user120: I am specifically interested in the attitude of Theravadan Buddhism toward homosexuality (if it has one at all.) I don't recall ever seeing any references to homosexuality in the suttas...I do recall seeing some non-normative sexual activity discussed in the Vinaya (or its commentary) but am not as familiar with the Vinaya. If anyone can speak to the Vinaya on this topic that would be helpful.
It seems right to assume that homosexual activity would not be treated any differently than heterosexual activity, but the fact that I do not recall seeing it ever discussed, along with general cultural attitudes expressed (e.g., statements by the Buddha (as I recall) that there is nothing more attractive to a man than a woman and vice versa) makes me wonder if I am missing something. 
Also, if anyone has any contextual information about the culture in India at that time that would point to why there would be no discussion of homosexuality--e.g., it was absent--that would be helpful.

user10732: "miccha dhamma" is never about homosexuality, 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 homosexuality 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 homophobic buddhists like any homophobic 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 homosexuality involving any of this, then Buddha would say more in other suttas, not just appearing in the mouth of some medieval homophobic commentators and their homophobic 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 homosexuality 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 homosexuality or heterosexuality affect the qualification of bhikkhu. (definition of homosexuality/heterosexuality: the sexual desire for the same gender or opposite gender.) 
你應該懂中文？我直接用中文。

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？

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。

《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。

user-1: 
What is the attitude toward homosexuality 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.

user8157: 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 homosexuality. Therefore, it can be assumed Buddhist principles hold that homosexual activity outside of committed (homosexual) relationships is unwholesome. 
For example, Buddhist principles would support homosexual rights & homosexual 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 homosexuality, this does not mean Buddhism supports all actions homosexuals perform. If homosexuals transgress the five moral precepts, Buddhism does not support or endorse those transgressions. 

user121: I think that the reason you only find references to homosexual 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/homosexu.htm

As homosexuality 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.


120: <p>I am specifically interested in the attitude of Theravadan Buddhism toward homosexuality (if it has one at all.) I don't recall ever seeing any references to homosexuality in the suttas...I do recall seeing some non-normative sexual activity discussed in the Vinaya (or its commentary) but am not as familiar with the Vinaya. If anyone can speak to the Vinaya on this topic that would be helpful.</p>

<p>It seems right to assume that homosexual activity would not be treated any differently than heterosexual activity, but the fact that I do not recall seeing it ever discussed, along with general cultural attitudes expressed (e.g., statements by the Buddha (as I recall) that there is nothing more attractive to a man than a woman and vice versa) makes me wonder if I am missing something. </p>

<p>Also, if anyone has any contextual information about the culture in India at that time that would point to why there would be no discussion of homosexuality--e.g., it was absent--that would be helpful.</p>
 10732: <p>"miccha dhamma" is never about homosexuality, as the comment of the Cakkavattisuttaṃ (DN 26) is wrong.</p>

<p>The word "miccha dhamma" and other two words are also appear in the Palokasuttaṃ (AN.3.56), and no comment about homosexuality here (as far as I know).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 &amp; miccha dhamma. So, it does not mean some specific action, and the three words are just some ancient pali collocations. </p>

<p>That wrong comment just came from some medieval homophobic buddhists like any homophobic 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.</p>

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

<p>And I must say if homosexuality involving any of this, then Buddha would say more in other suttas, not just appearing in the mouth of some medieval homophobic commentators and their homophobic followers.</p>

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

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

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

<p>[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)。]</p>

<p>The following articles introduce the five types of pandaka and its meaning :</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/28" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Semen, Viagra and Pandaka: Ancient Endocrinology and Modern Day Discrimination</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.academia.edu/2210944/The_Two_Meanings_of_the_Pali_Term_pandaka_written_in_2012_revised_November_2016_" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Two Meanings of the Pali Term "pandaka"</a></li>
</ul>

<p>The vinaya does not say anything about homosexuality or heterosexuality affect the qualification of bhikkhu. (definition of homosexuality/heterosexuality: the sexual desire for the same gender or opposite gender.) </p>

<p>你應該懂中文？我直接用中文。</p>

<ol>
<li>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。 </li>
</ol>

<p><a href="https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BB%83%E9%96%80_(%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BB%83%E9%96%80_(%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99)</a></p>

<p>《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。</p>

<p>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？</p>

<ol start="2">
<li>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。</li>
</ol>

<p><a href="http://www.buddhaspace.org/dict/nvd/data/%25E6%25AF%2594%25E4%25B8%2598%25E5%258F%2597%25E6%2588%2592%25E6%25B3%2595.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.buddhaspace.org/dict/nvd/data/%25E6%25AF%2594%25E4%25B8%2598%25E5%258F%2597%25E6%2588%2592%25E6%25B3%2595.html</a></p>

<p>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。</p>

<p>把丈夫翻成(husband-man) 來解釋，是只看中文的望文生義。</p>

<ol start="3">
<li>《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。</li>
</ol>

<p>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</p>

<p>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。</p>

<p>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。</p>

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

<p>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。」</p>

<p>「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。</p>
 -1: <blockquote>
<p>What is the attitude toward homosexuality in Buddhism?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <em>desire and craving</em> and the same methods (meditation, mindfulness, guarding the sense doors, right view) for working with these defilements apply.</p>
 8157: <p>In respect to the <em>cultural context</em> of the Pali suttas, I have only read references to: (i) parents arranging the marriage of their (pubescent) children (DN 31) &amp;; (ii) sex in marriage between husbands &amp; wives (AN 4.53; AN 4.55; DN 31); as wholesome or Buddhist sexual conduct. </p>

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

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

<p>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. </p>

<p>DN 31 explicitly states 'sexual liberalism' is a road to ruin. </p>

<p>With these cultural contexts in mind, the suttas are silent on homosexuality. Therefore, it can be assumed Buddhist principles hold that homosexual activity outside of committed (homosexual) relationships is unwholesome. </p>

<p>For example, Buddhist principles would support homosexual rights &amp; homosexual marriage but would not support Gay Pride parades &amp; Mardi Gras where gay people perform public sexual acts and promote a liberal/hedonistic gay culture. </p>

<p>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 &amp; family values and promoted sexual promiscuity for women. </p>

<p>Many good &amp; proper causes get easily hijacked &amp; perverted. </p>

<p>Thus, when it is said Buddhism is not against homosexuality, this does not mean Buddhism supports all actions homosexuals perform. If homosexuals transgress the five moral precepts, Buddhism does not support or endorse those transgressions. </p>
 121: <p>I think that the reason you only find references to homosexual 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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>As for Homosexuality and the Theravada tradition, buddhanet.net strikes again:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm">http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>As homosexuality 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.</p>
</blockquote>
