Religion Issues, Essay Example

Gender relationships are something touched upon in multiple religions. One in particular, Islam, believes that sexuality is expressly for the purpose of procreation; to carry on the human species to bigger and better things. To those who practice Islam, and follow the ways of Allah, there is no reason that justifies the ‘unnatural’ sin of homosexuality.

My personal views hold that, although sexual relationships are a key factor in the reproduction of the human race, too each their own. That is to say that population concerns are not really the key factor being taken into consideration at the present; the gene pool has exponentially expanded past the point where it is a major concern. As such, people have the basic right to be happy and pursue the course of action, or relationships, necessary to achieving that end. Ultimately, that is to say that, if someone wants to engage in homosexual relations, why not let them? Why persecute someone for their choices and decisions as long as no one is being harmed?

Naturally, then, the next question to be asked would be what is it that gives myself, or anyone, the right to critique another culture? Well, there is no thing or reason that justifies criticisms from one type of people to another based on their beliefs. Going back to the same thought process that leads one to believe that people can make their own decisions regarding homosexual relations, so too can they make the same decisions regarding what religion they wish to hold to and what a person wishes to believe.

So really then, the truly ultimate thing is that people can believe what they want, follow whatever path suits them in life, but not force their opinions on one another. There is no one true way and everyone would be much happier in the event that people would stop judging other and expecting them to take their way of life. My own thoughts are grounded neither in religious tradition or interpretation of scripture but merely in my personal perspective on right and wrong.

Roger Corless claims the Buddha Nature is queer and it is believed that he makes good arguments for his case. The question, then, is whether or not this means that heterosexuals are in some way inferior? Also, can the nature of the followers of Buddha be straight as well as queer?

In short, heterosexuals are in no way inferior but rather the term ‘queer’ in this instance is being given a broader definition than one typically used with the term. For Roger Corless, ‘queer’ is a sexual encounter, outside of the realm of reproduction, that is an altered form of anything other than a male and female engaged in the missionary position.

That is to say, that the majority of the world, then is ‘queer.’ Additionally, the nature of the Buddha is merely ‘queer’ in that it moves outside of an originally accepted perception but that does not make it of a superior quality than anyone else; rather the religion is inherently accepting of alternatives, at least to a point.

With that in mind, of course Buddha Nature can be straight as well as ‘queer’ simply because there is no one true way. Through the teachings of the ‘queer’ perspective, however, one is better able to observe the interdependence between a subject and an object, ying and yang, male and female; there is still no proof that straight means inferior.

Several of the readings on Buddhism mention the founding of the bhikkhuni order. The question, then, is whether or not the authors work to reconcile the founding with gender equality and whether or not they propose reasons the Buddha may have had for requiring the ‘Eight Vows of Respect’?

Upon further study, it is definitely safe to say that the founding of the order is not harmonizing gender equality but rather taking a step towards such an endeavor. Not to sound like a feminist but while an order for women into a monastic fold was unquestionably revolutionary for all religions at the time, the Eight Vows of Respect act as bonds that keep women to virtually the same level as before. Therefore, nothing has really changed other than the fact that females had, at the time, been given their own place of worship; at the discretion of their male counterparts.

Additionally, reasons are not specifically stated for the vows but ultimately it seems safe to infer that the vows were mandatory to keep the un- bearded sex in a position of submission; ensuring that they continued to act within the bound of ‘propriety.’

Just as there have been sever reading throughout the course on “Women and Buddhism,” so have there been echoes of similar features within the Islam and Abrahamic units as well. Still, as with any examination of two similar objects, there are going to be contrasts and comparisons to be drawn.

Obviously, Polygamy- The Ultimate Feminist Lifestyle  by Elizabeth Joseph, Magsood’s Turning Sex into Sadaqa, and Polygamies Benefits to Women by Samuel Chapman all draw parallels to gender equality within religion that can be noticed with certain aspects of Buddhism. Where the Buddhists have the Order of Bhikkhuni, however, Islam bends more towards polygamy and how woman are getting a good deal out of it.

The reading differ in that females are not gaining their own ‘portion’ of the religion to call their own, that is to say their own order, but rather they are gaining a lifestyle that helps to elevate them. The Islamic readings compare to the readings of the Buddhists in that they are making allowances to the fairer sex and work to make the female sex’s position appear better off, while still maintaining a superior position in leadership and life roles.