Okay, okay. Lots of confusion here. I'll try my best to explain the situation.
Actually, 'sexual misconduct is mentioned many times in the Sutta Tripitaka. For example, in the Cakkavattisihanada Sutta King Dalhanemi gives a list of some of the precepts. He says, 'Do not take another life. Do not take what is not given. Do not commit sexual misconduct. Do not mishandle the truth (sometimes, 'Do not tell lies'). Do not drink strong drink. Be moderate in eating.' He even goes on to say why: 'sexual misconduct increased, and in consequence people's life-span decreased, their beauty decreased, and as a result, the children of those whose life-span had been ten thousand years lived for only five thousand.' Admittedly, these consequences are related to Arhats and Arhants, but nevertheless, you can see that misconduct is mentioned in the Tripitaka.
Another example: The Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta explains, under the heading 'Unskillful Bodily Action' that 'He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers'. Here you can where the distinction is to be made. 'Sensual misconduct' is not just sex, but all other destruction of the senses that fall outside the remaining precepts. You can see this in the fact that 12 of the additional 227 rules of the Pattimoka are related to sexual conduct. But they effectively refer to sexual actions, as most other sensual deprivations are referred to elsewhere, either in the rules of the additional precepts, or under the rule against the use of intoxicates.
Let me try to explain, 'sexual misconduct' isn't misconduct because it is sex, but rather because of the craving which is causes, for oneself and others. The Mahayana School of Buddhism allows the term 'sexual misconduct' to be interpreted by the individual lay follower (not monks however, who are to be celibate). However, the Theravada school teaches a harder line. All forms of sexual action should be avoided. This is because, sexual actions causes pleasure, which in turn causes craving or thirst (Tanha) of that pleasure, which in turn causes suffering (Dukkha) when either a) the pleasure isn't attained, or b) when that pleasure ends after it is attained. This Dukkha distracts from the path, as the Buddhists is too concerned with attaining pleasure that nibbana. In this way, homosexuality is not something I've, characterized as 'sexual misconduct', AngolaZee, but rather is seen to be sexual misconduct, along with a whole roster of other things.
The Third Noble Truth relates to this in its' entirety. This rule is Samudaya, and says that the origin (or at least one of the origins) of Dukkha is Kama-Tanha, (craving for sensual pleasures) .
With regard to a homo/hetero distinction, what Patrick45 says is correct, and is what I said in my previous post. To quote him:
Although, as I have illustrated, all forms of sexual contact are discouraged, specifically within the Theravadhan tradition..
The issue of predjuice of an individual is correct. A good example of this is Tsongkhapa, who's personal prejudices encourages the Tibetan strand of Buddhism to denounce homosexuality explicitly.
The idea that sex 'has the potential to be both enlightening and even heal suffering', is in my experience, with regard to scripture, completely unfounded. Specifically, the idea that sex an be enlightening. With the greatest respect, sincerely, if you were to say that, you'd be laughed out of the Sanghra.
What you are saying doesn't make sense. If what you define as Dukkha is "the feeling when you achieve something you always wanted, which quickly disappear because you already want something else, not necessarily because you're ravenous, but more to because as soon as you are satisfied, you desire something else to cover a new dissatisfaction." then this can easily apply to sex, and there's no reason it shouldn't.
What you should be referring to is Anatta. The principle that suffering is brought about, in part, by change derived from the realization that there is no-self, in Buddhist thought. This tied with another shkandha, Vedana, explicitly outlines that sexual conduct brings about Dukkha. Your definition is too simplistic in the way it transcends Anatta.
Of course, one of the great things about religion is that it can be interpreted however you like.
There is a distinction that can be made between lay and monastic Buddhism, but that is dependent on the school you are interpreting this from. Mahayana, a more liberal modern school, or Therevada, a more traditional school, more interested in what the Buddha and scriptures say that their application to modern life (to name two)
Actually, 'sexual misconduct is mentioned many times in the Sutta Tripitaka. For example, in the Cakkavattisihanada Sutta King Dalhanemi gives a list of some of the precepts. He says, 'Do not take another life. Do not take what is not given. Do not commit sexual misconduct. Do not mishandle the truth (sometimes, 'Do not tell lies'). Do not drink strong drink. Be moderate in eating.' He even goes on to say why: 'sexual misconduct increased, and in consequence people's life-span decreased, their beauty decreased, and as a result, the children of those whose life-span had been ten thousand years lived for only five thousand.' Admittedly, these consequences are related to Arhats and Arhants, but nevertheless, you can see that misconduct is mentioned in the Tripitaka.
Another example: The Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta explains, under the heading 'Unskillful Bodily Action' that 'He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers'. Here you can where the distinction is to be made. 'Sensual misconduct' is not just sex, but all other destruction of the senses that fall outside the remaining precepts. You can see this in the fact that 12 of the additional 227 rules of the Pattimoka are related to sexual conduct. But they effectively refer to sexual actions, as most other sensual deprivations are referred to elsewhere, either in the rules of the additional precepts, or under the rule against the use of intoxicates.
Let me try to explain, 'sexual misconduct' isn't misconduct because it is sex, but rather because of the craving which is causes, for oneself and others. The Mahayana School of Buddhism allows the term 'sexual misconduct' to be interpreted by the individual lay follower (not monks however, who are to be celibate). However, the Theravada school teaches a harder line. All forms of sexual action should be avoided. This is because, sexual actions causes pleasure, which in turn causes craving or thirst (Tanha) of that pleasure, which in turn causes suffering (Dukkha) when either a) the pleasure isn't attained, or b) when that pleasure ends after it is attained. This Dukkha distracts from the path, as the Buddhists is too concerned with attaining pleasure that nibbana. In this way, homosexuality is not something I've, characterized as 'sexual misconduct', AngolaZee, but rather is seen to be sexual misconduct, along with a whole roster of other things.
The Third Noble Truth relates to this in its' entirety. This rule is Samudaya, and says that the origin (or at least one of the origins) of Dukkha is Kama-Tanha, (craving for sensual pleasures) .
With regard to a homo/hetero distinction, what Patrick45 says is correct, and is what I said in my previous post. To quote him:
Although, as I have illustrated, all forms of sexual contact are discouraged, specifically within the Theravadhan tradition..
The issue of predjuice of an individual is correct. A good example of this is Tsongkhapa, who's personal prejudices encourages the Tibetan strand of Buddhism to denounce homosexuality explicitly.
The idea that sex 'has the potential to be both enlightening and even heal suffering', is in my experience, with regard to scripture, completely unfounded. Specifically, the idea that sex an be enlightening. With the greatest respect, sincerely, if you were to say that, you'd be laughed out of the Sanghra.
What you are saying doesn't make sense. If what you define as Dukkha is "the feeling when you achieve something you always wanted, which quickly disappear because you already want something else, not necessarily because you're ravenous, but more to because as soon as you are satisfied, you desire something else to cover a new dissatisfaction." then this can easily apply to sex, and there's no reason it shouldn't.
What you should be referring to is Anatta. The principle that suffering is brought about, in part, by change derived from the realization that there is no-self, in Buddhist thought. This tied with another shkandha, Vedana, explicitly outlines that sexual conduct brings about Dukkha. Your definition is too simplistic in the way it transcends Anatta.
Of course, one of the great things about religion is that it can be interpreted however you like.
There is a distinction that can be made between lay and monastic Buddhism, but that is dependent on the school you are interpreting this from. Mahayana, a more liberal modern school, or Therevada, a more traditional school, more interested in what the Buddha and scriptures say that their application to modern life (to name two)
