According to the ancient Indian understanding, homosexuals were thought of simply as being 'the third nature' (tritiya prakti), rather than as perverted, deviant or sick. With its emphasis on psychology and cause and effect, Buddhism judges acts, including sexual acts, primarily by the intention (cetana) behind them and the effect they have.
We will now briefly examine the various objections to homosexuality and give Buddhist rebuttals to them. The most common Christian and Muslim objection to homosexuality is that it is unnatural and "goes against the order of nature". There seems to be little evidence for this. Miriam Rothschild, the eminent biologist who played a crucial role in the fight to decriminalize homosexuality in Britain, pointed out at the time that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost every known species of animal. Secondly, it could be argued that while the biological function of sex is reproduction, most sexual activity today is not for reproduction, but for recreation and emotional fulfillment, and that this too is a legitimate function of sex.
Theravada Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Burma had no legal statutes against homosexuality between consenting adults until the colonial era when they were introduced by the British. Thailand, which had no colonial experience, still has no such laws. This had led some Western homosexuals to believe that homosexuality is quite accepted in Buddhist countries of South and South-east Asia. This is certainly not true. In such countries, when homosexuals are thought of at all, it is more likely to be in a good-humored way or with a degree of pity. Certainly the loathing, fear and hatred that the Western homosexual has so often had to endure is absent and this is due, to a very large degree, Buddhism's humane and tolerant influence. This has not always been the case though as the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism has had a different view on homosexuality.
At a press conference in 1997 the Dalai Lama said; 'From a Buddhist point of view (lesbian and gay sex)...is generally considered sexual misconduct.' As soon as he realized what he had done he immediately back-peddled. He called a meeting with gay and lesbian representatives, during which he expressed the 'willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context'.
Exactly how does the law of kamma distinguish one orifice from another? Other problems arise when we realize that many male homosexuals practice intercural sex and mutual masturbation rather than penetrative sex. And exactly which sexual organ do lesbians use to penetrate the vagina of their partner? The Dalai Lama is also reported to have said that he had difficulty imagining the mechanics of homosexual sex, saying that nature had arranged male and female organs 'in such a manner that is very suitable...same-sex organs cannot manage well.'
With all due respect to the Dalai Lama, and I do have the highest respect for him, this statement shows both his ignorance and naivety concerning sex, and I might add, of some aspects of the Dhamma as well. What on earth have Buddhist ethical judgments got to do with two body-parts fitting together 'properly' or not? I often clean my ear with my finger despite it not fitting into my ear canal very well. Does this mean I make negative kamma every time I clean my ear?
James: And we must remember that monks have their own sexual code that has more restrictions than for the laity.
42 comments:
Shortly before this entry was posted, I also wrote about Buddhism and Homosexuality, though not in such a schoarly sense. Quite complimentary!
I updated my post with a link to this one.
Modern Girl:
I wish that I could claim credit for the post but most of it is quoted from an article. I agree though that it is a very insightful article.
I read this article the other day. The title caught me eye, as I am a big activist of GLBT rights. I'm happy to see you posted it here.
Honestly, even though the Dalai Lama himself doesn't approve of homosexuality privately, I get the impression that he doesn't allow his personal disapprovals to discriminate against the global homosexual community (or at lease I hope he doesn't). We are all able to reach enlightenment, regardless of sexuality.
Sexual conduct, as I understand it, is usually classified under right action in the Noble Eightfold Path. What people often need to remind themselves is that everyone has their own different classification what what is "acceptable" sexual conduct. I have to remind myself of this often.
My personal opinion is that a person's sexual conduct won't interfer with their path of enlightenment as long as their sexual conduct, as with any conduct, doesn't inflict psychological damage to themselves or others. In other words, as long as all parties are consenting and pose no danger.
I would have loved to hear more of your thoughts on this particular article James, you usually have more imput, and I love reading what you have to say. Any more thoughts?
Inner Oddness:
I am a big activist of GLBT rights as well and I agree with you on the DL.
You said, "What people often need to remind themselves is that everyone has their own different classification what what is "acceptable" sexual conduct. I have to remind myself of this often."
I couldn't agree more and I would add more thoughts but you pretty much summed up my views with your comment. I will say that I think love is more important than sexual orientation.
I don't see any Buddhist grounds for homosexuality being considered evil or sinful, at least not from the Theravada perspective, but interestingly enough monks like Master Hua of the Chinese Mahayana tradtion had this to say:
"Homosexual behavior, especially, is behavior that will put an end to nations and humanity. What does it mean by putting an end to nations? Someone who practices homosexuality will not care about their country, so that country will disintegrate. Homosexuals do not procreate, so the human race will vanish! This kind of behavior is forbidden by national law, universal law, and natural law. Those who do will fall into the hells no matter who they are. Every one of us must know this."
This is coming from a well respected monk and quite frankly I found it shocking when I first read it. I do not agree with his assessment, but I thought I'd throw it out there to show that even among Buddhists there are varied opinions.
I would disagree with inner oddness that sex isn't a hindrance to enlightment, because at least from a Theravada perspective it is. Sex from the Theravada perspective is classed under kama tanha which is one of the cravings to be abandoned that the Buddha taught in his exhortation on the Noble Truths.
Sensuality or sense desire is also a hindrance or nivarana in terms of meditation practice as well. In the Theravada tradition sex is an obstacle to enlightment and it must be abandoned in order to reach full liberation.
There are many suttas in the canon where the Buddha explicitly talks about the dangers of sensuality and how it is better to let go of.
Of course most folks aren't going to be celibate nor strive to realize Nibbana in this lifetime so the third precept is about the best guideline one could have. In the issue of homosexuality I agree with all of you here that from my tradition(Theravada) the Buddha never said anything to explicity condemn homosexuals.
So in closing, whatever your orientation I wish you well in your practice.
Following on from dhamma81's comment, it should be added that all forms of sexual behavior are obstacles to enlightenment in Buddhist teachings. Why? Because it involves lust & ignorance (both related to ego-based identification, the antithese to the selflessness of true & full awakening.)
An enlightened being, according to the Buddha in both Theravada & Mahayana traditions, is beyond the personal desires manifested in the sexual act. This is the main reason for celibacy amongst Buddhist monks and nuns who are (supposed to be) seeking enlightenment.
For us laypeople - with the emphasis on the word 'lay', here - have somewhat different concerns to those who have left the homelife. Those of us that are in a sexual relationship should be aware that whilst we cultivate sexually-orientated mind states, we create the conditions for further suffering down the road.
I include myself in these comments, as someone who enjoys a happy marriage. If I wish to realize full awakening in this life, however, I will need to let go of sexual desire and its physical expressions along with many other forms of desire. We need to remember that desire is the cause of suffering and the ending of desire is the ending of suffering. According to the Buddha in the teachings on the Four Noble Truths, this is the very heart of Buddhist practice, summed up in the Noble Eightfold Path.
With all this in mind, we should remain compassionate towards ourselves, of course. Buddhism is not a battle between good & evil, but rather an opening up to the way things are. We don't need to fight sexual desire, but to see it as it is. In time, we will develop the wisdom & means to let go of it; maybe in this life, maybe not. In the meantime, we can try to see it from the viewpoint of the Buddhadharma, finding a kind of middle way where we don't over indulge in it nor aggressively suppress it. This goes for heterosexuals, homosexuals, celibates, and others.
Be well, whatever your sexuality,
G at 'Buddha Space'.
http://buddhaspace.blogspot.com
Yeah being a happily married man I'm not yet ready to give up sexuality.
One thing too about that monk saying that homosexuality would destroy civilization. For one the number of homosexuals is usually placed at or below 1-10% of the population. In those numbers the Earth isn't going to face human extinction.
And what I find really humorous is that being a celibate monk isn't adding people to the population either!! (shakes head). See, this is why I don't always believe a monk simply because they are a monk.
Could you please provide a reference or link to the article you are pulling from?
The Master Hua statement is on the Gold Buddha Monastery website under the talk called "Avoid Defying Natural Creation. I am terrible on the computer and not at all tech savy so I do not really understand how to hyperlink. I will paste the link here if you were referring to the article I was pulling from.
http://www.gbm-online.com/dharma/avoid.html
Interesting post, James!
I had to snicker upon reading the Dalai Lama use the "these parts don't fit" argument. Same as what some Christians say. I want to reply: "Come on, use your imagination!"
It's interesting to hear how other cultures and religions view homosexuality. I'm usually disappointed by what I hear, however, I've come to see this proof that we're passing from an older paradigm into an new one, a new way of seeing sexuality and people. At least I hope so!
I come from a more pagan perspective, that sex is good, it is part of being alive and human, and we must all struggle with how we express this facet of ourselves. It is not something to be repressed but sexuality must be evaluated with whether it harms another or ourselves. I'm no expert--but isn't there a "do no harm" principle in yoga? That sums up my sex philosophy.
Dhamma81:
Thank-you. I was referring to that story and thanks for the link.
Riverwolf:
however, I've come to see this proof that we're passing from an older paradigm into an new one, a new way of seeing sexuality and people.
This is happening at least according to the people that I talk with. There is a new view in Buddhism that is more embracing of sexuality. I do think sex is healthy and apart of being human too.
I think the difference and the view of Western Buddhists at least is that it's o.k. to enjoy desires in life because otherwise the world is pretty gray but that the problem is addiction to desires. Such as sexual addiction.
I think trying to clamp off sexuality altogether can lead to some major problems. One only need look to the Catholic church and the molestation scandals that have occurred thanks to the actions of many celibate priests.
Buddhism does allow for sex as long as it doesn't harm others. As you mentioned. Of course things are different for monastics.
There are many views to the hot button (no pun intended) issue of sexuality.
Ajahn Brahm once mentioned talking to Catholic priests about celibacy and what he found was that a priest doesn't have much support in the path of celibacy the way monastics do.
I think the Christian tradition has often times had a lot to say about sex being evil but no skillful means to combat lust and little support for the priesthood that must deal with a lot of sexually active people and fight against his own lust. Anyone who has tried celibacy for any period of time will probably realize just how difficult it is and how strong a force sexual desire is. I say this in reference to myself especially.
In Buddhism we have plenty of skillful means such as the asubha practices, the contemplation of head hair, body hair, nails, teeth and skin, etc. For a non married guy like myself I always reflect on how much stress and entanglement sex can lead to, not to mention disease, unwanted pregnancies, abortions,emotional attachments etc.
Perhaps the Christian tradition could learn a bit about skillful means to curb lust. I think Ajahn Thanissaro once said that until you have at least tasted the first Jhana then you'll go for sensuality, but once you see the freedom that lies beyond sense pleasure you just drop it and let it go. I certainly am not there yet, but as a single man planning on the monks life in the future I tread carefully and try to stay away from sex.
I think what most of the folks in here are getting at is that at least Buddhism doesn't downright condemn homosexuality the way some other religions do. I always thought Buddhism to be quite demanding but very broadminded and nonjudgemental about a lot of things. Perhaps in this day and age the world really needs the Dhamma. It's been a nice discussion here. I wish you all well in your practice, pagan, Christian, Buddhist or otherwise.
I've found it such a joy to read your blog! I'm definitely glad I stumbled upon here by accident.
It is very refreshing to read and really see how other Buddhist view the situations in the world right now. I am very glad to see that Buddhist practitioners, like you and the others who have commented, can still be so fair, objective, and compassionate about subjects that would otherwise be controversial in other religions and social climates.
As for my opinion about homosexuality, I personally never have stumbled upon many Buddhist texts which talk much about homosexuality. I don't recall anything ever condemning it.
I figure, if two men, or two women are in a loving relationship, an they walk the eightfold path, comply to the precepts and have loving hearts, how could they be condemned?
I think "true love" goes beyond sex, and thus as a result can surpass boundaries created by the physical body. The "parts not fittting" comment of the Dalai Lamai also surprised me as a result.
I agree with a few of the previous posters as well though.
"An enlightened being, according to the Buddha in both Theravada & Mahayana traditions, is beyond the personal desires manifested in the sexual act." - G
If becoming enlightened is more a matter of letting go of ideas like self, materialism, and worldliness thus escaping the karmic cycle, I suppose being homosexual is no more an obstacle than other pleasures in life.
Anyways, please continue posting about your journey in Buddhism I will definitely become a frequent visitor!
If I may comment here...
As a layman, I was taught that the first thing is to avoid causing additional suffering in this samsaric world. There is already so much suffering, which of course is the definition of samsara, in a sense. So I try to put questions of acceptance aside.
How is it my place to decide if the parts fit together properly or not? How is it up to me to figure out if homosexuality (or sexuality at all, for that matter) is right or wrong in the eyes of God or of Nature? Or of the Buddha?
It's my place to avoid creating new suffering. I know that what I have to contribute has little to do with who I take into my bed. So, I try to remember that the same is true of everyone else, just as it is with me. So in this way, I feel that I'm following my Noble Eightfold Path in my treatment of the matters of marital stuff, sexuality and homosexuality. Beyond that, it's simply not right for me to question.
From my limited monastic training (in the Chinese Mahayana tradition), it is my understanding that when enlightenment comes, sexual desire will fall away. It should be as simple as that. I will not have to worry about "fighting lust" or anything like that.
Thanks for this discussion, and for your thoughtful and skillful insight.
scruff
To all:
I am very sensitive to the sexual issue as I grew up in a very strict religion that often taught sex was bad. And it really screwed up my view of my body because I became ashamed of it.
And now that I'm married it has adversely affected my marriage at times. For me and my wife as she grew up in that religion too.
We were told to avoid sex like the plague until marriage but once we were married we didn't know what to do!! We never had a very good education on sexuality because it was so taboo in that religion.
None of the parents wanted to talk much about it to their kids for fear that they would go out and have sex. Which many did anyway and got pregnant because they only taught abstinence only so that when they did decide to have sex they knew nothing of safe sex practices. That's wrong not to teach that in my opinion.
So regardless of what some Buddhists might say I believe that sex can be a good thing. It can really solidify the bonds between couples who are committed to each other.
I personally do not think it is helpful to teach that the human body is something gross and to shun it's beauty.
I realize though that eventually sexual desire just won't be a big deal toward an enlightened being but I'm not there yet and probably won't be in this lifetime.
I'm not going to try and force it because that often causes even more problems. I know that if celibacy is indeed the way to go in Buddhism then it will naturally come to me maybe through meditation and I will be able to accept it without hesitation but until then I would be forcing myself to do something I don't now agree with. That causes suffering as well.
Parami:
Here's the link:
Homosexuality and the Sangha.
I am glad to see that many people on here realize that if you follow this line of reasoning you could rationalize just about anything. Traditional buddhism seems to be to have been comprised of large communities of celebate monks. You can say buddhism can change, but without that aspect of asceticism, I'm not sure if it would truly be buddhism. What I think however, is that here in America, the gay marriage issue is a big distraction to much larger issues such as the Iraq war, huge military spending, looming economic disaster, health care, and so on. One of the big reasons is that it seems these things will always remain controversial and it provides opportunist political strategists with great means to create effective wedge issues to elect people to office who are hostile to these much larger and more important issues. Also, consider that there are many closet homosexuals in Washington as well as gay voters who apparently do not even consider many of these issues important, but politicaly align themselves or their careers along the lines of tax cuts and other things rather than seeking to further gay rights. From reading David Brock's book "blinded by the right" you can get some sense of this as he was a gay man who worked in Washington in the sort of circumstances I have alluded to.
Another thing I will add is that homosexuality or far left liberalism can become it's own dogma just as the far right ultra conservatism. Perhaps if the monk you mentioned was understood in this context it could make more sense. Do you believe hatred is evil and should be destroyed ? Many people would agree, but what is hatred ? Many liberals say if you think homosexuality is wrong then you are full of hatred. I don't agree that thinking something is wrong means you are a hater, at least not necessarily, though there are such haters and people who wish to harm others, not everyone who has the view that something is wrong is a hater, though you could try to rationalize that they are. What you end up with is a doctrine stated as a positive that says in order to be enlightened you must accept that homosexuality is ok. Stated as a negative, you are evil if you think it is wrong. Comparisons of what I have said with the current state of affairs of the wold I would also disagree with because these issues always change and are a moving target, just as gay marriage is a recent development which beforehand was not part of the gay rights movement.
Laurence, good point. I guess I would answer by saying I don't fear those that simply think of homosexuality as "wrong." Given certain cultural and religious influences, I understand where these ideas come from. What I fear are those people who will not reconsider their own prejudices or consider the discrimination that the GLBT community experiences because of some religious beliefs. I always hope that, if presented with the facts and stories of real gay people, any open-minded, loving person would be persuaded that we are not out to harm anyone or "convert" anyone. Unfortunately, some people turn their lack of understanding and knowledge into a badge of pride, a defense shield against what they do not wish to understand. Rather than examining their faith in light of new revelations (gay rights, the earth revolves around the sun, evolution and so on), their faith becomes a refuge for fear, which eventually leads to hatred.
Of the five precepts, the third precept directly refers to human sexual behavior. "Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami: I observe the precept of abstaining from sexual misconduct." I have found that an insightful way to interpret this precept is that it "helps to cultivate self-restraint, mastery over the emotions and senses, renunciation, and control of sensual desire." By thinking of "sexual misconduct" in this way, it sets aside labeling what is considered normal, right, or wrong and focuses on what is skillful in decreasing suffering. Therefore, one isn't judged in being LGBT because it doesn't matter. Rather, one's actions and thoughts are what matter.
I've really enjoyed this discussion and look forward to reading more.
The quotes I've used come from an article on the Urban Dharma website: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/5precepts.html.
Thank-you for the insight Eric.
I am disturbed by the way in which discussion of the ethical and indeed the medical consequences of homosexuality have been co-opted by the gay rights movement.
In the first place, rightly or wrongly, practically all 'traditional worldviews' have taboos on same-sex behaviour. So the Dalai Lama's view can't just be put down to the fact that he is 'Tibetan' - it is the traditional view the world over - Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim. You might decide to abandon tradition or ignore it - it is up to you. But don't kid yourself about it.
On this topic, I find it aggravating that to even contemplate criticizing homosexuality is to be labelled a bigot or a homophobe. I am not a homophobe - live and let live, and the rest. But it is an undeniable fact that male-to-male intercourse is an extremely unhealthy thing to do, even discounting the religious taboos on it. It is associated with many diseases, some of them deadly. So I don't really understand why the Western world has adopted this as a 'human rights issue'. Why is individual perogative placed above traditional morality, not to mention public health?
Certainly you can accept that homosexuality exists and provide space for it, but 'non-discrimination' does not mean 'there is no difference between homosexual acts and conjugal relations' because there plainly is.
The Buddhist tradition has by and large been monastic and averse to sensual indulgence. The Buddhist scriptures often refer to the 'canker of sensuality' as something the disciple must strive to overcome.
Buddhists are not repressive in the same way that Westerners have been, however, because the entire tradition is less authoritarian, less centralised, and less institutionalised than the Christian church.
But I wouldn't kid youself that traditional Buddhism accepts male-to-male sex - it simply doesn't. (Of course, if you're a Dharma teacher in San Francisco, you don't want to say this, because you will go out of business very quickly and indeed most US Buddhist teachers will be far more liberal than Asian teachers in this regard.)
I don't think we realise how far out on a limb Western society has gone on this issue.
Jonathan:
For me it comes down to whether the action is harmful or not and as long as the two parties are consenting then I don't see a problem with homosexuality.
Tradition in many cultures might see homosexuality as taboo but that doesn't necessarily mean that view is skillful.
As for physical disease, that can happen from male/female unprotected sex as well. Safe sex practices are used by homosexuals as much as straight people.
True condoms don't protect against all STD's but that goes for straight people as well. And there are plenty of straight Buddhists who engage in sexuality and avoid disease.
As long as homosexuals practice safe sex in a loving, caring relationship where they only have sex with their partner then I don't see the health concerns that you raise.
I'm not expert but from my understanding I haven't read anything said by the Buddha that specifically condemns homosexuality. Maybe you know of a specific verse but I don't.
The precepts speak of sexual misconduct without naming homosexuality in general as being misconduct.
And then it comes down to culture and I don't understand why it's o.k. to accept the taboo of homosexuality in Asian countries but the more accepting attitude in Western countries is automatically wrong because it dares question some of the traditional beliefs of those areas?
Buddhism has always adapted and changed throughout history. I seem to remember that there was a time when Mahayana Buddhism was considered (and still might be by some) to not be "true Buddhism."
I'm using the emergence of Mahayana or Zen in specific to show how something new eventually becomes mainstream. How many would say that Zen isn't Buddhism? Yet many see a possible Western Buddhism as not relevant.
As for being monastic, well not all Buddhists want or are ready to become monks/nuns. Thus why there is more asked of monks than the laity when it comes to sexual conduct.
Yes Buddha in general discouraged sex but taught that if you are going to engage in it to do it with the most care as possible. Regardless of sexual orientation.
Besides, I for one believe that homosexuality is assigned at birth. So from that stand point it can't be wrong if certain people were born with that proclivity.
Also, I am a Zen Buddhist and Zen isn't that concerned with homosexuality. Again, the key being that you do no harm.
And I certainly do not think that disagreeing with homosexuality automatically makes you homophobic and discriminatory. I do think though that opposing homosexuals the right to marry is discriminatory.
I don't see the problem with homosexual marriage. If churches, temples and other religious organizations don't wish to marry homosexuals that's fine.
However, I don't see the harm in allowing them to get legally married by a judge or other method. Such as for my wife and I we were married by a ship captain.
Perhaps some traditional branches of Buddhism teach that male-to-male sex is wrong but not all do.
To echo what Handsome said, if two men or two women want to enter a legally binding domestic arrangement sanctioned by the state--why should that be a problem? Churches, synagogues or mosques don't have to recognize it.
But consider:
Even Christians still have to get a state marriage license in order to be "officially" married. States also set rules about the age of marriage. For centuries, people of different races couldn't marry--because of tradition.
Tradition also once approved of slavery and denying women and people of other races the right to vote. In many countries, there isn't a tradition of freedom for the press or even respect for other religions. Is tradition all that matters? We have changed our views over time on many issues, and I believe we are changing our views now on homosexuality.
Fact: just because you're gay doesn't mean you'll get an STD. My partner and I have been in a monogamous relationship for 14 years and we're both clean as a whistle. I have many straight friends who are more promiscuous. In addition, AIDS is now hitting the African American community the hardest--by using your logic, is it "wrong" to be African American and have sex? AIDS is also prevalent in hetero groups within Africa. Does this mean having a hetero lifestyle is now "wrong?"
And how do we as a society "provide space" for gays without prohibiting discrimination? Is that like "don't ask, don't tell?" Because that's discrimination. As a straight person, you have no idea what it's like to go through life denying so much of yourself, hiding so much of yourself, pretending and creating an elaborate facade simply because you're afraid of what others will do, what they'll say. I'd like to see you try that and see how successful and "free" that feels.
I know our discussion centers around Buddhism, and every religion has the freedom to decide its boundaries. Yet all religions evolve regarding what they consider acceptable. However, those religions that refuse to evolve and change eventually die out. So much for their version of "truth."
>As long as homosexuals practice safe sex in a loving, caring relationship where they only have sex with their partner then I don't see the health concerns that you raise.
Yes that is perfectly true. If all homosexuals did this then there really would be no public health issue.
Jonathan, you're not going to get off that easy.
"If all homosexuals did this [practice monogamy] then there really would be no public health issue."
I think this applies to all us, straight or gay. Once upon a time, syphilis and other STDs were quite rampant, and even those these seem quaint by today's standards, it's only because we're better educated and know how to take precautions today.
Public health is an issue, but then no one is forcing anyone to have sex, so I think you're safe. But there are other issues.
If heteros would practice monogamy, then we wouldn't have all these unwanted pregnancies, deadbeat dads and single moms. And my tax dollars wouldn't have to pay for services for these children or to school them. And how many of those kids end up committing crimes or becoming some other burden on society?
Not all, of course, and that's my point. You can't generalize about sexual behavior with only segments of the population while leaving out others.
Your concern over the ethical and medical consequences is valid. I share the same concerns, frankly. However, all of us share the blame.
Lack of sexual intimacy, sexual dysfunctions, frustration, and disappointments repeatedly being rebuffed sexually can emotionally, and eventually physically, stall your sex drive. The same can happen for repeated lack of orgasm, impotence, premature ejaculation, retarded ejaculation, or other disappointments in the bedroom. http://www.levitrabliss.com/
It is true that premature ejaculation is one of the most commonly experienced male sexual dysfunctions. This disability is frequently described as being uncontrolled ejaculation either before or shortly after sexual penetration and with minimal sexual stimulation. It is a widespread problem plaguing up to 36 million men. http://www.buy-viagra-with-us.com/
Viagra is the best choice medicine for erectile dysfunction as it can be taken regardless of the age of the patient and works unhindered with most medicines.
Propecia works by blocking the enzyme 5 alpha reductase. This reduces the level of hormone, DHT, in the scalp and allows hairs to revert to a normal growth cycle. This results in no further hair loss and significantly new hair growth in men with Male Pattern Hair Loss.
viagra
is the best thing for me. I'm a frequent user and it never let me down
cialis online
purchase cialis
CIALIS DISCOUNT
buy CIALIS online
buy cialis online
cheap cialis
order cialis
buy cialis
Buy Cialis
cialis online
buy cialis online
cialis online
cialis online
cialis online
purchase cialis
cialis online
purchase cialis
buy cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
buy cialis online
buy cialis
purchase cialis online
buy cialis online
cialis sale
buy cialis
purchase cialis
purchase cialis online
buy cialis
buy cialis online
buy cialis online
purchase cialis online
purchase cialis
buy cialis
buy cialis online
purchase cialis online
buy cialis
purchase cialis online
cheap cialis
order cialis
buy cialis online
cialis discount
buy cialis online
purchase cialis
purchase cialis online
buy cialis online
buy cialis online
cialis sale
cialis sale
purchase cialis online
buy cialis
buy cialis
buy cialis
buy cialis
buy cialis
buy cialis
buy cialis online
buy cialis online
viagra discount
buy viagra
viagra price
viagra online
viagra online
viagra alternative
purchase viagra
purchase viagra
viagra online
purchase viagra
buy viagra online
purchase viagra online
buy viagra online
viagra sale
purchase viagra online
buy viagra online
buy viagra
purchase viagra online
purchase viagra online
buy viagra online
buy viagra
order viagra
cheap viagra
buy viagra online
viagra alternative
purchase viagra
viagra discount
buy viagra online
viagra price
purchase viagra online
viagra sale
Order Xanax
phentermine online
Xanax Buy
buy phentermine
Buy Xanax Online
buy phentermine
Purchase Xanax Online
order phentermine
discount xanax
buy phentermine
xanax online
buy phentermine
Xanax Online
buy phentermine
Xanax Online
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy phentermine online
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy PHETERMINE
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
Buy Phentermine Online
Purchase Phentermine Online
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
purchase phentermine online
xanax
phentermine sale
Xanax Online
purchase Phentermine
Xanax Online
Order Phentermine
Order Xanax
Buy Phentermine Online
Buy Xanax
Buy Phentermine
Buy Xanax Online
phentermine online
xanax store
order phentermine
xanax online
Order Phentermine
xanax online
cheap phentermine
buy xanax
phentermine online
buy xanax
phentermine
buy xanax
xanax
phentermine online
buy xanax
buy phentermine online
buy xanax
buy phentermine
buy xanax online
phentermine online
buy ambien
ambien online
buy ambien
order ambien
ambien
buy ambien
buy ambien
ambien
ambien
buy ambien
buy ambien
Order Phentermine
xanax online
cheap phentermine
buy xanax
phentermine online
buy xanax
phentermine
buy xanax
xanax
phentermine online
buy xanax
buy phentermine online
buy xanax
buy phentermine
buy xanax online
phentermine online
Order Xanax
phentermine online
Xanax Buy
buy phentermine
Buy Xanax Online
buy phentermine
Purchase Xanax Online
order phentermine
discount xanax
buy phentermine
xanax online
buy phentermine
Xanax Online
buy phentermine
Xanax Online
buy phentermine
buy phentermine
buy ambien
xanax
phentermine online
ambien
order xanax
discount phentermine
ambien
xanax no prescription
phentermine online
buy ambien
order xanax
order phentermine
buy ambien
buy xanax
purchase phentermine online
xanax
phentermine sale
Xanax Online
purchase Phentermine
Xanax Online
Order Phentermine
Order Xanax
Buy Phentermine Online
Buy Xanax
Buy Phentermine
Buy Xanax Online
phentermine online
xanax store
order phentermine
xanax online
buy viagra best online viagra shop
buy viagra
I think this is great that we have a lot of No prescription Online Pharmacy. Cause it is easier to save money with them. For example, I want to Viagra online or Cialis online or Levitra online, then I just go to my favorite Online Pharmacy and get discount levitra. I choose it because this medicine works fine for me. My friend had some problems with health, his doctor prescribed him some antibiotics, so he spent about one thousand dollars!!!! If he knew about that pharmacies, he could save a lot of money and no physician needed.
What other PDE inhibitors inhibit the optic nerve of viagra and having sex. You could harm a roundeddiamond shape Remember.
It is a potent medication that is very effective buy accutane for nearly all types of breakouts. Drug information contained herein may be time sensitive. Avoid exposure to sunlight
Post a Comment