Buddhists come out for equality
The House of Representatives public hearing on same-sex marriage, held at NSW Parliament on April 12, saw the largest non-Christian religious faith in Australia come out in support of marriage equality.
The Federation of Australian Buddhist Counc
ils (FABC), representing Buddhist laypeople, and the Australian Sangha Association, representing Buddhist clergy, both put their support on the record.
Buddhist monk Bhante Sujato spoke on behalf of both groups.
鈥淲e should be focusing on the alleviation of human suffering, responding to human need,鈥� Sujato told MPs.
A FABC submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs by Bodhinyana Monastery abbot Ajahn Brahm said religion had never owned the institution of marriage.
鈥淢arriage was not always a religious ceremony,鈥� Brahm wrote.
鈥淲ell before Christianity and Islam appeared, and independent of any Jewish tradition, Buddhism recognised and supported marriage without claiming to have invented it. The fact is that the rite of marriage existed before religion, and thus no one faith can legitimately claim ownership of it.
鈥淭he suggestion that a civil contract is good enough for gays and lesbians is like throwing crumbs to the hungry. It is not acceptable to them, or to any other clear-thinking person.
鈥淲e owe it to the institution of marriage, and to those who are married, to extend its warmth to those who are presently excluded. Extending love can only make for a better society.鈥�
Australia鈥檚 Buddhist community is as large as its Muslim and Jewish communities combined.
Union for Progressive Judaism executive director Steve Denenberg reiterated Progressive Judaism鈥檚 support for marriage equality at the hearing.
Denenberg later told J-Wire that he told the committee that, 鈥渂ased on our beliefs that each person is created in the image of God, the way that person expresses his or her sexuality, each person is equal鈥�.
鈥淭herefore, their rights for full participation in society should be equal, including the right to marry,鈥� Denenberg said. 鈥淓quality would dictate that same-gender couples should be able to marry.鈥�
Sikh and Hindu speakers at the hearing were either opposed or undecided.
The final number of submissions to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality was 75,000, the most an Australian Senate inquiry has ever received.
Of those, 44,000, or 59 percent, were in favour while 31,000 were against.
鈥淭he unprecedented level of support for this legislation reflects the fact that a majority of Australians support marriage equality and support it passionately,鈥� Australian Marriage Equality national convenor Alex Greenwich said.
鈥淭he take-home message for our federal politicians is that the Australian public wants this reform and wants it now.鈥�
I assume that the one who is called Arya Shakya is someone who never know anything about Buddhism at all but still insists that he knows everything about Buddhism.
I don’t argue about the translation of the dictionary. When a script is being translated to another language, the meaning is distorted more or less. Second, if you call yourself a Buddhist, at least you may know what Buddhism is about. Tolerance, kindness, and love. There is nothing such as “right”, “wrong” or “unlawful” in Buddha’s teachings. Did he ever say anything about being a homosexual beings is evil? Or it’s just your deduction from a translated script?
It’s ridiculous for someone to think that “No unlawful sexual intercourse is the precept established by Buddha in person, more than 2,550 years ago”. Perhaps you have to read the Pali text, or at least learn the Pali language before posting any ridiculous comment, mate, as we have a sayings in our language “a frog sitting under the well thinking he is the best”
As for the gay marriage, this is the gift I want to give for everyone, esp. the one who-doesn’t-know-anything-about Buddhism-but always-loudly-says-he knows-it-all:
From Ajahn Brahm night talk:
And from Bhante Sujato:
The Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils and the 1952 text book Arya is quoting seems to contradict his assertion that homosexual acts are Evil. If I am to take him seriously, getting a massage is Evil, rubbing a sore foot could also be Evil. Having a nice hot bath could also get me into trouble. Certainly this is not the Buddhism that the Australian Federation of Buddhist Councils considers Buddhism. But like I said, some people can eat meat and some not eat meat. Some have different ceromonies at funerals and important life events. Each to their own I guess.
“Kamesu-micchacara – Wrong or evil conduct with regard to sensual things; unlawful sexual intercourse.” – Buddhist Dictionary – Venerable Nyanatiloka Thera, Buddhist Publication Society, Sri Lanka, 1952. – In the Buddha teachings, what the Buddha calls Right, is lawful, what the Buddha calls “wrong”, is unlawful.
Ash, you cannot speak for all those religions. A new King is coming and soon the world will be free.
It seems our “Holy Grail”, the Queer Press, has been infiltrated by the Religious Right.
“Kaamesu micchaacaara” means “wrong conduct in sense pleasures”, not “unlawful sexual intercourse”. The phrase has nothing to do with law; it means conduct that creates suffering.
Clearly The Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils has a different view to Arya on “Gays”, so I will not lose sleep. There are many ways people practice this religion, even some eating meat, some not. The word Gay was not around when Buddha lived. People place their own interpretation on Buddha, and practice the religion in many ways. When I went to my husband鈥檚 Grandmothers funeral in Hong Kong, there were many schools of Buddhism performing very different ceremonies at the funeral parlour. Which one is right depends on your interpretation.
No unlawful sexual intercourse is the precept established by Buddha in person, more than 2,550 years ago. Gays shall not change this.
@Arya Shakya I am gay and buddhist and Buddha talked about love as being a positive thing to be celebrated. Also, homosexuality is not unlawful. Promiscuity yes, but monogamous homosexual relationships are perfectly acceptable
This is Buddhism, as established by the Buddha in person: “No unlawful sexual intercourse.”
Apparently the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy never loses it appeal.
Ash do you also say the world is flat? Perhaps you can do my local Uniting Church homophobic programs.
Hindus and Sikhs will both be opposed to homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general because its against their religion, just like it is for Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Those Hindus or Sikhs saying otherwise are not true Hindus or Sikhs, as they are directly opposing the teachings of the very religion they state that they represent.
Another Hearing that will be ignored.
I better let Tony Abbott know next time he sips a latte with a Murdoch Mafia goon in Lygon St Melbourne.