He later clarified that homosexuality was wrong because it involved the use of the mouth, rectum and/or hands as opposed to only using genitalia. He added that the use of the mouth, rectum and hands are also proscribed in heterosexual encounters.
...Yeah, I would say he is. Giving a reason for why you disapprove of homosexuality doesn't mean you don't disapprove of homosexuality.
Although he viewed homosexuality as 'sexual misconduct' for Buddhists, he said that it was 'non-harmful' for non-Buddhists. The San Francisco Chronicle quotes him as saying, 'From society’s viewpoint, mutually agreeable homosexual relations can be of mutual benefit, enjoyable and harmless.'
The article linked to the World Tibetan News site is difficult to read in that the DL doesn’t always know how to say things in English and relies on his interpreter. Nevertheless, what is clear is that he is a celibate man who has never really considered these issues. The first time he did so in depth was during a private meeting with a number of LGBT Buddhists who were deeply concerned about the statements in his book. That meeting was the beginning of a shift in his position toward greater study and concern.
These are some key points for my consideration. He is not opposed to homosexuality, or its existence; instead, he goes so far as to suggest that individuals and society
benefit from homosexuality, and homosexual relationships.
Note his attitude isn't one of absolutes or dogmatism; despite historical beliefs about non-procreative sexuality, and being a celibate man himself, he doesn't state that homosexuality is inherently bad, or that its practice should be stopped. Instead, he considers it, in light of the value it has to individuals and society, and the culture and place in time which the ideas about non-procreative sex originated.
He's a genuinely compassionate, rational, and wise man. I think he's approaching the matter as it relates to his spirituality in a remarkably healthy, good way.