This particular devotee in a homosexual body tries to minimize his need for sex. Even though he cannot maintain perfect celibacy or regular japa, the real question is how does his love for Krishna grow? On Friday he had his weekly sex release. On Saturday he sent money to the LA temple, remembering that really his whole paycheck comes from Rukmini-Dwarkadisha. Later he read the introduction to Baladeva’s Govinda-bhashya. He was particularly moved by it and did a full dandavat, inspired by a vision of Govindaji.

Does he really see Govindaji within his and everyone’s heart now? Is that just an illusion because he is unable to completely curb his material desires?

If I recall correctly, Prabhupada compared the start of devotional service to unplugging a running fan. The blades will continue to move for a while.

If I may say so, I would like to hear more about how devotees have dealt practically with their homosexuality and spiritual growth than the rules and regulations prescribed by the scriptures and saints. I don’t mean to minimize the impaortance of regulations, but I feel that the intentions can get lost in them.

That’s a little ditty I wrote as part of my Master’s thesis. It applies well to this topic.

The question shouldn’t be: is homosexuality a sin, but rather – is focusing on the bodily concept something that will destroy our sadhana? There may be many straight people who will take their next birth as a dog or hog, and many gay people who will advance to the next level of spiritual existence.

The whole idea of living a Krishna conscious life is to get away from those things that have trapped us from time immemorial. The sin isn’t in whose body we want to share our lives with, but rather in doing that, what will it do to our determination to advance to the point where we can leave the material world?

In his purport to BG 7.11, Srila Prabhupada speaks of dharma in terms of smarta or ordinary religious principles but there are higher Vaishnava principles as well. Another point: Krsna says in the Gita that among fishes, He is the shark, but that doesn’t mean all other fishes are therefore bad or unwanted. BG 7.11 implies that there are many, many different types of kama or desire but out of all of them, kama according to religious principles (either smarta or sanatana) is the highest and therefore most represents Him.

Like other intersex conditions, there are many different biological factors causing homosexuality but all of them ultimately involve hormonal effects on the primal brain in utero. There is no evidence I am aware of demonstrating that homosexual people are more likely to have homosexual offspring, so I wouldn’t use that as an argument against marrying gays to straight people! Homosexual offspring are overwhelmingly produced by heterosexual parents and the more offspring they produce, the more likely they are to have a homosexual child. One study I’ve seen apparently demonstrates that the more sons a woman has, the more likely her succeeding sons are to be gay.

Can a homosexual love be righteous? I do not see a reason why not. How often does it happen? Probably not very often, but it is an ideal homosexual people need to strive for, as it is a positive motivation, much better than simple repression. Remember? Even a man of distinction is forced to act according to his nature.

Since in biological sense allowing these individuals to breed is undesirable, they should be allowed to mate with their own kind. As you have said: “Let heterosexuals perpetuate the human race, and let every member of society be functional and happy, no matter what their sexual orientation, creed, sex, race, etc.”

In the purely biological sense it is better when homosexual individuals form unions between themselves and not with heterosexual partners, because in that way their genes are not propagated in the population. It is yet another natural self regulating mechanism of this material world.

This is quite bizarre. First, what’s wrong if those “genes” are spread? Are you saying that homosexuals come from homosexual parents? Or that they are some kind of genetic mutation that happens even in the best families, just like a baby may be born dwarf (incidentally, dwarfs may have full-sized children)?
Homosexuals should find partners among themselves just because it’s who they belong with, for sensitivity, sensibility, culture and sexual orientation.
However, in one sense, although from very different view points, maybe we are saying the same thing if you mean that they should make couples among themselves, because if they keep in the famous closet, that will bring about dysfunctional individuals, parents, children, and ultimately society. Let heterosexuals perpetuate the human race, and let every member of society be functional and happy, no matter what their sexual orientation, creed, sex, race, etc.

I don’t know if English is your first language, but… a son by one’s wife? How about a daughter by one’s husband? Or in other words, your wording expresses a certain rigid view, and we know that flexibility is a golden virtue among Vaishnavas, if they are to understand the Absolute and preach about it, especially in a society where women are not given in charity to men anymore, marriages are a mutual decision, and so is having children, no matter what their gender. Not only that, it’s a society where homosexuals (who have always existed and have never chosen to be such) are being accepted in more and more respect, and they would feel alienated if, when it comes to their spirituality, they came across such exposition of our siddhanta.
I don’t think anybody here is saying that Krsna is supporting homosexuality, but for sure he supports a soul being brought closer to him, no matter what subtle and gross body recover it, and for sure he supports those devotees who do their best to bridge the gap between himself and such souls. By their best I don’t mean tweaking the scripture, but rather using their intelligence to find any possible way to shorten that bridge. As SP says, buddhi-yoga means bhakti-yoga.
Even if the paragraph I am referring to was Sridhara Swami’s actual words (it’s not clear, there were no quotation marks), you still expressed that rigidity when you said: “This verse should never been seen to support homesexuality.”