http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Homophobic-law-has-NO-BASIS-in-Buddhism-30257329.html

Paisarn Likhitpreechakul
Special to the Nation April 3, 2015 1:00 am

Draft legislation to criminalise 'sexual deviant behaviours' in the Sangha is discriminatory and violates the Buddha's teaching

The draft law to promote and protect Buddhism now being considered by the National Legislative Assembly proposes to criminalise monks who intentionally or negligently ordain those "with sexually deviant behaviours" (Article 40), as well as monks or novice monks "with sexually deviant behaviours who by any actions disgrace Buddhism" (Article 41).

Although "sexually deviant behaviours" is legally ill-defined, it is a familiar term to Thai lay people and commonly refers to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders. The fact that Article 41 fails to specify the "disgraceful" actions makes it clear that its target is not the actions, but the monks or novices who are or are perceived to be gay, bisexual or transgender. Because hetero-normative monks who commit these "disgraceful" actions would not be punished under this provision, the article must be dropped on grounds that it is discriminatory....

...the discriminatory articles 40 and 41 of the draft bill targeting gays, bisexual men and transgenders cannot claim any basis in Buddhism. If any monk shall be punished at all, the offence must be precisely prescribed by the Vinaya - such as is the case with the celibacy rule - and the punishment must also be carried out strictly according to the Vinaya - regardless of the monk's sexual orientation or gender identity.

PAISARN LIKHITPREECHAKUL is a Buddhist scholar with an MA in International Law and Human Rights from the UN-mandated University for Peace, Costa Rica. He has written for the Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, and is a board member of the Foundation for SOGI Rights and Justice.

Having a state religion running alongside your constitution can be used along with nationalism to, in effect, discriminate against other belief systems or the lack of it to bolster an entirely secular government - you pays yer money....'. Nevertheless laws regarding sexual behaviour need only to be concerned in my view with the use of force and the question of age.

IMO celbacy is not the concern of government only of a particular ecclesiastical denomination or order and so unless offences against its dictates are concerned with force or under-age sexual activity they are the concern of that denomination or order.