藏傳佛教對同性戀的看法是什麼？
如題，因為個人覺得藏族文化比較特殊，不知道他們如何看待這個問題？另外，藏人中有同性戀嗎？
首先我相信科學主義前提下同性戀人群比例相對固定的觀點，關於同性戀人群佔比的問題可以去百科一下，但基本都認為同性戀會佔到人口總數的百分之三以上。當然我們會說，我們身邊就沒有那麼多同性戀啊，這裡就要涉及到不同文化下同性戀人群的自我認知和顯現和隱現的問題了。基於上述邏輯，西藏肯定有同性戀啦（我有西藏的朋友就是gay和拉拉，當然不能告訴你們哈哈），而且拉薩也有很隱蔽的gay吧存在！同時，雖然同性戀不等同同性性行為，但發生過同性性行為的個體當中一定有同性戀，這一點毋庸置疑。
題主既然問的問題是藏傳佛教對於同性戀的看法，我也就這三年來無意中接觸到的一些藏傳佛教或者西藏文化對於同性戀的文字分享給大家，自己就不多做評論。
1《lonely planet tibet》
2《喇嘛王國的覆滅》戈爾斯坦
@東智 同學已經提到過此書了，這算是藏學經典讀物了，戈爾斯坦老師拿了很多史實去分析49年以前的西藏近代化的政治博弈，熱振活佛和熱振事件也算是近代西藏影響甚重的政治事件了。裡面也有一句提到熱振活佛的私生活，說他和眾多男性女性發生過性關係，只不過僅僅寥寥一句。
3《西藏是我家》扎西次仁
4 49年以後的民族志材料和自己的一些聽聞
49以後的政治形態是以階級劃分為前提的，在撰寫民族志的時候也習慣於將民族內部劃分出不同階級出來。寺院和喇嘛在當時的階級劃分上屬於統治階級，扣一些階級糜爛腐化的帽子也是再所難免，比如那時的材料我們經常可以看到寺廟裡性病等疾病的描述，我相信這是一種營造階級對立的誇張，但客觀而言也有真實存在，其中同性性行為也感染性病也會佔據一定比例。
關於現在藏區艾滋病、同性戀的話題，大家可以關注微博：藏語防艾者。他是一位用藏語來跑遍全藏區宣傳預防艾滋病的藏族公益人士。本人無緣一見，不同通過成都同樂的朋友問過他關於寺院同性戀的問題，他說據他所知肯定是有，但調查起來確實困難重重。
5 dalailama和智者之見
現代佛教甚至藏傳佛教對於同性戀議題，個人而言其實相當包容了，達賴曾經表態支持同性婚姻，而真正讓我覺得值得尊敬的一段話，來自《南方人物周刊》對於索達吉堪布的專訪：
人物周刊：你關注過同性戀群體嗎？
索達吉堪布：沒有特別關注過，但我也知道，社會中有這樣的群體。佛陀早已說過，因為眾生的業力不同，有些人對異性起貪心，有些人對非異性生貪心。都是執著。
佛法不需要與時俱進 ——對話索達吉堪布 ~ 南方人物周刊 南方人物周刊
西藏和藏傳佛教對於同性戀的態度是很模糊的，藏傳佛教人士有說同性戀是不正確也是不恰當的，卻也說兩個相愛的人之間不應受到譴責。
從下面《西藏是我家》的描述中，可以看出由於戒律禁止出家人性交，不管與異性還是同性，於是與年輕僧侶異位性行為（利用大腿溝處）成了「可接受/可變通」的解決方法。雖然「同性戀」非等同於「發生同性性行為」，然而發生同性性行為的應該有很大概率是同性戀吧。
所以要問「藏傳佛教對同性戀的態度究竟是什麼？」，藏族文化沒有把此當作一個認真嚴肅的話題——是包容還是避諱？這取決於在什麼層次的群體里談，總體來說還是偏保守禁忌的。
藏人中肯定是有同性戀， @喜眯 已經把道理說的很明白了，拉薩都有gay酒吧，在同性戀群體常用的交友軟體Blued上，也有不少藏族出沒，甚至還建有專門的群組。
—————————————————————————————————————————
舊時西藏，在拉薩的布達拉宮裡，有一個專門在儀式上為達賴喇嘛服務的歌舞團，叫gadrugba。這個歌舞團的成員，都是十幾歲的男童。傳統的做法是，從衛藏的農村裡選拔八至十歲的孩子，送到布達拉宮，作為一種抵稅。經過訓練，學成後為達賴喇嘛歌舞，直到十八歲為止。
一般農家都痛恨這種「稅」，因為抽中了就等於失去了一個兒子。十歲的扎西次仁經過考核被選中，他卻感到莫名的興奮，因為他知道此一去就將離開那平靜如水的山村，進入外面的世界了。他告別流淚的母親，走了八天，終於來到拉薩，第一次看到了壯觀的布達拉宮。離開了母親的舞童扎西次仁的生活卻很不好，他必須寄住在別人家裡，而人家待他很惡劣。歌舞團的訓練非常嚴格，對於一個孩子來說，那些大人可以說是兇惡，他動輒挨打和羞辱。於是，他就一次次地逃跑。他曾經逃到幾公里外的哲蚌寺，這個著名的大寺廟有一萬個喇嘛，他為喇嘛們干點活，喇嘛們給他吃住。可惜不久就給發現，抓了回去。就在那些日子裡，他聽說了喜馬拉雅山南，有一個國家叫印度。那裡有一個地方叫嘎林堡，那裡有藏人的商人，還有學校。他想逃到那裡去，於是就往江孜和日喀則方向走。他給騾子商隊打工，給朝聖的人幫忙，結夥翻越山口。這一路逃亡，小小年紀吃了很多苦。終於在半路上給他的「叔叔」找到了。原來自從他出走，家裡就一直在找他。叔叔將他帶回家。他的父親再把他帶到拉薩，回到歌舞團。接下來，他在布達拉宮歌舞團的處境突然起了變化，他被一個有一定地位的僧官看中，成為他的同性伴侶。這是怎麼一回事，扎西次仁做了一個說明。在漫長歷史的大多時間裡，舊西藏是一個政教結合的社會。這個社會的官吏分兩種，一種是俗官，另一種是僧官。僧官既是喇嘛，又是官吏。這種僧官制度的邏輯是，藏人社會既然是佛教社會，那麼喇嘛擔任行政官吏，就可以更好地用佛教來管理社會。可是，由於行政事務繁複，這些僧官漸漸地就變成名義上的喇嘛，他們不得不成為全日工作的官吏，不再住在喇嘛廟裡，平日也不參與晨鐘暮鼓的佛教功課。他們的日常生活已經不是廟裡的喇嘛，而是政府的官員。但是，他們又具有喇嘛的身份，也就是說，他們是受了戒的，必須遵從佛教戒律，獨身禁慾，不近女色。如果他們破戒，就會失去他們的喇嘛身份，僧不再，官也當不成了。可是，這些住在城中自己家裡的僧官，沒有喇嘛廟的環境約束，自然本性中的性慾就成為一個問題，於是在僧官中發展出了一種變通的做法，使得這種性慾望有一個出路，同時又不算破戒。這就是找一個男性青少年，作為一個公開的伴侶，可以從這種關係中得到性快樂，但是不能有性行為。僧官在找性伴侶的時候，兩種男孩特別受重視，一是藏戲的演員，很多是男性的旦角，另外就是扎西次仁這樣布達拉宮的舞者。於是，有一天，扎西次仁的上司來問他，說一個叫旺度（Wangdu）的僧官看中了他，問他是不是願意。扎西次仁說，他是可以拒絕的。也就是說，這是一種自願的關係。他說，他不是同性戀者，他的性取向不是同性。但是，他理解這種關係在傳統藏人社會中是怎麼回事，知道和這樣一個有權有勢的僧官結成親密關係，很可能對他是一個並不常有的機會，不要輕易放棄。於是，他決定同意。他說，「這就開始了我一生中最好的幾年」。
這裡，扎西次仁又對這種習俗作了一點解釋。他說，他和僧官旺度拉（「拉」放在名字後面是藏人表示尊敬的稱呼）的這種關係，不是西方社會所謂的同性戀。一般藏人是對同性戀皺眉頭的。這種關係只是僧官們避免破戒的一種習慣方式，是一種公開的變通辦法。他對此是知道的，所以當他的上司來問他的時候，他並不吃驚。他認為，他的決定是對的。在以後的幾年裡，旺度拉幫了他很大的忙，他再也不挨打受辱，得到了較好的學習條件，而且確實和旺度拉發展出相當親密的關係。這種親密的感情，一直維持到旺度拉去世。同時，這並沒有改變他對女性的態度。事實上，他後來和別的女性交往，甚至還有過一次短暫的婚姻，旺度拉並不嫉妒。不過旺度拉對他和其他男性交往卻是要嫉妒的。就這樣，他十八歲了。按照規矩，就不能為布達拉宮跳舞了，必須另尋出路。時為1947年，外部世界正天翻地覆，藏人藏地卻懵懵懂懂，還是一副世外桃源的樣子。這時候，他已經有了一定的文化教育，尤其寫得一手好字。在藏人社會，那個時候的所謂文化教育，主要就是寫一手好字。但是個人前途出路卻並不容易。傳統藏人是一個等級嚴格的社會，社會制度結構上的流動非常有限，基本上所有人生下來就決定了一生。他出生在農家，卻有一顆不安分的心，要打破傳統規定的地位，就必須自己去想辦法。旺度拉這時幫了大忙。由於旺度拉的關係，他知道布達拉宮的財政部門有一個空缺。在旺度拉的引薦下，他考上了這個職位。在他還沒有完全離開歌舞團的時候，一個官位就已經在等待他。對他這樣的山村農家孩子，這確實是一個很好的開端。青年扎西次仁在布達拉宮的財政部上班，就這樣迎來了西藏和平解放，解放軍來了。時為1951年，扎西次仁22歲。
引自《西藏是我家》（The Struggle for Modern Tibet: The Autobiography of Tashi Tsering）
Homosexuality, Marriage, and Religion in Tibet: An Endlessly Complicated SituationBy Jeff Wilson JUL 20, 2009
節譯：
在舊西藏，比丘（出家男眾）之間的同性戀行為很普遍。「准博」（音譯Drombo）是藏文，指同性戀中被動的那一方，通常是僧侶的性伴。由於佛教制度禁止出家人性交（包括口交和肛交），不管與異性還是同性（或動物，否則破根本戒，必須永久離開僧團，此生不可再次出家），於是與年輕僧侶異位性行為（利用大腿溝處）成了「可接受的」解決方法。
一般來講，「准博」本身對其他男人並沒有吸引力。他們從僧侶那裡得到贊助和保護，在僧團中甚至很有地位和保障，每個僧侶都知道他們的後台是誰，而且見怪不怪。某些「准博」名聲很響，連高地位比丘也競相爭奪他們，甚至不惜綁架。
原文：
A post which Tricycle editor James Shaheen recently wrote at the Huffington Post blog has picked up a good bit of attention around the internet. James』s subject was the Dalai Lama』s views on gay marriage, which, as he rightly discussed, are quite a complicated matter. In part this stems from the utterly different cultural and religious assumptions about sexuality that monks raised in traditional Tibetan culture bring to the discussion, vs. the cultural and religious assumptions of Western gay rights advocates (or, for that matter, Western opponents of gay marriage).
These differences aren』t just around same-sex relations, but also include differing ideas about what marriage is, why one enters into it, what role (if any) religion plays in defining or sanctioning marriage, and so on. For example, polygamy was common and accepted in traditional Tibet, often taking the form of polyandry–marriage by a woman to two or more men, especially brothers within the same family. This form of marriage still persists today in Tibetan cultural areas less directly touched by official Chinese policies. One could argue that the Dalai Lama has as much right to demand that gay rights advocates get over their 「polyphobia」 and start explicitly agitating for American government legal recognition of polygamy as they have to demand he get rid of his 「homophobia.」 Meanwhile, Buddhism had very little to do with marriage in Tibet–there was no standard wedding ceremony officiated by monks, for instance, or indeed any ceremony at all in many cases. And those ceremonies that did exist were not white dresses and organ music. In one Tibetan ethnic group, for example, the wedding consisted of the groom』s friends suddenly abducting the bride against her will and without her foreknowledge, and physically holding her captive in his house during the ritual (if her parents objected to the match–often to a man the bride had never met–they could sue for her return). When we use the word 「marriage」 we must recognize that whole universes of unspoken and unshared meaning contextualize its use in different parts of the West and different parts of the Tibetan cultural area.
And the situation is further complicated by Western misunderstandings about the role and power of the Dalai Lama, who (despite persistent media representations to the contrary) is very much less than the 「pope」 of Buddhism, or even Tibetan Buddhism, or even, technically, his own sect of Tibetan Buddhism. Few Westerners even understand that the Dalai Lama is a relatively recent innovation in Tibetan Buddhism, and that his power and authority (and often even his identity) have always been contested. Wars have been repeatedly fought between the Dalai Lamas and competing monastic lineages, with armed monks as major combatants. Coercive armed force was always a significant factor in the Dalai Lama maintaining his status within Tibet. While the current Dalai Lama is a man of genuinely impressive charisma and wisdom, and rightly deserves the attention as a spiritual figure that he widely receives, it seems worthwhile to bear these historical facts in mind.But for now let』s just stick to the issue of homosexual relations and religion. These are certainly complicated enough in themselves, and Western lack of access to the sources makes it even harder. Most people assume that the rules come from the Vinaya, the code of monastic regulations allegedly laid down by the Buddha himself. However, there are many multiple sets of these Vinaya, with differences between them. Virtually all commentators in English refer to the Theravada Vinaya when discussing these rules, but they hold no authority in Tibet. Rather, the Tibetan sangha is based on the Vinaya of the Mulasarvastivada school, which almost no Westerner has ever encountered. Even this isn』t a particularly reliable source for sussing out the root of the Dalai Lama』s or other monk』s notions about proper sexual conduct, because actually most of these ideas come not from Vinaya directly but from later (sometimes much, much later) commentaries by authorative monks of the Indo-Tibetan tradition. Few of these texts are available in English. Furthermore, monks as a practical matter don』t typically follow the Vinaya itself, but focus instead on the codes of conduct of their particular monasteries, which not only diverge significantly from the Vinaya but are different from monastery to monastery. And to top it all off, much of your average Tibetan』s attitudes are derived from general cultural wisdom about such things, in the same manner that your average Westerner is influenced not merely by ancient religious texts but a whole stew of culturally-conditioned 「common sense」 notions, pop culture trends, regional orientations, and so on.But what can we say about monks and homosexuality? Gay monks were common in traditional Tibet (and every other Buddhist culture) and were an accepted part of society, without there being any legal form of 「gay marriage」 or indeed any modern concept of 「homosexual orientation.」 We can see this for instance in the public popularity of drombos. Drombo is a Tibetan term for a passive homosexual partner, often someone in a close relationship with a monk. Tibetan socio-religious attitudes considered penetration to be unacceptable violation of monastic celibacy rules, whether or not the persons involved were same or opposite gender. So the commonly-accepted workaround was for a monk to form a relationship with a drombo, who might be a younger monk or someone from the society at large (the dancers of the Dalai Lama』s personal troupe were considered especially desirable as drombo). Instead of oral or anal sex in the usual Western mode, drombo and their monastic patrons engaged in a modified form of the missionary position–the drombo lay on his back with his thighs crossed, and the monk ejaculated by moving his penis back and forth between them. No penetration, hence no violation of the rules. Far from being an underground practice, this was a socially accepted form of interaction between males, and had no relationship to sexual or personal identity as such. While the monks in the active roles were frequently gay in the sense that Westerners now understand the term, the drombo himself often had no sexual attraction to men. Rather, the drombo received patronage from the monk, something very important in the heirarchical society of traditional Tibet. A drombo became the ward of his patron and would often receive substantial benefit to his career and status through this association (i.e. a 「heterosexual」 male drombo serving as a passive homosexual partner received not stigma but overt social benefit). That drombos were steered through Tibetan social circles by their patrons demonstrates the entirely above-the-board nature of these same-sex relationships: everyone knew that the drombo was being supported by monk so-and-so precisely because he was a drombo, and this was seen as perfectly natural. In fact, sometimes a drombo would become so well-known as a lover that various high-placed monks would fight over him, even sending subordinate warrior monks (dobdobs) out to kidnap him in order to force the drombo to switch to a new patron.To understand this situation, let us try a thought experiment. Imagine, if you will, that a prominent religious figure–such as, say, Rev. Jerry Falwell–is also the Secretary of the Treasury. His religious commitments prevent him from having penetrative sex with another person, so he makes an offer to one of Britney Spears』s male back-up dancers, Marvin Smith. Smith and his brothers are already married to a woman and have a son (and no one knows or cares who the 「actual」 father is), but accepts Falwell』s offer and starts having modified sex with him in order to get introduced to important figures in the Washington political scene, which will benefit the whole family. The two of them are often seen together at public functions and word gets around that the dancer is a great lover, so Rev. Jim Banks–who is serving as the Secretary of State–orders some martial arts-trained deacons from his church to abduct Smith to become his sex-slave, an act that takes place in broad daylight on the streets in front of the White House, and which is soon the talk of the town, with no political or religious repercussions for anyone involved. Meanwhile, all of this takes place quite publicly in a society at the social and material level of approximately 14th century Europe.Does this scenario seem difficult to comprehend to you? If so, you may want to withhold from making knee-jerk judgements (pro or con) about the Dalai Lama』s views on gay marriage, as this is the type of situation he is coming from when he talks about the matter. In other words, his context for talking about religion, sex, homosexuality, morality, codes of conduct, identity, and gender relations is not the same as that of his Western interviewers, nor is there any reason to expect that it would be–and it is different in ways that few Westerners, including Buddhist practitioners, have even the slightest inkling of, and has absolutely no original connection to concepts of 「rights.」And just to prove that homosexuality, marriage, and religion in Tibet are endlessly complicated: the Sixth Dalai Lama, who is believed to have been reborn as the current Dalai Lama, was widely known to be flamboyantly bisexual. All of this points to a basic truth: trying to understand where someone else from another culture is coming from (both for gay rights advocates and the Dalai Lama himself) can be a truly daunting task, requiring much humility and willingness to continually reflect on how little one actually knows about the details of the other』s background circumstances. There』s really only one statement we can make with full accuracy about studying Buddhism and its traditional cultures, whether it be political protests by monks in Burma, same-sex relations in Tibet, or Japanese priests chanting sutras in a bar: things are always more complex than we realize them to be.
作為一個藏族人，我來簡單回答一下~我不知道我們藏族裡面有多少同性戀，但是，藏族人也是人，肯定是有同性戀的。從同性戀在世界人群的分布情況來看，藏族中是有同性戀的（不過在藏文史書中我沒有看到過），可能有很多藏族「同性戀者」並不知道自己是。至於藏傳佛教對同性戀的看法，「何法緣生則不生，諸法不生皆空性」，眾生皆因緣所生，皆是空性，對於愛情的貪戀都是執著，同性戀只是另一種形式的執著,同性戀與異性戀並沒有什麼分別，藏傳佛教不反對世界上的同性戀，佛教「五戒」中「不邪淫」是指對於性事不應有過度的慾望，陷於情慾是因為沒有把身體看成空無實相，同性戀與異性戀一樣，起源於無明，對於世事外相的執著。
…
表示為啥單說藏傳呢，整體佛教看起來三觀都是相同的。首先佛教從沒有原罪的概念，你的一切行為只是遵循因果，不會有人給你定罪。其次佛教遵守不說眾生過得原則，不對非佛教徒的生活方式叨叨逼，大概一般情況下佛教徒對於自己不理解事物的態度表示沉默但不忍直視。第三，佛教經典理論眾多，有的時候像個百寶箱，支持者與反對者基本都能從其中找到理論支持，所以佛教徒對同性戀的態度往往與佛教徒身份關係不大，恰恰與自身的生長環境受到的教育這些非宗教因素有關。總體上佛教在情感上認為愛情並不是永恆的，是有生有滅的，而且對修行無益，所以在愛情上對同性異性無差別對待。在戒律上主要規定禁止的邪淫是不合適性行為而不是邪惡的性行為，包括肛交口交擼管獸交甚至過於頻繁等等，事實上邪淫也是在家戒中的方便法，再稍稍拓展得八戒就已經反對一切性行為了。所以十分鄙視口口聲聲同性戀下地獄然後強行甩鍋給佛教的某些教徒，修行是要求解脫，而不是找尋優越感
宗薩仁波切有一段對同性戀的開示 「同性戀性行為只是另一種形式的執著，它不應該被視做比有些人喜歡吃披薩，有些人喜歡檸檬飯糟糕。不同的人有不同的喜好。 」
只要在一起自在歡喜 何必糾結於性別 另外樓上有位哥們兒說了 藏族人也是人 沒什麼特殊的 近幾年周圍也有朋友是同性戀 但在爸媽或者爺爺奶奶那個年代恐怕還是很少
我男朋友就是藏族 PS我也是男的
扎西狠狠的把煙掐滅掉，他說他厭倦了伴著網吧廁所的惡臭跟多吉偷偷的纏綿，厭倦了凡士林濃重刺鼻的氣味，兩個男人之間激烈的活塞運動再也喚不回內心深處的顫抖。扎西和多吉認為是時候站出來了，一起為愛和平等而戰！通過一種方式響亮的給這個冷漠世界一記耳光。
一天後，扎西和多吉父母收到派出所的電話，扎西和多吉因盜竊卓瑪老阿媽家的酥油，受到拘留15天的處罰……據我所知 佛教里沒有明確反對同性愛情的記載 但有反對特殊的性行為，如口交、肛交的戒律規定 不管是異性戀還是同性戀 受持不邪淫戒者 都不可以口交 肛交 當然你可以選擇不受戒
反正我西藏的室友（信佛教）很喜歡看同性戀片……
這個問題本質上還是要二分法來看。
首先，要明確這裡同性戀指的是
1「狀態「還是2」屬性「。
1狀態=慾望
出家人是不能沉溺在這種慾望里的，不管是同性還是異性。2屬性的話
就沒有什麼關係了。反正修行，砍掉的就是那層慾望，而不是扭轉屬性。我在學院旁聽的時候，堪布就說起學院同性談戀愛的事，他是反對的。不會真實點名，只是會提醒。但是畢竟學院里是有管家的。真的同性相戀，陷入某種狀態，就有礙於修行了。當然在佛學院異性相戀直接開除更慘！
我現在這樣不清真真是太好了
藏傳佛教怎麼看不了解
不過印象中佛學當年這些問題都考慮過
有本經書提到當時的僧團詳細考慮和探討了 和人和動物和同性以及肛交等各種方式方法是否符合戒律等等。。。。所學不多，想不起來書名了，求高手指教
佛學真是一門博大的學問
推薦閱讀：
※柴靜演講援藏女教師那隻記錄西藏30年的箱子，關於西藏的真相到底是什麼？
※第一次來西藏應該怎麼玩？老西藏整理的十日經典線路。
※目前西藏的經濟水平怎麼樣？
※岡仁波齊：宗教背後的神化和世俗化