With reference to Paul Haggis’ resignation letter and one reader of this blog’s request for a new blog post, I hereby bring to the table a discussion on homosexuality.

Let’s discuss Scientology’s stance and practice regarding homosexuality, L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings and opinions on the subject as well as your own views. I will give my own opinions as part of the discussion.

  1. Hubbardianen
    2009-10-26 at 18:51

    First of all, Hubbard was active in the 50’s-70’s. At that time homosexuality was not considered normal, especially in the USA. Hubbard has written some anti-gay stuff but his last sentences on homosexuality nullified every anti-gay ideas from my understanding.

    Personally, I have several viewpoints on homosexuality.

    1. Genetics. Heterosexuals attracts to other heterosexuals, this is something I think lies on DNA-level, genetics or Genetic Entity (female/male GE?). If a thetan gets a male body it is attracted to girls and if it gets a female body she is attracted to boys. Most likely on genetic level or similair. So homosexuality could from that viewpoint be some kind of genetic/GE mutation or similair.

    2. Personal problems. The person becoming a homosexual has some kind of “spiritual knot” that makes him/her want to act differently. Some (perhaps smaller) percentage of homosexuality stems from bad trauma, for example in childhood, is my opinion. Also, it is not uncommon among “open” and “artistic” people to be homo/bisexual. Hubbard once wrote something like “artists has to maintain this equibrillium all the time, it’s very difficult and they become very complicated.”

    3. A Strong will. Some men might love vivid colors, Eurovision Song Contest, strong muscles, to make-up themselves etc. That is, the thetan has a strong interest in these matters, regardless of his physical body’s sex. In this case, the will of the person could be regarded as stronger than the genetic need and present social acceptance for heterosexuality. This is a positive viewpoint regarding homosexuals.

    I don’t know. It’s a free world, but I’m not really sure homosexuality is a “natural” state, I have nothing against homosexuals though, they are most of the time more intellectual with better jobs and higher IQ than the average, according to some studies.

    If a person is a homosexual I think they should have the right to be so, and it certainly cannot be changed by society or laws.

    • graceful
      2009-10-28 at 10:10

      if he was a science fiction writer, it doesn’t make any sense to excuse him with the generation he was part of. moreover, a persons mentality, specially if he or she is a genious, does not conform with the general mentalities.

      i believe humans are bissexual and tend to define a certain via of choices either by the culture they grew in as well as by their own indepent thought and choice.

      i believe sexuality is totally free of expressions, as long it’s with conscious agreement of those involved in those sexual activities. the rest doesn’t matter, it shouldn’t matter and i aim for a mankind who doesn’t need to speculate or even refer or talk about other people’s sexual tastes.

      • graceful
        2009-10-28 at 13:07

        free IN expressions 🙂

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-10-28 at 18:28

        I definitely think it’s okay to “excuse” Hubbard because of time movement, it’s a fact that we are influenced by the time we live in. From this POV I also somewhat on a smaller scale (couple of percent) “forgive” some of those lobotomy doctors. Medication wasn’t around at that time.

        Everything moves on a gradient scale.

        Nobody is harmed by homosexuality in itself, but some studies show recurring tendencies among homosexuals, like promiscuity for example. Certainly, many heterosexuals can develop a promiscous behaviour as well, but I get the slight feeling its more common among homosexuals. Why is that?

        • graceful
          2009-10-28 at 23:22

          that is only what happens to any energy that is repressed. and take the sexual energy, the most powerful one. instead of being a flow, it comes out as repressed and uncontroled material, you know, when a dick breaks. there are so many forms of promiscuity, we live in a promiscuous world since the beginning of the existence of all possible choices. it’s a matter of choice and having the opportunities to choose. or not. it’s hard when so much of our life is chosen by others, which is the reality of most, if not all of us in many ways.

          • graceful
            2009-10-28 at 23:24

            hahaha 😀 i meant ‘dike’ not ‘dick’ 😛 hahahah

            • graceful
              2009-10-28 at 23:26

              anyway, this is all part of the process of us knowing life in all its possibilities and expressions. it’s a continuous process of knowing. this is what i think right now.

  2. Maria
    2009-10-26 at 18:55

    Oh boy. This is one hot topic. I thought I would open this up by posting this quotation from the official policy of the C of S.

    The official policy established by L. Ron Hubbard concerning the subject of sexuality was published as a broad public issue in a policy letter dated August 1, 1967:

    “It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals.

    Whenever this has occurred it has not resulted in any improved condition. “
    “I have no concern about the second dynamic (sexual/familial) activities of Scientologists save only where they bring suffering to others and so impede our forward progress. “

    This policy letter sweepingly dismissed all statements and policies L. Ron Hubbard ever issued on this subject. He doesn’t say whether he changed his opinions or not, but it’s crystal clear that he considers it hands off. Note: The caps are his, which means he really meant it.

    It has not been canceled or superseded.

    • Nomnom
      2009-10-27 at 03:39

      There were a couple of later issues that modified this position in regards to staff and Sea Org. HCO PL 9 Feb 71 Executive Misbehavior “No Executive who begins or persists in a sexual relationship with a person hostile to or ‘open minded about’ Dianetics and Scientology may be retained on post or in the organization.”
      Then there’s Flag Order 3739 2-D Rules (21 Dec 78) with very specific rules.
      Lastly, there is the Life History form for staff (although I don’t think it’s an LRH issue) which includes questions such as, “11. Give a general 2-D history for yourself, including your
      earliest sexual experience of any kind, when you started
      dating, and the names of all persons involved. Make a
      chronological list by month/year of the names of all
      persons with whom you have had sexual relationships and
      what you engaged in. Approximate the number of times you
      carried on any kind of activity, and note any perversions
      you engaged in: WHO, WHAT, HOW OFTEN. Be as complete as
      you can.

      12. Note any instances of homosexual activity from earliest
      time to PT. Give WHO, WHAT and HOW OFTEN.”

      • Overdriver
        2009-10-27 at 08:42

        It is all right to regulate sexual issues within reason and within a religious organization. Although the life history form maybe a bit thorough. Anyway, I do not know what they do with the data but according to my experience it was not used for discriminating. Especially not because there are not a huge influx of people into the SO.
        I saw complete nuts (sorry but it was really the case) recruited both to the SO both on staff, one of these was homosexual (I do not know if they knew about it), the other was probably not.

        • Overdriver
          2009-10-27 at 09:00

          Further, sexual issues differ from culture to culture. Even if these issues are not “perfect”. A wise Church (of any religion) which operates within a country is better to take into consideration these issues at least to a certain degree. And from that position the Church can try to influence things for the better.

  3. Robert
    2009-10-26 at 20:29

    I believe it’s largely genetic. Not meaning from the parents but it seems there are a few conditions in the human DNA that manifest themselves randomly. I say this because you see people with very similar traits of some things regardless of race or ethnicity. I also believe the real problem is not the condition but society’s reaction to it. We live in a very fearful world and if we are going to move towards a saner society then people will have to get over the fear that people who are different are out to get us.

  4. Otto
    2009-10-26 at 20:54

    I believe homosexuality tecnically can be caused by one or more factors:

    1. Own decision.
    2. Own case facsimiles.
    3. [removed due to reference to confidential material]
    4. GE’s epicenters of control facsimiles.

    I’m not trained but what else could cause it?

    • ExKane
      2009-10-26 at 22:15

      Could someone explain to me the concept of facsimile in the Scientology context? Thanks.

      • Martin
        2009-10-26 at 22:47

        A facsimile is a memory. All memories are called facsimiles. If the facsimile contains unconsciousness it has the ability to overide the emotion, imagination and percetion of the person.

      • Mike Hobson
        2009-10-26 at 23:12

        In Scientology theory a “facsimile” is an mental energy *recording* of the physical universe, not unlike a hologram, but containing far more than just visual information – they contain all perceptions including emotions, thoughts and other neat stuff.
        These are distinguish from “mockups” which are similar “mental image pictures” created knowingly by the being.
        Michael A. Hobson

      • Margaret
        2009-10-27 at 02:04

        A facsimile is a mental image picture.

        From “Handbook for Preclears”:
        “A full facsimile is a sort of three-dimensional color picture with sound and smell and all other perceptions plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual.”

        • grace
          2009-10-29 at 20:06

          are we computers?

    • Otto
      2009-10-27 at 03:01

      @Martin: good explanation.

      @Geir: Oops, I almost forgot it was a confidential term, it seems to me part of the culture by now, sorry about breaking that rule 🙂

  5. ExKane
    2009-10-26 at 21:09

    Let’s compile a list of LRH quotes for quick reference for non-Scientologists:
    “The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in dynamic two such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., […]) is actually quite ill physically.” (DMSMH)
    “At 1.1 on the tone scale we enter the area of the most vicious reversal of the second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices.” (SoS, Here I’m taking the liberty of assuming homosexuality falls under “perversion” as stated in DMSMH)
    “At 1.1, we have lying, to avoid real communication. Here is the level of covert hostility, the most dangerous and wicked level on the tone scale. Here is the person who smiles while he inserts a knife blade between your vertebrae. Here is the insincere flatterer who yet awaits only a moment of unguardedness to destroy. This is the level of the pervert.” (SoS)
    “It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or to attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition….Therefore all former rules, regulations and policies relating to the sexual activities of Scientologists are cancelled.” (1967 policy letter, i.e. subsequent to the above statements)

    My interpretation: Hubbard came to disapprove of any “regulation of private lives” but it is not obvious to me that Hubbard ever recanted his placement of gays at 1.1 on the tone scale. Regarding the placement of gays at 1.1, I think it was an offensive generalization to categorize someone at any point on the tone scale based merely on sexual preferences – and even more so for 1.1 when we consider all the implications of that level. Such categorical statements belie the many shades of human variation.

  6. Margaret
    2009-10-26 at 21:46

    I think there is SOMETHING (genetics, genetic entity and/or thetan decisions) that causes a being to be sexually attracted to ANY type of body. And personally, I think that that SOMETHING is the same whether one is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

    Perhaps a more accurate question is: What causes beings to be attracted to ANY type of body? Or the corollary: Has anyone ever truly gained the ABILITY (on the Bridge) to be attracted to the opposite gender body than the one they were born attracted to?

    Here’s a question to the OT VIIIs out there: Are you able to mockup/enjoy/experience “physical attraction” to the same sex just as much as you are able to mockup/enjoy/experience attraction to the opposite sex?

  7. Maria
    2009-10-26 at 22:17

    I don’t think that a great deal of attention was put on sexual orientation in the late 60s and throughout the 70s. One of the fellows that started up Scn in France in the 60s was definitely gay. I met him, and he told me that. There were two gay staff members, a man and a woman, working in one of the Churches I attended in the 70s. I studied with a fellow that was openly gay back then. Nobody made an issue of it back then as far as I ever heard. But then, back then nobody really put much attention on being super-straight as regards sexuality. As far as the 1.1 tag from the 1950s goes, the book that came from was intended to help auditors work out what processes to run. It wasn’t policy and it wasn’t technology. It was info and it was based on what was considered perverted during that time period. The gay men I knew even in the 70s were very conflicted about their state of affairs. No doubt because they experienced extreme hostility from very homophobic people who considered them “evil” and sick, etc. etc.

  8. StarsAwait
    2009-10-26 at 22:20

    Good quote Maria

  9. Martin
    2009-10-26 at 22:40

    Being PTS to the middle class is another factor to take into consideration.
    The Church is “running with the flock”. And doing it to blend into and continue harming said “flock”.
    My personal opinion is: Its none of my business. The action is not harming the greatest number of my dynamics. Evaluation for anyone is very harmful casewise.

    And if the source is case, then obviously, as in any purpose not inherent, its based on a prior confusion.

    The Church delivers the bridge, it must remain above other factors to be effective and create an island of friendliness and succor. Policy #1 Maintain friendly relations.

  10. 2009-10-26 at 23:07

    Scientology has never been and is not against homosexuals and supports their rights just as anyone else’s. Given that, the big question is: why did Haggis bother to make such show-down out of his choice to sever his ties to the Church of Scientology (after several years of inactivity, as he admits)? Guesses, anyone?

    • Undeclared
      2009-10-27 at 08:42

      Haggis clearly doesn’t support the church’s management and some of it’s policies such as coerced disconnection from family which he discovered Tommy Davis Lied about on CNN. He has experienced it first hand in his family. This coupled with the fact that Tommy was ignoring correspondence from him for 10 months on the human rights issue -he wrote a letter. The letter to Tommy was sent to a few additional people. Marty Rathbun published it.

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-27 at 20:50

      The Church has probably only one answer for this that he has overts or that he is a criminal… But there can be that answer as well that Haggis does not agree what is going on at present in the Church. And certainly in the film business there are more homosexuals then in normal life and probably he has many good friends amongst those people. I think this could be enough reason for public disconnection. And besides, an outright lie concerning forced disconnection from the spokesman of the Church… disastrous.
      If one makes a mistake the wise thing to do is to admit or at least take responsibility and change for the better.
      I would also ask a question from you. How could it be that a Church spokesman speaks so negligent, arrogant and disrespectful as Tommy Davis did in an interview which is seen by millions around the planet? Is that a good representation of our religion? I very much disagree. And who is responsible for him being the Church spokesman?
      He should have said: Sir, there are other religions on this planet with secret teachings like our OT levels. There are certain Tibetan schools for example. The followers of the respected Dalai Lama. They know that the knowledge of certain levels pose certain dangers to the practitioners if the information is announced to them earlier than they reach that level. And as these levels similarly are confidential in our religion, although I certainly would like to answer to you, I can’t, sir, because I made an oath that I do not speak in any way about the subject-matter of those levels. Just as the Tibetans can’t speak of certain religious practices of their faith.

  11. Chris
    2009-10-27 at 01:47

    This is a repost of the comments I made in the General Comments section regarding this issue.

    I for one,am of the opinion that Ron was fine with gay people.
    Just look at “Sea Org Second Dynamic rules canceled”(incidentally around the same time Ron was researching R6)
    Even Science of Survival(or was it Handbook for Preclears?) said that OVERT homosexuality NOT just homosexuality was an aberration.
    Add that the “World’s First Real Clear” and Quentin Hubbard a Class 12 and Ron’s son were both gay,and the facts just seem to pile on in my opinion.

    Shoot,even the ole Thelemic bastard Aleister Crowley was bisexual.That’s just damning evidence right there,that Ron was fine with gay people

    • John McMaster - not
      2009-10-29 at 20:15

      On the other hand, Quentin did die under some pretty mysterious circumstances…
      I wonder if he were alive today, where DM would be?

      • Chris
        2009-10-30 at 02:50

        Quentin was being groomed by Ron as his successor.He allegedly committed suicide in a locked car in a desert.
        If he were alive today leading the COS,DM would probably still be filming tech films and waving his fist around at random SO members he outranks.

  12. 2009-10-27 at 02:56

    The last lecture in the State of Man Congress is all about creation. In it LRH says that it is remarkable that [not] more people are conflicted by sexual orientation than there are. The odds are basically 50/50 that a thetan will end up in the sex different from his/her last lifetime when picking up a new body. LRH thought it remarkable that most thetans were able to make the switch to orientation. In other words, if you look at the matter of homosexuality from the viewpoint of a thetan and past lives, it utterly ceases to be an issue. The viewpoint expressed in this lecture is from a much higher common denominator.

    • seth
      2009-10-28 at 18:51

      I remember listening to that lecture but couldn’t remember where it was from, thanks.

      From a whole track perspective, just the fact of having a MEST body is an abberation. Sex is not native to a being, to point out the obvious.

  13. Jimmy Rebel
    2009-10-27 at 05:28

    Ron saw sexual problem as case not ethics. To him it was always to be handle as a person proceded through auditing. This is from “Dead Men’s Goals Part2:

    “Well, let’s take something which is very interesting to us. This is not a nice subject, this is a subject which is practically taboo, but a subject which is making an awful lot of guys unhappy, awful lot of girls unhappy – homosexuality. Why? Why do you get an emphasis on a shifted sex line, hmm? Well, we’ll take Mother who was very dominant. Why is it that we find a dominant mother or a very dominant father? When we find a dominant father for the girl or a dominant mother for the guy, what have we got? We have an interesting setup. When Mama kicks off, we have a Second Dynamic continuum. Already a tendency toward a Second Dynamic continuum by the dominance of that parent. And when Mama kicks off it gets confirmed.

    But during his own lifetime and so forth, living under this dominance, appointing Mother cause, being in Mother’s valence because of such dominance – Mother has already failed, you see, back here. Failed. Mama is very dominant, but she has had some bad failures, such as a divorce. And you will get a life continuum extending from a parent’s failure. See? Mama lived up to here and got divorced, and from then on, and so forth, he feels very sympathetic because of Mama’s divorce; he moves over. It’s a valence problem, isn’t it? Standard, routine valence problem. That’s the way it happens. When Mama dies, this fellow just bloom – horrible.

    Now, if this is a dominant father, very dominant father, this is a girl that’s liable to go in that direction – you’re liable to get a similar setup. When he dies, she gets in bad way-very, very bad way.

    That’s what I mean by goals. You see, there’s a goal on every dynamic. What do you want to be? What do you want the human race to be? What do you want children to be? What do you want your own Second Dynamic to be? What do you want the community to be? What do you want animals to do and be? What do you want the physical universe to amount to? How should God act? It’s a goal too, you know.”

  14. scooter
    2009-10-27 at 05:38

    Hubbard’s last words on the subject were in “Mission Earth.”

    He mocked gay and lesbians somewhat but he also made his villain extremely homophobic and his hero and heroine tolerant of gays.

    I have no idea of what his private stance was but publicly his opinions were in that series of books.

    There was also a Level II tape where he talked about the stupidity of legislating against sexual preferences/practices – I don’t have my tape notes around but I’m sure some auditor out there can give the exact quote for us all.

    My own views?

    I’ve seen many people try to handle their homosexual tendencies with auditing but none succeed – I now believe it isn’t something to be “handled” in any way. And I treat the gays I know as friends, nothing more and nothing less. What they do sexually isn’t my business nor my concern.

  15. Heather
    2009-10-27 at 07:35

    Thanks for starting this discussion. I shall read with interest. I am cross-posting a post I’ve just written on Marty Rathbun’s blog as it is relevant to the discussion.

    In case anyone is interested in reading about one gay Scientologist’s experience, New OTVIII Michael Pattinson has published his story.

    Michael’s auditing certificates were suspended in 1978 when he was said to be “of bad moral character” for having had a 10 second interaction in a public street in which he was attracted to a man (but nothing happened).

    In 1991, Michael was declared guilty of crimes and high crimes due to his sexuality, and was declared no longer an OT (he was then New OTVIII), nor a “Pre-OT”.

    Michael was a friend of Quentin Hubbard. He was part of the undercover move into Clearwater in 1975 and worked on preparations for LRH’s criminal trial in France (1978). He was one of the first to undergo the Purification Rundown and was told to take up to 10g (10,000mg) per day of Niacin!

    Be aware, Michael is not a fan of LRH now, to put it mildly.

    [link removed due to reference to confidential material]

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-27 at 08:54

      According to my opinion
      1) when someone publishes his story a couple of things can be left out or added in or altered.
      2) Something which happens in the Church may not necessarily be the result of LRH’s intentions or not necessarily correct Scientology wise.

  16. Tomas
    2009-10-27 at 08:00

    This subject is so boring in respect to right and wrong. I don`t think it should concern anybody else what adults do to each other regarding sex as long as it is voluntarily. Scientology should not be a moralpolice. Scientology is supposed to be a very advanced applied philosophy to free mankind and still some scientologist have a problem with others sexlife. I have a problem with war, rapists, illuminati and bad TV-entertainment on the other hand. I wonder if there are some aberrations in the 2-D area…?

  17. Thalkirst
    2009-10-27 at 08:53

    A few comments. I studied almost the entire OEC, and about 50% of all Flag Orders and Central Bureaux Orders ever published (these contain policies for the Sea Org). So, I don’t remember speficic quotes, but Hubbard came accross as not particularly homophobic, but he was not 100% tolerant of them either. Sometimes he exhibited a slight dislike for gay people, which is considered ‘normal’ in current society.

    As an example, here you have Chief of Advanced Courses of Apollo telling about the overboard ceremony in the SO, where LRH calls John McMaster a ‘faggot’.

    Let’s face it, quite some ‘normal’ people would have said the same words in the same situation.

    2) The current Church is another matter. I remember Jeff Hawkins saying that DM uses the ‘most demeaning slurs’ about gays, and Jason Beghe also said in his interview that Gold Base was a place when he heard the word ‘faggot’ uttered most frequently.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-27 at 16:48

      I don’t think saying “I hope the damn faggot drowns” was normal even then. But I could be wrong.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-27 at 17:39

      These stories resemble DM’s behavior, in my opinion.

    • Chris
      2009-10-28 at 00:28

      When Ron called Macmaster a “damn faggot” he was in his Navy/Sea Org drill sergeant valence.Macmaster was about to be overboarded.
      Action therefore is justifiied.
      Unless you have a moral objection to armies 🙂

      • ExKane
        2009-10-29 at 04:04

        I have a moral objection to throwing people 30 feet off a boat and calling them derogatory names.

      • ExKane
        2009-10-29 at 04:14

        Justifying something on the mere grounds of a Navy “valence” is not enough.
        I.e., I cannot assume a military valence and justifiably throw my classmates out of a boat with their feet tied.

        • Chris
          2009-10-30 at 03:25

          “I.e., I cannot assume a military valence and justifiably throw my classmates out of a boat with their feet tied.”

          If you were on a ship in the middle of the Atlantic with no wind getting chased by various governments/intelligence agencies, I’d cut you some slack if you,the only with any actual sailing experience on the ship started yelling at people to get the ship moving again.

          • ExKane
            2009-10-30 at 19:12

            But throwing them off with their feet tied? Even those who could not swim? Sheesh. Even a military organization would fall short of overboarding people who couldn’t swim.

            • Chris
              2009-11-01 at 06:19

              “Even a military organization would fall short of overboarding people who couldn’t swim.”

              You obviously don’t know about Ranger School and Special Forces training.
              In those styles of training they “test” hopefuls by invariably trying to murder their comrades in training.
              It’s that old saying “what does not kill you only makes you stronger”.
              Good ol Ron just used his Naval Intelligence training to use this idea for the good people of the Sea Org.
              If you don’t agree with me we could get RJ over here to put you on your intellectual knees again 😉 🙂

  18. Tor Magnus
    2009-10-27 at 09:01

    Overdriver :
    It is all right to regulate sexual issues within reason and within a religious organization. Although the life history form maybe a bit thorough. Anyway, I do not know what they do with the data but according to my experience it was not used for discriminating. Especially not because there are not a huge influx of people into the SO.

    I can’t believe anyone would fill out a form like that! Whatever need would any organization have for your life history? Let alone sexual history?!
    It’s such an incredible invasion into your privacy, even though I’ve never done anything I’m ashamed of I would consider this completely hands-off. Not to forget, what about your ex-partners right to privacy?

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-27 at 21:00

      I filled out this form because I wanted to become a Sea Org member. No one was harmed since 🙂 But I understand your concerns. If you do not want to fill it, thats fine. You will not join the SO and your privacy will not be harmed. Regarding the ex-partner… yes. But you can say ex-partner instead of putting the name on the paper.
      I think the best is not to do things in sexual life for which we can ashame ourselves later. This is self-discipline. It’s like you go to a shop and do not steal something just because you want to have it.

      • graceful
        2009-10-28 at 23:44

        why do you have to be ashamed of things that belong to you only and that one should free to share by his own will and not by interference, interest and curiosity from others? if each person would be living fully his or her own life, other people’s choices wouldn’t matter. each person should handle his own private matters and we wouldn’t be here speculating about the nature of the experiences we chose at some level to go through, in order to arrive to where we need. in order to arrive to the place we never left: ourselves. don’t mind my poetry and even less the generalization.

  19. jason beghe
    2009-10-27 at 11:32

    arc is arc.

    • Chris
      2009-10-28 at 02:40


  20. Maria
    2009-10-27 at 13:04

    I have been told by ex SO members in good standing that sex is heavily constrained in the Sea Org. No sex before marriage, no masturbation, pornography, flirtatious behavior or unseemly behavior with members not your spouse, no children, nothing that would set a bad example, regardless of orientation. This goes along with the life history form. As I understand it all of this is applied rigorously and only to Sea Org Members. It seems to contradict the policy canceling such interference. I was told that the Sea Org constraints are from SO issues that apply only to Sea Org members, not public or routine staffs of Scn. Contrary to that, I know of one public fellow who is not allowed to go into a Church because of a sexual indiscretion. I don’t know the details of what he did, so who knows. I was shown a technical issue called Pain and Sex to explain the necessity of “appropriate” sexual behavior and no before marriage. The issue discussed painful incidents as a source of considerable restimulation, the idea being that it wasn’t a good idea to do things that could restimulate others.

    • Mark A. Baker
      2009-10-27 at 20:44

      “I have been told by ex SO members in good standing that sex is heavily constrained in the Sea Org.”

      By external observation: life is heavily constrained in the Sea Org.

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-27 at 21:41

      “No masturbation” certainly not true, there is no any rule on that. Regarding pornography you can decide for yourself if it is right for a religious community to let pornography prosper knowing especially what lies behind the pornography business including drugs. SO members can have children. They go to an org till the child will reach a given age. Then they can go back. I knew the policy and I know SO members with children going through that procedure.

      • graceful
        2009-10-28 at 10:13

        masturbation is an overt, in scientology.

        • 2009-10-28 at 12:44


          • graceful
            2009-10-28 at 13:12

            at least that was what certain scientologists i met and even in session totally made me feel. it didn’t change my views on the practice though, even less the practice itself.

          • seth
            2009-10-28 at 19:07

            “The facsimilles of an individual can become considerably scrambled by masturbation”…”it can make the individual pull old sex facsimiles into present time for self-stimulation and opens the door for him to desire facsimiles to be in present time. After a while, he will be pulling pain facsimiles into present time.” HFP p.235 (2007 Ed.)

            Based on this it would seem to be an ethics matter.

            • graceful
              2009-10-28 at 23:37

              you know, i learn better by going out by getting through. those statements to not alter the practice or the existence of this sexual experience. one learns the most important things living not reading, ’cause it’s in living and experimenting we find our truth in relation to what we have been told. what is your true?

            • Mark A. Baker
              2009-11-04 at 22:27

              Generally speaking it’s not facsimiles that are being pulled. 😉

      • Thalkirst
        2009-10-28 at 12:37

        Sorry, but you are wrong. SO members CAN’T have children since 1997. If a female Sea Org member gets pregnant, she either has to have an abortion or she leaves the SO. Google Astra Woodcraft’s story as an example. For masturbation you usually get a low condition and you have to read a chapter from Handbook for Preclears where LRH talks about masturbation. Maria’s description is correct.

        • Overdriver
          2009-10-28 at 13:04

          But what is the reference for that? LRH condemns abortion in Book One.
          Anyway I do not know situation after 1997 so you might be correct, but than it seems a departure from LRH policies.

  21. Disinfected
    2009-10-27 at 16:14

    Well, since we are just having fun with this topic, let me throw out my ideas:

    First off, sex of any sort cannot possibly be native to the thetan and therefore one sort is as “good” or “bad” as another when it is simply a matter of meat touching meat and resultant sensation. And sex of any sort can be a means of dramatization of case or of control/suppression. Or an expression of ARC, as Jason implies. So no difference there.

    Dislike of the opposite sex and of the idea of having/raising children is an aberration of the second dynamic and a “hat dump” of our meat body duties 🙂

    LRH says (in SOS, etc.) that 1.1 exhibits perversions of the second dynamic. One should not “reason” backwards that he said all gays are 1.1. That is a common logical fallacy of the sort “All dogs have four legs. Bessie has four legs. Bessie is a dog.”

    My personal feeling on the 1.1 thing and gays? Well, you know how you know what tone of voice is associated with the tone level of anger or hate or cheerfulness or boredom. Well, my feeling is that lisping tone that many gays affect (is it an affectation?) IS the sound of 1.1. I think a lot of gays are 1.1 but certainly not all (see logical fallacy above). Does their case lead them in that direction simply by virtue of their chronic tone? That is what LRH says.

    I have listened to lots of LRH and never considered him a homophobe. He was very open-minded on sex given his cultural environment (1950’s conservatism).

    I cannot really speak to how the Church treats gays generally. I know of at least one openly gay couple that is moving up the Bridge in my area. About those gays that get in trouble with the Church? I do not know if it is because they are gay or because they want to lead a promiscuous lifestyle and promiscuity is a big part of some gay sub-cultures.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-27 at 18:02

      What makes you say gay lisping is the sound of covert hostility?

      It is may be unclear whether Hubbard meant that all sexual perverts are 1.1. If he did, then homosexuals would have to be 1.1 according to him since he says homosexuality is a sexual perversion. But if he meant that “some perverts are not covert hostiles” then I think he should have been more clear on that.
      It sounds to me like he says all perverts are 1.1: “At 1.1 […] Here we have promiscuity, perversion, sadism and irregular practices.”
      This coupled with “The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in dynamic two such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism…” seem to be saying:
      1. Sexual perverts are 1.1
      2. Homosexual are sexual perverts
      3. Therefore, homosexuals are 1.1
      So really your only recourse is ambiguity in the “At 1.1…” statement, but I don’t think it’s very ambiguous. In order for it to be ambiguous, you’d have to make an argument like this: John says “Evil people include redheads, native Americans, and car owners” and you’d have to suggest that John didn’t really mean that ALL redheads are evil, just some of them. But I wouldn’t interpret John’s original statement as saying only some redheads are.

    • Margaret
      2009-10-27 at 19:47

      Disinfected, you wrote: “Dislike of the opposite sex and of the idea of having/raising children is an aberration of the second dynamic and a ‘hat dump’ of our meat body duties”

      There are gay men and women who very much like the opposite sex but are not sexually attracted to them. This doesn’t mean they are covertly hostile (1.1). Further, there are also gay couples who like the idea of having/raising children, and some have adopted and are raising them.

      So is a monogamous gay couple, who are raising children, an aberration in your eyes?

      I think the real question most gay people want to know is: Will the church allow them to be practicing homosexuals, and allow them to go up the Bridge?

      My observsations have been: The Church lets public Scientologists remain practicing homosexuals up to a certain point on the Bridge (Clear usually), and after that, they don’t allow them to go any further until they agree that they will no longer practice homosexuality?

      Does anyone know of any open (and practicing) gay people who have been allowed onto the OT levels?

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-27 at 21:44

      Disinfected, I regard yours a good post.

  22. Nomnom
    2009-10-27 at 16:40

    As an aside, homosexuality is not limited to human beings. It is quite widespread in the animal kingdom. For reference, the book “Biological Exuberance” has lots of information and examples about this.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-27 at 17:41

      Especially in Penguins.

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-27 at 20:22

      And sometimes they even eat their own spouse after mating… Certainly not an example I want to follow as a human being.

      • ExKane
        2009-10-27 at 21:30

        I can’t tell if this was a joke or if you were suggesting that Nomnom was trying to suggest that humans should follow animals’ example.

        • Overdriver
          2009-10-27 at 23:18

          I say that we are human so I would not compare ourselves to animals. Different levels of existence. But if I set the animal kingdom as an example than I can as well say why not eat my spouse after having sex? Anyway animals does not wear clothes and I am perfectly fine with nudism but I would not take stand for going to work without clothes.

  23. Overdriver
    2009-10-27 at 21:30

    I do not have any problem with the fact that a person is homosexual. As Ron said, it is a private matter as long as one does not harm others.
    In my opinion the problem lies in this: reproduction is possible between a male and a female. This is the solution of nature, so I regard this the natural way. As well, I would not harm or discriminate anyone for being homosexual. On the other hand when we say that being homosexual is natural it can be regarded as covertly harming others… Why? Because it is propaganda. It is really a small thing, but I do not want to have a child and tell to him or her under society pressure that yeah, I do not mind if you sleep with the same sex, enjoy yourself. It’s unbelievable that this society forces us in this direction. I also want to have rights as a heterosexual, you know. But I feel I can’t even tell my opinion overtly on this subject, just like I can’t tell my opinion of the Church overtly…
    But again, I am absolutely against discrimination or condemnation of any kind.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-28 at 00:04

      I disagree. First, using computers is rather unnatural. Should we have reservations about that, too?
      Just because something is not the “solution of nature” does not mean it’s unnatural. Humans have been engaging in homosexual acts in probably every society that has existed. I find it highly likely that homosexuals have existed ever since humans evolved – and before that, as we seen in the animal kingdom. So, how can you say it is not natural? Indeed, what is “natural” when it comes to complex behaviors?

      The majority of people that try to increase acceptance of homosexuals do not do so by claiming that it’s “just natural.” Where is the propaganda?
      Nobody is taking away your “rights as a heterosexual.” Explain to me how this is the case, if you wish.
      When two homosexuals engage in consenting sex – who cares? It is not harming a single person. Is it?
      (I’m not attacking you.)

      • 2009-10-28 at 08:33

        Appeal to Nature” is a rather common logical fallacy.

        • Overdriver
          2009-10-28 at 11:03

          Yes, you’re right again. For example natural catastrophes are natural but certainly we do not wish these to happen.

          • graceful
            2009-10-28 at 14:29

            the fact we do not wish them doesn’t make those natural catastrophes wrong. perhaps ‘wrong’ is just a conception stemming from the place you are (living and considering).

            • Overdriver
              2009-10-28 at 16:43

              It is certainly not wrong… when there is an earthquake and you are stucked between two big rocks and die there suffering in pain… until it does not happen with you. Maybe even then, it is just a consideration… Yeah, this statement is beatiful philosophically.

              • graceful
                2009-10-28 at 23:34

                i am aware of the suffering nature causes. it has very destructive expressions, to us at least. you don’t see any other being besides us humans, judging nature, though. we are the smart ones.

          • ExKane
            2009-10-28 at 17:53

            Overdriver, I believe you misunderstood Geir’s point.

      • Overdriver
        2009-10-28 at 11:23

        ExKane, yes computers are rather unnatural and there are many disadvantages from the way we use them at present.
        So we accept homosexuality without any reservation. What would you suggest to be the next step in sexual liberty…?
        Besides as Geir pointed out earlier, “Arguments for something because it historically been that way = Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition) – a logical fallacy.”
        I really do not want to compare the two but going further on the line of your logic certainly there are people who wants to have sex with underage children or with animals. Probably in “every society that has existed” (quote from you from above). “When two” of these man/child man/animal engage in consenting sex – who cares? It is not harming a single person. Is it?”
        I think cultures and societies want to set up a line, a border somewhere and it is not an easy thing. So it’s good to respect and tolerate each other’s views.

        • ExKane
          2009-10-28 at 17:50

          I do not believe a child, or certainly an animal, is in a position to be truly in consent in terms of sexual acts. Any sex acts perpetrated unto a child by an adult is abuse.
          What would I suggest be the next step in sexual liberty? Anything that does not harm anyone, and is engaged between consenting people, is fine by me. Clearly, animals and children do not fall in this category, since they do not have the maturity or awareness to be truly consenting.
          Again: anything between consenting individuals, with the maturity and knowledge to be able to consent, is acceptable.
          Note: I was not saying that something should be accepted just because it has been going on for a while and in many societies; this was merely a rebuttal of your point that homosexuality is “unnatural.”

          • graceful
            2009-10-28 at 23:32

            what if the ones engaged in the sexual activity are not mature enough to know what they are doing? that can happen too. what is right then?

            • ExKane
              2009-10-29 at 16:37

              This is getting too intricate and off topic. About child-child encounters, you’ll have to ask a philosopher 😉

              • grace
                2009-10-29 at 17:55

                thank’s but mine was a retorical question, i have found my answer already, have you found yours as well?

          • Overdriver
            2009-10-29 at 17:04

            It will be decided by laws if the person or the animal is in that position or not…
            And when you will born into a society like that it is very likely you will not question that because those will be the standards…
            So it is better to do something about the present situation regarding the moral and spiritual state of man before we get into a situation like that.

            • ExKane
              2009-10-29 at 17:41

              And what is wrong with not questioning homosexuals?

              • Overdriver
                2009-10-29 at 18:25

                I leave it for you to answer that.

              • ExKane
                2009-10-29 at 20:51

                Very well: nothing is wrong with it.

    • Margaret
      2009-10-28 at 07:28

      Overdriver, There are a certain percentage of heterosexual couples who cannot have children, for some biological reason. They then adopt, create a 2D and live a happy life.

      Should we say that they are somehow “covertly harming others” because what they were doing was not “natural”?

      To a homosexual, being homosexual is natural. Your child won’t be hurt or turn homosexual, by knowing that fact.

      • Overdriver
        2009-10-28 at 11:38

        Margaret, there is a gradient scale. The better for the child if he or she has own parents. However this is a generality and meant for “ideal scenes”. Unfortunatelly, there are cases where their own (heterosexual) parents maltreat the child. Ethics is reason. We can use reason for the above 2D problem and we can have good solutions.
        Certainly we cannot say that the two heterosexual couples “covertly harming others” but that does not proves what I’ve said above is false.
        Regarding the “knowing facts”, results of researches can be altered. It is very interesting that there are so many things that can be inherited but not homosexuality… Or if you speak about homosexual couples raising child I did not say a thing against this. But I am sure that a child will likely to follow easier a thing which he sees around or which he sees agreed upon by others. So we will have a society where homosexuality will be more common.

        • Tor Magnus
          2009-10-28 at 15:42

          Overdriver :
          Regarding the “knowing facts”, results of researches can be altered. It is very interesting that there are so many things that can be inherited but not homosexuality…

          I think the problem here is that you are (presumably) not gay and do not seem to be able to understand what it means.
          Forget effeminate behavior and dress sense. Imagine that the attraction you have for the opposite sex and (repulsion?) for the same are switched around. There is nothing you can do about this. It’s nothing about choice, it’s about what your body tells you.

          Furthermore nature versus nurture is not determined in regards to homosexuality. So saying that homosexuality cannot be inherited is jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

  24. Maria
    2009-10-28 at 18:35

    I wonder if it doesn’t really come down to the morals of a particular culture. As an example, in many cultures polygamy is commonly practiced and the more husbands or wives you have, the better — a point of pride, if you will. The Greeks of the “golden age” of Western civilization practiced homosexuality openly and with pride. Perhaps it is having to hide one’s acts because something is immoral, subject to condemnation, that drives people down the tone scale. There has been considerable duress, pain, punishment, control, etc. on the subject of proper sexual behavior in western civilization for nearly 2,000 years and so it is thoroughly entrenched as normal and moral in most Western thought and belief systems.

    • 2009-10-28 at 20:34

      That is an interesting viewpoint. Maybe homosexuals were more 1.1 (or more generally down tone) some decades ago when oppression of homosexuals was common?

      • Maria
        2009-10-28 at 21:12

        I thought of it because of the meaning of the word perverse: turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked (evil or morally bad in principle or practice) or corrupt. It says perverted behavior. What comes first? The chicken or the egg? Fascinating discussion.

        • 2009-10-28 at 21:25

          The egg came first.

          • Maria
            2009-10-28 at 21:55


        • Margaret
          2009-10-28 at 23:20

          A similar situation, in my view, happened with African-Americans. They initially were beaten down (captured, enslaved), and for decades were cowed and afraid; as the physical and mental shackles were removed (abolition, civil rights movement), African-Americans come up the tone scale, first with anger and resentment, taking a stand demanding equality in all ways.

          We now have an African-American US President, who is interested in the survival and health of all Americans.

      • ExKane
        2009-10-28 at 21:26

        Do you mean that homosexuals were more 1.1 or that more homosexuals were 1.1? There’s a big difference. I do not see any reason to believe that one can know one’s level on the tone scale by mere sexual preferences.

        • 2009-10-28 at 21:56

          I agree. I am saying that people go down tone due to oppression. If people with big ears are the laughing stock of the society and get heavily oppressed, they would tend to be lower on the tone scale. That’s all.

          • Margaret
            2009-10-28 at 23:07

            Yes, this is exactly my argument. I think the long-term suppression of homosexuals created this sort of “fear-anger” emotion that could be relieved and brought uptone by taking the suppression off the group — which I think it happening as part of the whole “gay rights” movement.

        • grace
          2009-10-28 at 23:53

          hwhy do you keep trying to fit people in such a small scale, when a human being is so full of particularities and factors and is so complex? can you see the discrimination that can lead to and the danger of labeling people like that? what the f*** is 1.1 or any other tone scale number?

          • 2009-10-29 at 10:45

            There are other dimensions than Tone level. Try understanding the whole before you attack one part.

            • grace
              2009-10-29 at 10:55

              i dig it. i just don’t think that in any other dimensions either it’s possible to realisticaly categorize people in whatever scale.

              • 2009-10-29 at 16:34

                You categorize people every day – in your own private system. People are categorized constantly in society – in their job performance, in the Olympic games and generally in sports. It may be helpful to have more standardized ways than your private system.

      • graceful
        2009-10-28 at 23:30

        i agree. the repression of desires and sexual nature makes people go gradually down, if they don’t find outlets. but somethings need specific outlets and there’s no possible escape by trying to find others.

  25. ElenaP
    2009-10-28 at 21:11

    „This is a recent interview done by a Macedonian news letter with the Mission Holder of Skopje Mission ( Habardov Centar za Dijanetika Skientologija), Stefan Kostarov (Стефан Ќостаров):?????

    He is openly answering some things not being aware I guess how strange that looks to the outside normal people.

    Here is his statement on homosexuality:

    “*Какви се ставовите на сиентологијата во врска со хомосексуалноста на пример?

    -Хомосекуалноста е аберација. Тоа е нешто што не е природно.”


    Q: What is Scienotlogy attitude regarding homosexuality, for example?

    A: Homosexuality is an aberation. It is something that is not natural.”

    Source: [link removed due to reference to confidential material]

    • graceful
      2009-10-28 at 23:27

      those are only repressed fantasies of LRH. part of his work if not all of it was a projection of himself.

      • 2009-10-29 at 10:43

        Jumping to wildly generalized conclusions, are we? Not on this board. Get your act together.

        • grace
          2009-10-29 at 11:01

          it is my opinion, the way i see him and his work. why does that bother you and where am i acting off the rules?

          • 2009-10-29 at 16:36

            Add something like IMO or even better IMHO. Generalized subjective statements masking as truth is bad form.

            • grace
              2009-10-29 at 20:23

              i’m sorry, i find these rules too constricting.

  26. ExKane
    2009-10-28 at 22:23

    Geir, do you care to express your views?

    • 2009-10-29 at 10:32


      I have nothing against heterosexuals. I have nothing against homosexuals. I have friends in both “camps”. Jason summed it up perfectly; “ARC is ARC”.

      I believe Hubbard was a child of his times, and despite that he didn’t write much negative on the subject of homosexuality. I have no real evidence that he was a homophobe (calling someone a faggot in a stressed situation doesn’t count). Even if he was, I don’t much care.

      I do care about abuses, and in my experience, there is homophobia in the church. Michael Pattison’s story shows abuse. Stories of trying to “convert” a homosexual on the OT levels shows abuse.

      I want to help each and everyone be themselves. If that is a lesbian, great – go for it.

      I believe it is breaking basic human rights to discriminate against homosexuals, and that oppression will bring people down the tone scale – maybe to 1.5, maybe to 1.1 or maybe lower, and this may explain the apparent promiscuity among some homosexuals.

      I think Hubbard was right when he talks about close to a 50% chance of taking a body with the different sex than last lifetime. Thetans most usually adjust perfectly to the environment – they “become” the body, the sex, the race, the defects of the body etc. Some do not adjust completely – and that is a good sign. Some become homosexuals . There are of course other was that happen too – it could be cultural, group think, experimenting and yes aberration – just as someone could be aberrated into being hetero.

      All this said – if everyone became homosexuals, man would be an endangered species 😉

      • grace
        2009-10-29 at 10:59

        All this said – if everyone became homosexuals, man would be an endangered species
        by this time, i think it would be better to endanger man, since we are the ones endangering all other species.

        • grace
          2009-10-29 at 11:02

          i was quoting your last sentence and i commented on it; sorry for the visual mess it got into.

        • 2009-10-29 at 16:35

          Would you like to go first?

          • grace
            2009-10-29 at 22:54

            i would love that we all go before we destroy the planet, or even before some wacky asteroid comes around and screws this all.

            • 2009-10-29 at 23:27

              Let’s get back on topic.

          • grace
            2009-10-30 at 12:42

            would you like me to?

        • Overdriver
          2009-10-29 at 16:59

          It’s really not “we”. There are some decision makers at the top. So “they” 😀

          • grace
            2009-10-29 at 22:50

            so where’s the collective responsibility of that? 🙂

      • ExKane
        2009-10-29 at 16:50

        Going out on a limb: if the thetan of a homosexual has not, as you say, adjusted or “become” the body, then (via your own theory) wouldn’t they have a more able/less attached free will then heterosexuals (all else being equal)?

        Regarding LRH calling him a faggot: why do you think this was prompted by stress, and why do you think stress would excuse the use of faggot? The poster of that story implies LRH was consistently homophobic (and racist).

        • 2009-10-29 at 17:10

          1. Somewhat more free than the average on that specific subject – but of course statistically an equal amount of heterosexuals would match that increased freedom.

          2. The situation seemed rather special. I know people who have called others “faggots” (or worse) – and I still would not classify them as homophobic. The poster implies… yes. Not much in the area of real evidence, though.

          • ExKane
            2009-10-29 at 20:44

            Why did it seem special to you? It is known that Hubbard’s overboarding was a commonplace event after its inception. I’m still not clear on where stress comes in.

            • 2009-10-29 at 21:32

              Common or not, I think the event was special, don’t you?

              • ExKane
                2009-10-29 at 22:23

                Special meaning what? And how does it being special relate to whether or not Hubbard’s flares indicate homophobia? I also still don’t understand where the stress comes in. Please be clear; I’m not getting you.

              • 2009-10-29 at 23:32

                I would view overboarding as special. I would see it as a stressed out sit.

                Besides, someone swearing with the use of “faggot” is not necessarily an indication of homophobia. I would say that is reading a bit to much into that statement alone – although not saying he wasn’t homophobic either.

              • ExKane
                2009-10-30 at 06:40

                Assuming that LRH was even stressed is speculation as well. In my opinion, stress is as weak an excuse for stating “I hope the damn faggot drowns” as it is for throwing people off a boat with their feet tied – even those who couldn’t swim, which could potentially kill them.

              • Chris
                2009-11-01 at 06:35

                Nobody as far as I was aware ever actually died because they were drowned.
                SO vets were secretly expected by Ron as far as I knew to actually jump in the water and save those poor souls.Hell,it’s what actually happened.

  27. Margaret
    2009-10-28 at 22:59

    Overdriver :But I am sure that a child will likely to follow easier a thing which he sees around or which he sees agreed upon by others. So we will have a society where homosexuality will be more common.

    We’ll likely have a society in which homosexuals are more more accepted, less suppressed and ultimately (hopefully) more uptone. I don’t think we’ll have any MORE homosexuality … what we’ll have is more people who were already homosexual, not having to withhold the fact that they are homosexual.

  28. All the young dudes
    2009-10-29 at 00:03

    Overdriver :
    I do not have any problem with the fact that a person is homosexual. As Ron said, it is a private matter as long as one does not harm others.
    In my opinion the problem lies in this: reproduction is possible between a male and a female. This is the solution of nature, so I regard this the natural way. As well, I would not harm or discriminate anyone for being homosexual. On the other hand when we say that being homosexual is natural it can be regarded as covertly harming others… Why? Because it is propaganda. It is really a small thing, but I do not want to have a child and tell to him or her under society pressure that yeah, I do not mind if you sleep with the same sex, enjoy yourself. It’s unbelievable that this society forces us in this direction. I also want to have rights as a heterosexual, you know. But I feel I can’t even tell my opinion overtly on this subject, just like I can’t tell my opinion of the Church overtly…
    But again, I am absolutely against discrimination or condemnation of any kind.

    I’m w/ you here… Isene. where are your views?

  29. StarsAwait
    2009-10-29 at 00:18

    I’ve spent a lot of time in Texas so I could “pull a long beard” on this one, but I won’t.

  30. Overdriver
    2009-10-29 at 10:12

    If we look at things from the spiritual point of view even heterosexuality is an aberration as we are not flesh but “spirit” or “soul” or thetan or whatever we call but not material in nature. So if sexual desire takes over the control, does not matter if it is heterosexual or homosexual, than both can be regarded as aberration. Regardless what we think is politically correct speach.
    Similarly if a person’s mind is fixated on something that is regarded “not optimum” (I don’t know the exact concept they say) even in Buddhism.

  31. Tor Magnus
    2009-10-29 at 13:37

    I would like to point out that while it’s all well and good that this subject is discussed I also believe that it has been derailed slightly by the cop-out that “the thetan/spirit/soul” is asexual. This turns it in to a discussion of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.

    I hope that it’s perfectly clear to all that no matter how much you would like to believe that you have a thetan/soul/spirit that is eternal, no such thing has ever been proven to exist. Though of course it has not been disproved, neither has the pink elephant that that is looking over everyones shoulder as they are read this.

    I do not want this to turn into a discussion of spirituality either, that is not my purpose, however I believe we should maybe try to keep the discussion in a frame of reference that we can all share, no matter which spiritual belief or lack of it that we have.

    • 2009-10-29 at 16:40

      The frame of reference on this blog is Scientology. It is after all called “Straight talk on Scientology”. Your statement is therefore the derailment. And btw; You don’t have a thetan – stating so shows lack of understanding.

      • Tor Magnus
        2009-10-29 at 18:53

        isene :
        The frame of reference on this blog is Scientology. It is after all called “Straight talk on Scientology”. Your statement is therefore the derailment. And btw; You don’t have a thetan – stating so shows lack of understanding.

        The frame of this post was homosexuality. I felt that trying to excuse their opinions by passing it on to something supernatural was dodging the subject and therefore a derailment. Furthermore it was also a comment on the lack of basis for the belief of the existence of a thetan and thereby on Scientology. So no, I don’t think you had a single valid point there.
        And btw; I know that according to Scientology you are a thetan, [removed due to reference to confidential material]. Besides it’s irrelevant for my argument how you conceive a thetan to be as it’s still as baseless to reality. Red Herring.

        • 2009-10-29 at 19:29

          The blog post stated: “Let’s discuss Scientology’s stance and practice regarding homosexuality, L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings and opinions on the subject as well as your own views. I will give my own opinions as part of the discussion.” So, Hubbard’s teachings is indeed relevant in the discussion here. It is relevant to discuss how homosexuality can be explained within the framework of Scientology. Sorry, you fail. And watch it with the references to confidential material.

          • Tor Magnus
            2009-10-29 at 20:05

            You are now reformulating you original post. Hubbards teaching do to my knowledge not relate homosexuality to thetans, am I mistaken on this?

            No need for the name calling though I think.

            Sorry about the confidential material, I was not aware that that bit was not common knowledge.

            • 2009-10-29 at 21:31

              The original post is the original post. And yes, you are mistaken – see the earlier comment on the chances of having the same sex body next lifetime.

              Saying that you failed is not name calling. No need to be touchy.

              • Tor Magnus
                2009-10-29 at 21:52

                You can take the man out of scientology but you can’t take the scientology out of the man.

                It’s been enlightening.

                Good luck.

              • 2009-10-29 at 22:20

                I see you ran out of arguments.

              • grace
                2009-10-29 at 22:57

                arguments for what? i don’t know need to defend anything here as i don’t want to convince you of anything either. i don’t wanna win or prove anything less the superiority of my reasoning. you like to argue, i only like to express my view point. it’s your resistance that creates arguing because it’s a game you like. i use to appreciate more than these days, i have come a different way. i don’t play that game. but i love sneaking around here and talk to you guys. good night.

  32. Maria
    2009-10-29 at 14:09

    A scientific study in 1999 by Dr. Bruce Bagemihl Ph. D. thoroughly debunked homosexuality as “unnatural”. His landmark study documented over 450 species routinely participating in homosexuality, bisexuality and all manner of non-procreative sexual activity. His released a book about it called: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. It was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas as evidence that homosexual behavior is natural.

    Of additional interest is that the Roman Catholic Church described homosexuality as a “sin against nature” at the Council of Nablus in 1120 AD. It was a proclamation that was expected to be obeyed if you didn’t want to land up in a very bad place.

    Finally, it seems you don’t even need a partner or physical stimulation — vivid dreams work just fine, imagination can result in orgasm and there are even sexual thought transference studies. The question is, do you even need a body for any of this? Maybe you don’t need pictures. Maybe the people studying tantric yoga were right and it is a pale mirror of spiritual bliss. Maybe…

    • Margaret
      2009-10-29 at 17:02

      “450 species routinely participating in … non-procreative sexual activity”

      Don’t think we need to go into the animal kingdom (or homosexuals) to find this one. 🙂

      • Maria
        2009-10-29 at 17:23

        Well, it certainly brings new meaning to what’s “natural.” I was chuckling at the inventiveness of some species.

      • grace
        2009-10-29 at 23:07

        we would be much happier and lighter if we would focus on our similarity with animals, then by thinking of ourselves as superior to them because we are not. they have much more to teach us about life than we do. our problem as a species is the arrogance of the mind. smart asses we are, hey? they know how to live life, lol

        • Margaret
          2009-10-30 at 05:00

          Not sure most animals can create a universe …

          • grace
            2009-10-30 at 12:47

            good you have doubts, it makes you humble.

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-29 at 18:19

      The fact that there are examples for that, makes it normal?
      You know, I saw a film where it was told about a species of monkeys that they are practicing sexual act with their kiddies on a group level. So it is normal to have sex with your children or the children of your neighbour? Maybe 50 years from now we will grow up to that point… Come on!
      Again, I have no problem with homosexuals, but please, respect each other and do not cross lines which are generating inconveniences.
      The Roman Catholic Church maybe was totally right by that time where even hygenic circumstances were poor. And they even condemned sex without the purpose for breeding I guess. Try to understand the times as well. It is sometimes not easy to get together the needs of the group with the needs of the individual. If you look at only the needs of the individual, then the group as a whole will surely be succumb together with the individual.
      Tantric yoga is about something else. It is exactly about taking control of bodily desires… Even between heterosexuals…

      • grace
        2009-10-30 at 09:29

        tantra is awesome 😛

        • 2009-10-30 at 10:38

          ?? Some of your posts come across a bit like spam.

        • Overdriver
          2009-10-30 at 21:38

          You are probably speaking about pornography. That is different.

  33. Maria
    2009-10-29 at 14:42

    I wanted to add a link on the subject of Proposition 8, that seems like a very possible solution: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20090310_kmiec.html

    The gist of it is that the word “marriage” is what is being argued. Religions holding views that “marriage” can only be heterosexual are angered that they would be forced to provide “marriage” services not in keeping with their beliefs, thus violating their freedom to practice their own religion. Religiously sanctioned marriages are not recognized in law until they are registered with the State, and are not necessary to the legal process of declaring marital status. The recommendation is that marriage be reserved as a term for Church sanctions and a new legal status and term, “espousal” be used to indicate a lifetime commitment made between any two people. This way everybody gets their legal benefits and no one has to give up their beliefs.

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-29 at 16:54

      Dear Maria, I did not read the whole reference that you linked but what you said below the reference makes sense to me. If homosexuals in ‘espousal’ have the same rights than heterosexuals in ‘marriage’ than there is no discrimination. Let’s not redefine the word marriage. And do not force priests to do against their will. This can lead to more tolerance on both side.

  34. Margaret
    2009-10-29 at 17:08

    Maria :The recommendation is that marriage be reserved as a term for Church sanctions and a new legal status and term, “espousal” be used to indicate a lifetime commitment made between any two people.

    I can understand the desire to find a compromise. But consider this: 50 years ago, inter-racial marriage was illegal in the U.S. on “moral grounds”. Would a solution have been to allow inter-racial couples to become “espousaled” instead of “married”?

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-29 at 17:55

      Marriage is a bound between female and male by definition. Was the definition different 50 years ago? Sometimes moral codes right, sometimes wrong. Sometimes they are right on whole-scale level, sometimes they are wrong at the same time on individual level. Sometimes change is necessary, sometimes not.
      But you see, those guys went halfway. Please, be tolerant for their faith and their fears.

      • Margaret
        2009-10-30 at 04:54

        The definition of marriage is based on how the society chooses to define it. It was illegal for an inter-racial couple to marry 50 years ago. It took the courts — not the voters — to decide that it was a violation of human rights.

  35. Maria
    2009-10-29 at 17:17

    It’s kind of a moot point — the inter-racial issue has long been settled and the legal system builds upon its earlier cases. I just thought the link was interesting because it explored all the legal ramifications from the point of view of an attorney trained in the practice of law.

  36. grace
    2009-10-29 at 18:00

    isene :You categorize people every day – in your own private system. People are categorized constantly in society – in their job performance, in the Olympic games and generally in sports. It may be helpful to have more standardized ways than your private system.

    my private system is much more common than you think 😉 those categories are external, they can never tell the ultimate truth of a person. bye!

  37. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-29 at 22:55

    I don’t have a whole lot to contribute to this, except to say that IMHO, DM could certainly use a few screaming queens from West Hollywood to come enlighten him on event set design. 😉

  38. Pavlovian Dogh
    2009-10-30 at 13:27

    Hi all!

    Interesting subject, in a fresh waterhole.

    In my opinion the main purpose of any sex drive is procreation, and there is a pleasure award for sexual activities.

    However, there is no proof that the sexual preference is judged according to Devine Laws, which is the favourite idea hosted by religious bigots and intolerant people, carrying the true moral flag, who has stigmatized sexual preference/behavior other than their own True Brand.

    I have a special viewpoint on this matter: As the world becomes more and more over-populated, homosexuality is not just okey it is the greatest good. And we are definitely NOT facing extinction for a homosexual reason, since that in fact is a choice based on love.

    Pertinent or not – I’m not homosexual, but once upon a time I did explore it 🙂

  39. John Peeler
    2009-10-30 at 15:43

    Someone on this thread said that Hubbard only wrote the following because he was a “child of the times.” Regardless, if he later cancelled anything having to do with getting in between matters of 2D or sexuality, he still wrote the following and IMO, gives one a good look into the mind of the man who wrote it. Shouldn’t he later have had DMSMH and Science of Survival edited to show what his more current views of homosexuality were, that is if his views on it ever changed?

    From DMSMH:

    “The sexual pervert (and by this term
    Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all
    forms of deviation in dynamic two such as
    homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism,
    etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and
    Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill

    Science of Survival, Book One, Chapt. 1:

    “At 1.1 on the tone scale we enter the
    area of the most vicious reversal of the
    second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity,
    perversion, sadism, and irregular practices.”

    Science of Survival, Book One, Chapt. 8:

    “The person may claim to love others and to
    have the good of others as his foremost
    interest; yet, at the same moment, he works,
    unconsciously or otherwise, to injure or
    destroy the lives and reputations of people
    and also to destroy property.”

    Science of Survival, Book One, Chapt. 13:

    “The only answers would seem to be the
    permanent quarantine of such persons from
    society to avoid the contagion of their
    insanities and the general turbulence which
    they bring to any order, thus forcing it
    lower on the scale, or processing such
    persons until they have attained a level on
    the tone scale which gives them value.”

    Science of Survival, Book One, Chapt. 13:

    “Such people should be taken from the
    society as rapidly as possible and uniformly
    institutionalized; for here is the level of
    the contagion of immorality, and the
    destruction of ethics.”

    Science of Survival, Book One, Chapt. 18:

    “People on this level on the second
    dynamic are intensely dangerous in the
    society, since aberration is contagious. A
    society which reaches this level is on its
    way out of history, as went the Greeks, as
    went the Romans, as goes modern European and
    American culture. Here is a flaming danger
    signal which must be heeded if a race is to
    go forward.”

    • Margaret
      2009-10-30 at 20:40

      So you prefer historical revisionism?

      LRH changed lots of concepts, opinions, definitions, etc. over the years. He didn’t always go back to each earlier concept, opinion, etc. and re-write it — he simply came out with additional data showing his new/changed view. The trick is to look at and understand the subject as a whole — not nit-pick this and that quote out of context from the whole.

      Further, in the 1950s, homosexuals were probably banging down LRH’s door to be cured — LRH’s view was probably driven as much by the homosexuals themselves as it was by the then society’s views on homosexuality.

      Scientology and LRH have always been about bringing out the basic personality, and achieving self-determinism. Allow and encourage people to be truly self-determined — and don’t evaluate for them (within the limits of the laws of the land) — and they (and we) will be fine.

  40. 2009-10-31 at 22:24

    About gay marriage, I do not know if hubbard would had been in agreement, but being him so interested about exact word meanings and definitions is very hard to think he would had been in agreement to social engeenering via alteration of meaning of words.

    The way I see it, that battle of “gay marriage” is not about the creation of the institution or the performing of an action, but to CHANGE the meaning of a word.

    I am the most gay man you could ever meet.

    I am gay.

    God lord, I am so frakking gay that is fabulous!

    I am, however, not a homosexual.

    I am just a very uptone person, my outlook in life is almost allways positive, and I am looking how to have fun and make other around me have fun and enjoy life.

    That is SOOOOO gay.

    But you see..? the meaning of that word was altered to mean something else.

    The word was taken away from me, so I am taking it back.

    I am gay.

    I am gay man with a fixation with big natural boobed women.

    Going back to gay marriage.

    It certainly is is fair and necesary to create an institution to lawfully reconognize and protect the union between a man and another man, or between a woman and another woman.


    Why does it have however this institution have to be called “marriage”?

    The word marriage already exist, it has a definite meaning and requires no change.

    It is adressed at a very especifical action. The lawful and legal union between a man and a woman.

    That is its meaning.

    When a man tells me that he is married, I do not have to ask if it is to a man or to a woman.

    I know it is to a woman , because that is the meaning of the word “married”.

    Yes, if I were a homosexual and I were to be in a comma in bed, I would like that my man were to one to take the medical decisions about my life.

    Yes, I would like that that rigth were legaly protected and enforceable.

    Yes I would want that my medical benefits in my job were to my man.

    Yes, I would like that in the event of a accident my posessions were in first priority to him.

    Yes, all those actions and more should be legaly and lawfully protected by a state created institution.

    But the name of that institution does not have to be the word “marriage.”

    It would be a new and definite action, the union of two persons of the same sex.

    So lets assign to it a proper and unique name.

    How about (example) “manrriage”. ?

    So a man tells me “I am manrried” I know it is to another man. There is no questions about it.

    Especifical. Sharp. To the point.

    And no chances of subrepticial social engeniering via alterations of words.

    None of “oh, it is all the same”

    It would be VERY diferent, and very diferentiated.

    In listening the argument about “gay marriage” one that is used a lot is the one that “it is a right”.

    Well, I do have a right that I like, and want to keep, and do not want to have it taken away from me.

    And that is the right of being able to ask to a woman;

    “please marry me”, without she having to ask…What do you mean?


  41. 2009-11-01 at 17:16

    Back when I worked for Scientology, there was a “public” (non-staff) young man, Chris, who had very wealthy parents. I was designated by the staff registrars to go with Chris and spend a day with his parents at their residence on a golf resort. When I expressed concern over going somewhere and being with a male that I didn’t know, I was assured that he wouldn’t “bother” me. It was a fine day, with a nice man and his family. My golfing abilities were nil, but I gave it my best – we had a good visit, and I returned to the org later that evening, for work.

    (At this time in my life I admit to being naive to any concept of anything other than heterosexuality. LOL, I used to walk past the “trans” bars thinking that the women seemed overdressed for that part of town.)

    Back to the day with Chris and his folks – he was able to successfully procure a substantial amount of additional money from his parents to continue with his auditing.

    Turns out that they were convinced by our day-visit that his auditing was working -to turn him straight. Unfortunately for him, the entire focus of Chris’s auditing by scientology tech terminals and his parents was to handle one of THEIR ruins – Chris’s homosexuality. Chris seemed affected only to the degree that it was ruining their lives – not with being gay. Auditing didn’t “work” in this regard.

    Homosexuality IMHO is not the only area where the focus of scientology is based on someone else’s fixed idea of what is “correct and proper”. Homosexuality is the topic at hand, hence my story. 🙂

  42. pedrofcuk
    2010-06-25 at 05:49

    All I can say and especially with regard to Geir’s original post is that with regard to me and my sexuality you are all a million miles away. I am a man, my partner is a man, we have sex. I could say I am a thetan in a male body but it changes nothing if I do or if I don’t. In the past I have been married and have a lot of children, I won’t say how many but it’s more than the fingers and thumb on one hand. My partner is happy, I am happy, my ex-wife is accepting, as are those of my kids who know about this, some are just a bit young at this stage. Hubbard was a hate-fuelled monster who felt inadequate in so many areas but covered it up well, he had an ability to recognise how best to dupe people and scam them while convincing them that they benefited or it was for their own good. He can never be excused for his homophobia or his racism, in spite of his words he had no love for mankind, he was a selfish, arrogant, megalomaniac, drunk, with a thirst for absolute power. The way he hid himself away for the last 20 years of his life is very telling.

    • 2010-06-25 at 08:04

      Your hatred is quite telling.

      I am happy that you are in a good relationship. I admire anyone who is true to their own feelings and love for another. I would fight for homosexuals rights any day of the week.

      Shed the anger and have some amazing fun.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: