Well, I studied these deviants for years and probably am the one with more experience with them (non sexual). I agree with LRH about them. Though I would say most are HUGE beings that were royally fucked somewhere on the track. Quite a sad thing to be. Sure most of you will blast me. But noone here has spent as much time with them as me, I can bet my life on this. My best friend was a fag and I watched him pass away to AIDS. I studied a lot sub-cultures like the gay/electronic music/neo-drug scene years ago and there's little theta there. I have found gays to be either women with men's bodies, lazy men who find it easier to get sex from men and your screwed up person, either hormonally or because of some trauma/uncle/cousin.
Again these are my opinions based on my observation. I am not stating that this is true.
I'm not saying that all bigots have the same lapses in logic, but it sure seems like it.
"Well, I studied these deviants for years and probably am the one with more experience with them (non sexual)."
In what way did you study "them"?
How many did you "study", exactly?
"I agree with LRH about them."
LRH, obviously, had NO experience with gay people. Or, if he did, he sure wasn't informing his writing with that experience in Science of Survival where he called them 1.1, and said that adders make better friends.
LRH was simply pushing the buttons f the current society when he slurred his fellow men like this, for his own gain.
"Though I would say most are HUGE beings that were royally fucked somewhere on the track."
How did you come to this conclusion? Nothing you have said earlier would give any clue that this conclusion has anything supporting it at all.
"Quite a sad thing to be. Sure most of you will blast me. But no one here has spent as much time with them as me, I can bet my life on this. My best friend was a fag and I watched him pass away to AIDS."
Your best friend was a "fag"?
And you watched him pass away from AIDS?
Either you have no idea what it is to be a friend, or you are lying. Could be both. Or there is WAY more here than you are letting us know about yourself. Either he was not your best friend, and you are just saying that to puff yourself up and somehow make yourself an "authority", or you have absolutely no ability to understand others, and this person was unfortunate enough to be subjected to that in the last years of his life.
Or, he was much more than a friend to you, and seeing him die of AIDS scared the shit out of you and you decided that being gay would get you killed. And so you became anti-gay and a Scientologist.
If it's the former, then maybe you need to run "find the auditor" on others and realize that other people exist in this world you share with them. And once you realize that, you need to try and figure out how they exist different from you. And then you need to grant beingness to that difference. Otherwise, you are just going to continue to make yourself, and everyone around you, miserable.
If it's the latter, then I understand you a lot better.
"I studied a lot sub-cultures like the gay/electronic music/neo-drug scene years ago and there's little theta there."
Again. No concept of others. Blind.
Or - running from something.
"I have found gays to be either women with men's bodies, lazy men who find it easier to get sex from men and your screwed up person, either hormonally or because of some trauma/uncle/cousin."
This is an observation that a disconnected idiot would make, with absolutely no sense of humanity, compassion, or understanding of any kind. Or, someone totally disconnected from himself.
I am hetero, and have been quite lazy in my life. And at NO TIME would I ever even think of getting sex from another man. It's because I'm not gay. I would only get sex from another man if other men turned me on sexually.
That you even consider this as a possibility, that a man would have sex with another man because he was "lazy", suggests that you are turned on by other men.
You would not be the first person that Scientology made hate themselves for being gay.
"Again these are my opinions based on my observation. I am not stating that this is true."
Why do you have them as your opinions, then, if you are not willing to state that they are true?
This is probably your one saving grace - you have a suspicion that you hold opinions that are not true.
Keep pulling the string there. Maybe it will lead to you having opinions that are closer to the truth.
Because, on the subject of gay people, you've got it totally wrong in this thread.
What you rub on is completely irrelevant to "the kind of person you are".
What you rub on is an automatic response.
And if Scientology made you wrong for that, you need to dump Scientology and grant beingness to yourself, first, before you are going to be able to do it for anyone else.
You cannot whip someone into a viewpoint Alanzo. All the violence in the world will not make it happen. As far as I knew there is no such thing as "right and wrong answers". This forum is not a math quiz or a majority group must think. You can lead people to wider views or different views. But you cannot beat them into your view with force and invalidation. Isn't this "must think" a major line of protest of your own? As soon as you run "must think" on people you are dealing in ancient black magick. Better to have a free thought from someone than one that was enforced.
I've always maintained that if a guy is going to stick it anywhere other than between a female's legs, the what does it matter the gender of the other person?
If you're gonna get a blow-job (and who can spell "Bill Clinton" boys and girls?), then does it really matter if the mouth belongs to a man or a woman? I think one can safely ask the same question about the "back door".
Yes, there's a 1.1 queen world out there, but there are also some very lovely people who don't fit lrh's stereotypes at all.
In this day and age when whole countries are legislating for gay marriage, I think it's come the time to say "Get over it."
As for it being a non-procreative activity, the world's already overpopulated enough.
"Having met george bush, I now understand why I've never had the urge to reproduce."
Sick of Scientology arrogance and bigotry.
I now have a chance to rip it apart.
Gonna take it.
Feels good after all those years.
Don't you know that has been banned? You must think what you are told to think. The thought-police are on their way.
Homosexuality is no barrier to case gain.
No more so than being in relationship to the wrong partner or the right partner.
Always thought the whole sex thing was a misdirector........making a body part or act more important than the being.
Betrayal of trust is the major destructive act. Not the betraying body part.
This has come up before on other threads but I thought it a good idea to start one of its own.
I've seen such diverse views on this topic within CoS. I know of at least one person who went to a mission, openly gay, and was welcome.
I asked an E/O about this once and I was told any gay within Scn would "have to knock it off". When I asked why, I was told that "the second dynamic would crash if we were all like that." I asked if hetero couples in Scn were hauled into Ethics if they didn't plan to have kids. I was told no. When I asked why not, I got a shrug. (I'm used to those when I ask questions in COS )
I was talking to an OT5 recently who made a remark about "goddamn fags", which surprised me a little.
Anyway, I'd like to know if anyone here (apart from PMD) has an issue with gays/lesbians and if so, why.
Also, I'd like to know if anyone thinks being gay is a barrier to case gain (unless, like Mick, you don't think there is any such thing ).
I can understand it being a big missed withhold in the 50s, but that hardly applies now.