Double standars?

Recently I was explaining the fundamentals of Buddhism to one of my mates. The "no-killing therefore vegetarian" aspect of Buddhism came up, and my friend asked me if I would become a wholehearted vegetarian in order to keep to the dogma of Buddhism.

The hardcore vegetarians I have met through the times do not really apply to how I see myself. Often they come across (to me anyway) as a bit dogmatic, and if you invite them to your home, you will often feel compelled to consider their persuasion if you serve food. Well, either that, or leave them with what vegetables you might or might not serve.

Therefore, I had a hard time giving my mate a clear answer. On the one side, I agree with the Buddhist way of not killing, on the other side I would just hate to go to a dinner at a friends place and make a big fuzz about not eating meat.

Then I remembered Steve Hagen's book "Buddhism plain and simple" which gave an answer to this very dilemma: Steve Hagen is a vegetarian, but if a host serves meat at a dinner party, he will eat it. His take on this is that as long as you are not directly responsible for the killing itself, you are in the clear. He says that if you go and buy meat, then you are directly responsible. However, if meat is offered to you, then you are without blame, so to speak. Quite a few Buddhist monks hold a similar line of thought, which do not discern between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food they receive on their alms-round.

My friend thought that this line of thought was a double standard. In accepting meat or eating it, my friend argued, you would be just as ”guilty” as if you had bought the meat or killed the animal yourself. I am not sure I agree, as I suspect that the line of thought probably is a great deal more complex than the account I have made here.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this issue, so please feel free to post your views - enlighten me! ;-)