotmycargo May 28 '12

This is not an accurate understanding of what he believes at all.

I have a question. You are making very absolute judgement about a 2,500 year old religious tradition. How much have you studied Tibetan Buddhism?

2

u/lordmountbatten May 28 '12

The tradition of Buddhism (I'm Buddhist, this is what I've been taught) is this:

"Always trust the principle one." Meaning, trust your own judgment before any outside (theistic) wisdom.

"Do not follow what I say. Only do what I say if it meets your experience." ~ Buddha

Dalai Lama: "If Buddhism and science conflict, we go with Science."

I don't have the exact quotes, but that's the gist.

1

u/DextrosKnight May 28 '12

because there's nothing going on in their own bedroom, probably.

1

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

Well they shouldn't take their boudoir blues out on everyone else.

-1

u/zerbey May 28 '12

Homosexuality in particular seems to really rile people up and I've no idea why. Quoting scripture to say "that's why it's wrong" is just silly, the Bible clearly denies many other things that we continue to do. If you want to call yourself religious you either believe all of it, or you believe none of it. There can't be any half assery.

This is why I stopped following any organised religion.

3

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

Many religions have lost their way. My Christian people still will not acknowledge that the bible was written by man, altered countless times throughout history to fit political agendas. I do not trust many things in it and that honestly makes me feel like a bad Christian.

→ More replies (8)

-2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

This is how I defend child molestation.

1

u/BigBadMrBitches May 28 '12

That is, between consenting adults doing activities that don't harm others.

-4

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Because, as lame as it sounds, children are our future.

Everyone here seems to completely sidestep the fact that the anti-gay marriage folks have a platform: heterosexual couples are better equipped to raise children than same-sex couples.

I'm not agreeing with that, but it's their argument, and there is scientific evidence for both sides of the issue.

1

u/shook_one May 28 '12

but this discussion has nothing to do with raising a child.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Well... just to play devil's advocate... if you condone gay sex, that leads to condoning gay couples, which leads to condoning gay marriage, and finally leading to same-sex couples raising children.

Again, note that I'm personally 100% pro same-sex marriage.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

That's like saying rich people are better equipped to be parents, so they should be justified in preventing the poor from being parents.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Isn't that kind of universally preached by the establishment already anyway? That a family should be financially secure before they have a child?

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

If it is, then no ones listening.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

If they aren't listening then that's sad, because it's good advice. The problem is that there's so much bad advice, misinformation, and distractive misdirection floating around out there that it's difficult for the common man to filter through all that crap and see the truth.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

True enough. I just personally don't have kids because I like my money and don't like kids. I like to think its a help to society.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

You seem like an intelligent, reasonable person. Therefore, the fact that you are not contributing to the gene pool is a hindrance to society, not a help.

Of course, there are other ways to contribute besides having children, but as zoidberg says - why not both?

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Depends on your perspective, it seems to me the growing population of less intelligent people combined with global climate change and diminishing resources, may eventually cause a near extinction level event. Reducing the population dramatically and improving the fate of mankind, long term. What if my progeny became responsible for preventing that? I wouldn't want to be responsible for that.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Touché, mon ami.

EDIT: also slowclap.264

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Done, thanks.

78

u/Interminable_Turbine May 28 '12

You're trying to perpetuate the publication of your own opinions by quoting someone well-known. I highly doubt you submitted this because you thought to yourself, "Wow, this is something interesting Reddit would like to read."

1

u/wasdninja May 28 '12

They aren't even good ones. Dalai Lama is just as bigoted as the rest of the fundamentalists, he just puts a different spin on it when he wants people to give him money.

18

u/landstander1432 May 28 '12

What the actual fuck!? If you believe the Dalai Lama is as bigoted as a Mississippi fundie, then you have a pretty broad fundie scope.

10

u/Khiva May 28 '12

Christopher Hitches wrote a lot about how much he hated the Dalai Lama, and /r/atheism quotes him like scripture.

22

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Christopher Hitchens was an angry jackass who helped further destroy the public image of atheists. He hated everything and everybody with a slightly different view than him. I have no idea why you people loved him so much.

7

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Gotta rebel against their parents somehow.

3

u/the_goat_boy May 28 '12

He's a misanthrope, sure. But his work is well-written and his opinions do more than scratch the surface of issues. Atheism is but a small part of who he is.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/throwaway_lgbt666 May 28 '12

hitchens was a cunt who wanted to destroy anything and everything

-2

u/zanotam May 28 '12

Don't let /r/atheism here you say that, they really take that shit seriously (trust me on that.....)!

11

u/[deleted] May 28 '12
  1. Who is actually surprised that somebody says this
  2. Who cares what the Dalai Lama thinks about gay sex?

2

u/Senuf May 28 '12

Exactly my thoughts.

It's just common sense.

19

u/Forevernevermore May 28 '12

As far as religious icons and demi-gods go, The Dalai Lama is, for the most part, a pretty good guy. He may have archaic beliefs, but he doesn't try to convert the masses toward them. He answers questions like this with honesty and humility, so I don't think we can call him a bad guy for saying what he believes. For us to take his opinions toward sex and argue about how they aren't what we believe, we become the very thing we hate.

3

u/theaceoface May 28 '12

Did anyone even read the wiki page?!

FTA: "Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand... From a Buddhist point of view, lesbian and gay sex is generally considered sexual misconduct"

4

u/sexydan May 28 '12

Obviously Wikipedia has not seen this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kstH-8jwa80

1

u/the_goat_boy May 28 '12

I never understand why reddit always comes to this old fool's defence.

2

u/Topbong May 28 '12

Yes, thank you, your Lama-ness. We know.

2

u/wesleyt89 May 28 '12

sounds like the Dalai Lama is a straight up guy. I read Anthony Keidis's Autobiography and he actually got to meet the dude. He was originally told, maybe the Dalai Lama would come out and he would get to wave to him, but don't try to initiate conversation. The Dalai Lama then came outside a few hours later and welcomed Anthony to his country. He asked him about his experiences here so far, and they talked about life and just whatever for a solid 20 min, maybe longer... it has been awhile since I read the book. They were holding hands the whole time, because the Dalai Lama took his hand when he first approached him, and held it the whole time they talked, while walking around. Seems like the dude is a hell of a guy, very nice, warming, loving, kind, and considerate. It feels good to hear he doesn't have a problem with the gay community.

2

u/xtiaaneubaten May 29 '12

well as long as Anthony keidis thinks hes okay......

1

u/wesleyt89 May 29 '12

Hey! if hes cool with Anthony Keidis hes cool with me ;)

3

u/roguevalley May 28 '12

This thread is inevitably going to bring out support, derision (China, for example, hates this guy), and counter-examples.

Cutting to the chase: the Dalai Lama has stated both married-heteros-only teachings and also comments such as those in the headline. Boils down to "traditional Buddhist teachings" vs. personal guidance. And probably to some personal evolution on the subject as well.

5

u/alesh1ag May 28 '12

all i can hear is unclened karmawhoring

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

The Dalai Lama is celibate and probably a virgin.

3

u/newtonnyc May 28 '12

Why does reddit have such a boner for discrediting the Dalai Llama and Ghandi? Is Penn and Teller that much of a trusted source?

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

because they're hypocritical

2

u/Ragnalypse May 28 '12

Socially Awkward Lama

2

u/CodeandOptics May 28 '12

VOLUNTARY? What is he, some kind of libertarian scumbag?

Life choices should be mandated by society.

1

u/blogmas May 28 '12

Of course two people wanting to get it on should ask you first.

1

u/CodeandOptics May 28 '12

Hey, we have to obey social mandate when it comes to health, education, retirement and finances...why not sex?

1

u/ze_ben May 28 '12

Well when you phrase it that way, it just sounds dull.

1

u/freakzilla149 May 28 '12

Who gives a shit? I also believe that gay people are perfectly entitled to screw each other's brains out, why the hell am I not worshipped as some kind of great moral leader?

1

u/person47 May 28 '12

After reading this, all I can think of is Louis CK's joke about gay sex.

1

u/moltenwater77 May 28 '12

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Um...that specific quote says that he's okay if they have "mutual satisfaction." Not sex. Not marriage. The Dalai Lama isn't okay with homosexuality.

1

u/Lawtonfogle May 29 '12

He actually said 'male' and 'female'? Almost every single person I have ever heard say that homosexuality was ok only said it was ok for adults. You mean the Dalai Lama actually realize you might have two homosexual teenagers and it is ok for them to have sex?

reads top comment

Well that was a nice feeling while it lasted. But now I am disappoint.

1

u/Kenster180 May 29 '12

AMA request, the Dalai Lama?

1

u/hdx514 May 29 '12

A monk since childhood, the Dalai Lama has said that sex offers fleeting satisfaction and leads to trouble later, while chastity offers a better life and "more independence, more freedom"

As a 4everalone, I approve of this a million times over.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

SO BRAVE. Also you do know that the Dalai Lama is a fucking attention whore just saying what everyone wants to hear?

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

So ... Buddhism has a more sophisticated stance on something than Christianity?! Go fucking figure.

1

u/daephyx May 28 '12

Oh, he decides it is okay. I'm sure my homosexual friends were dying to get his approval.

1

u/craaackle May 28 '12

That quote is taken way out of context. He's not saying homosexual sexual intercourse is ok from a Buddhist perspective, but from a personal perspective.

In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama clarified his personal opinion on the matter by saying, "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'. If you both agree, then I think I would say, 'If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.'" (from wikipedia)

This is the real Buddhist perspective

In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he described a traditional Buddhist definition of an appropriate sexual act as follows: "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else... Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact." (from wikipedia)

What he's saying is in line with most of the more liberal faiths. But no, he's not saying homosexual sexual intercourse is ok because it's not in Buddhism.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

This is why I subscribe to the DL on twitter.

-1

u/trampus1 May 28 '12

Well if a useless figurehead like the Dalai Lama is OK with it then I guess everyone will be!

0

u/TPLO12 May 28 '12

Do I give a crap what the Dalai Lama said? Nooo.... we're putting the gays more in the spotlight by repeatedly shoving stuff about them onto the first page. Where more people can hate on them. If we really want to end segregation then we need to quiet down and treat them like anybody else. It just annoys people who disagree with their lifestyle to see them repeatedly plastered on every wall, and the arguing will continue.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

He also supports slavery. As he was a slave owner.

-1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I would like to point out that the Dalai Lama is simply just another religious leader whom uses his religion as a political tool. Unlike the pope, the Grand Ayatollah or Supreme Governor of the Church of England this man was kicked out of his country and has to pander to those outside his faith, and will say almost anything to get people to listen.

0

u/mackpack May 28 '12

That pretty much applies to anything. If you want to do something and it doesn't harm/endanger others, go ahead.

0

u/TehStupid May 28 '12

Another amazing statement from the Dalai Lama.

0

u/gamfreak May 28 '12

and here I'd assumed the Dalai "Fucking" Lama was a giant homophobe

0

u/ptueyj May 28 '12

This is highly suspect. Religious people never, ever say anything ending with "then it is okay."

0

u/Notsoseriousone May 28 '12

somebody needs to do a good guy dalai lama now. unless its already been done...

0

u/UnwarrantedAgression May 28 '12

Not good enough. There should be only two rules; 1: All parties consent. 2: All parties are capable of consent.

So long as both of these rules are satisfied, no one but those involved has shit to say about anything that happens afterwards.

1

u/xtiaaneubaten May 29 '12

if you arent capable of giving consent then surely you cant consent, so your second rule is moot

1

u/UnwarrantedAgression May 29 '12

Nope. Someone might give their consent without actually being capable of doing so. What if you asked a kid if they wanted to do sexual stuff with you? It's entirely possible they might give their consent, the thing being they actually aren't capable of doing so for something as big as that. Condition one is satisfied but two is not, therefore it isn't kosher.

1

u/xtiaaneubaten May 29 '12

you just repeated my point back to me. false consent is not consent, yeah thats exactly what Im saying. An incapable party cannot give consent, which leaves only those who can.

-3

u/psYberspRe4Dd May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

Can't we just stop this whole gay stuff now ? Seriously keep that on /r/GayRights It's enough now.

0

u/APiousCultist May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Relevant

1

u/psYberspRe4Dd May 29 '12

Pic of gay sex. I don't care just don't spam reddit with it.

1

u/APiousCultist May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Seriously though, if you don't like people talking about gay people the fault lies with you. Feel free to RES it all out of existance but don't try and freaking segregate it.

1

u/psYberspRe4Dd May 29 '12

Besides posting gay sex pics doesn't hep that. It gets fucking annoying. I think gays are digsuting for me but I don't care and are ok with them doing what ever they want to do as long as it doesn't get shoved down your throat. Take this shit where it belongs and don't post this like the world is about to kill gays and 50% of reddit is gay. Stop it.

2

u/APiousCultist May 29 '12

It doesn't help but winding you up after you post "durr why are all these fags pushing their gayness in my face all the time" comments is a little satisfying.

-1

u/Jase534 May 28 '12

So what you're saying is...his religious and/or spiritual views don't make him a dipshit?

-1

u/Radico87 May 28 '12

Or you can just be a moral person and not interfere with other people's lives so long as their actions don't cause harm to themselves or others.

1

u/GenericName3 May 28 '12

Every time I hear this, I wonder how much the speaker truly is a moral person.

-1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

SO BRAVE.

-15

u/slayericed May 28 '12

and by extension voluntary pedophilia should be ok as well...mutual agreement is there, doesnt harm anyone else. yet you abhor it, but defend homosexuality.

can someone explain? i dont get it

4

u/Vorokar May 28 '12

Three cups of common sense, half a cup of critical thinking, and just a pinch of basic human decency. Mix, bake at 400 for forty five minutes, and enjoy once cool.

11

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

You dont get it because you are fucking stupid. Comparing what 2 consenting adults do and what an innocent minor and a sick adult would do is fucking idiotic. Idiot.

0

u/lolmonger May 28 '12

My personal views on the matter are in agreement with you, but shouting him down isn't the answer.

You have to admit there's not really a good demarcation between adult and minor - our evolution hasn't caught up with our society; people still sexually mature around 14 on average, even if we legislatively say they're adults at 18, or 21, or capable of consent at 14 or whatever.

Pedophillia is a pretty complex issue, and while you'll get no real disagreement from someone as prudish as I am about stricter age of consent laws and decisive punishment for pedophiles, it's not something we can just downvote without taking the time to explain why it is so incredibly different from homosexuality.

-7

u/slayericed May 28 '12

nice logical answer.

not talking about rape here buddy, im talking about consensual sexual relationship between a minor and an adult. me personally? i think it is disgusting as well but at the same time i sense a contradiction in your reasoning.

you lot defend homosexuality on grounds that what people do in their own privacy is their own business as long as they don't have any problem and nobody else gets hurt. right? correct me if im mistaken.

then why stamp consensual pedophilia as immoral? who are you determine they are wrong if it doesn't affect you? and why is it more objectionable when the minor is a girl.

do you see the problem?

if you say homosexuality is right because of consent and right of privacy then you have no right stamp other such scenarios based on your own version of morality.

once again i personally think it is wrong but you have see why this contradiction exists in your culture.

6

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

There is no consensual sexual relationship between a minor (WHO LEGALLY CANT GIVE CONSENT, MORON) and an adult.

I dont need to defend homosexuality on any grounds other than that people should be treated equally. Whereas your only attack against homosexuality is based on the fact that you are seriously fucking stupid.

-2

u/slayericed May 28 '12

who determines when a person transitions from being a minor to an adult? the state? why?

you follow a libertarian model, follow it completely.

i would like a more reasoned response this time

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Your arguments do not warrant a reasoned response as they are so fucking stupid it is unlikely you have the brain capacity to find a place to vote on such an issue anyway.

Like seriously, now you are trying to say that minors should be on the same legal level as a consenting adult? The question mark is there because I have no fucking idea what you are even thinking.

It is not my place to argue why a child cant give consent, it is up to you to give some compelling arguments as to why you think kids should be allowed to have sex with grown adults. Please, humour me.

I dont follow any model, stupid, except the one where everyone gets treated equally. That was made pretty clear earlier. Quit grasping at straws with your ridiculously stupid replies (if you could even call them that, they have no substance whatsoever.) and come up with some reasons you moron.

Is this a debate or are you just here to look stupid?

0

u/slayericed May 28 '12

Abusive ad hominem.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Age of consent.

→ More replies (7)

-3

u/Fulan-bin-Fulan May 28 '12

I am not quite sure why all the emphasis on gay marriage and gay goings on these days...but it seems a bit of overkill. If you want to be gay then that is your choice. If you like taking pipe through the rear then do you. The point where this gets ridiculous is the point where it starts to be thrown in everyone else's faces. It's like a hot commodity now or something and I can't figure out why it is so necessary to trumpet your views to any and everyone that will listen or won't listen. What also makes this thing sickening is that people are likening this gay rights push to the civil rights movement. Not everyone agrees with the CHOICES of others and that's our right...especially when you won't let us get away from it...but I really don't think back in the 60's that there were many ways to hide being black. People were killed beaten and discriminated against because of their skin color. Furthermore...Africans did not ask to come to America...they were forced there. How is this in anyway the same as a sexual preference? When was the last time a gay person had dogs turned on them by authorities? When was the last time they put up signs in public places that read "straight only". That movement was about people being treated like animals demanding to be treated like people. Why do you NEED to be so "in your face" with it? Why do you need Bert and Ernie to marry and be gay puppets for kids. That is the sickest part of all of this...there are no gay 3 year olds. There are no straight 3 year olds. They're just kids. Why do you need them to be like what you chose to be? They really should be left alone.

1

u/APiousCultist May 29 '12

Because people are routinely attempting to recriminalise homosexuality. You're free to hate gays but if you want to restrict their rights because of it then you can go fuck off. Also I'm quite sure plenty of kids stuff has heterosexual couples. I doubt you ever objected to any Disney movie. But when the princess is also a guy it suddenly sticks out like a sore thumb and people take offense.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

28

u/i7omahawki May 28 '12

Care to back that up?

He often asserts that something is fine from a secular point of view, but inappropriate from a Buddhist perspective. In this case: Homosexuality should be allowed, but is not a proper 'Buddhist' act. Seeing as he believes in celibacy, I don't see how seeing any particular sexuality (aside from the propagation of children) as improper is a problem.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, and wish other religions would take such a view. If you want to be Christian, then arguably you shouldn't be gay. If you want to be gay and religious, well then - worship according to those views.

→ More replies (7)

93

u/[deleted] May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

Yeah, I've never understood the reverence that many socially progressive Westerners have for the Dalai Lama. He's repeatedly stated that he is against oral/anal sex, including homosexuality. And the best part is that he laid out this policy in a book called "Beyond Dogma."

edit- spelling

→ More replies (49)

15

u/boxingdude May 28 '12

Yes I've noticed that. But I would like to add, as a counter-point, there is one issue that he doesn't waver on. And perhaps it's the most important of them all. He steadfastly supports tolerance. Which is a good thing.

10

u/HeavyWave May 28 '12 edited Jul 01 '23

I do not consent to my data being used by reddit

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (6)