Buddhist attitudes toward homosexual acts are context-dependent, shaped by concerns about monastic discipline, lay morality, and social harmony rather than by a fixed theological doctrine condemning homosexuality as such.
In the monastic code (Vinaya), any sexual activity—heterosexual or homosexual—is viewed as a breach of celibacy. A monk who penetrates any orifice of any being with his penis is subject to expulsion, the gravest of penalties. Lesser sexual or sensual acts, whether with a woman, a man, or a paṇḍaka (a sexually non-normative category), incur lesser penalties of expiation or wrongdoing .
Rules also exist to prevent intimate or suggestive behavior that might lead to sexual misconduct. For example, it is a minor offence for monks or nuns to share a couch or slap another’s genitals, even if in jest or affection. A monk showing excessive attachment to another monk—such as calling him “dear and pleasing”—is also discouraged, not necessarily due to homoeroticism but because it undermines communal harmony and spiritual impartiality .
Notably, homosexuality is not singled out for special condemnation. As Zwilling observes, homosexual behavior is treated comparably to heterosexual behavior in terms of moral censure within the Saṅgha. The Vinaya does not suggest that homosexual activity is worse than heterosexual acts—only that any sexual expression violates the monastic ideal of renunciation .
When it comes to lay people, however, this even-handedness begins to break down. Buddhaghosa, a key Theravāda commentator, includes “desire and attachment in men for men, and women for women” as examples of wrong practice (micchā-dhamma) and links them to societal moral decline . In the Mahāyāna tradition, the Śikṣā-samuccaya contains vivid images of punishment in future lives for male-male intercourse—though these may reflect mythic elaboration more than doctrinal consensus. Roger Corless notes that these same texts also warn of rebirth as a book for those who wipe their nose on sacred texts—highlighting their symbolic rather than doctrinal tone .
Indian Buddhist texts are largely silent on lesbian acts, though the Vinaya does mention some female-female behavior among nuns. This silence has led some scholars to conclude that Indian Buddhist commentators did not have a strong agenda against homosexuality and often focused on heterosexual acts simply because they were more commonly addressed in society .
In Tibetan Buddhism, sGam-po-pa’s Jewel Ornament of Liberation explicitly includes homosexual acts as sexual misconduct, listing intercourse with a male or with a paṇḍaka’s mouth or anus alongside other forbidden sexual acts .
In Japan, where clerical celibacy was historically relaxed, monastic homosexual relationships were at times tolerated or even idealized, especially in Zen monasteries. However, figures such as the Zen master Ikkyū later condemned such relationships as disruptive. Even so, Japanese Buddhism influenced modern Western Buddhist communities that have become more inclusive—notably the FWBO (Friends of the Western Buddhist Order), which accepts homosexuality as morally neutral, provided the third precept—avoiding sexual misconduct—is upheld .
In summary, Buddhist responses to homosexual acts have varied across time and cultures. Monastic sexual activity—regardless of gender—is uniformly discouraged, but in the lay context, attitudes range from cautious disapproval to inclusion and neutrality, depending on tradition and interpretation. Modern Buddhist movements increasingly emphasize compassion, non-harm, and ethical integrity, rather than fixation on sexual orientation.