ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at


Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Tanstaafl, Dec 2, 2007.

  1. Operating DB

    Operating DB Truman Show Dropout

    Being in the cult it's easy and often necessary to adopt the group think. Many of us bought into all these aberrant points of view. After all, hu666ard knew best! I'm glad you let go of the prejudice!
  2. Royal Prince Xenu

    Royal Prince Xenu Trust the Psi Corps.

    There is a staff policy which states that the org is not meant to interfere in people's second dymanic affairs. We need more gay people. Have you seen the pupulation count on this planet? The Second Dynamic needs a damn good CRASH.
  3. Lee_from_phx

    Lee_from_phx Patron with Honors

    I've not read all of the posts here, so forgive me if I'm repeating something that has already been said.

    Hubbard had a very big issue with gays, and as a result the cult that he created has very big issues with them. The followers of the cult hate gays without even being told to, it is steeped in the group-think of the cult. The culties can't tell you WHY they hate gay people, because they don't know themselves. They can come up with rationalizations as to why, but those should not be confused with a reason.

    Hubbard probably went over the deep end when it came to gays when it turned out that one of his sons was gay. Of course the inability of his vaunted "tech" to cure gay people of their desire to smoke sausage and take it up the tail pipe didn't do anything to improve his opinion of them I'm sure.

    Gay people have got bad wiring. Its like being dyslexic. Something in their brain is different. Some people will try to tell you that it is a choice, but then why would anyone CHOOSE to be a leper? Whatever it is, it is something that they are either born with, or that happens to them very very early on in life.

    But whatever it is that makes them the way they are, it isn't a reason to hate them. I will say that the promiscuous behavior of the vast majority of male homosexuals does upset me. That kind of thing is how and why AIDS became such a plague for them, and continues to be so to this very day. If they would choose monogamy over promiscuity, and practice safe sex, then AIDS would cease to be a problem in short order. But that isn't going to happen because while they may be gay, they are also men. Women are the ones who act as a moderating influence in heterosexual relationships. When the scene is boys without girls, the result is a fuck fest without end with more STD's than you can shake a stick at.
  4. EP - Ethics Particle

    EP - Ethics Particle Gold Meritorious Patron

    Unsubstantiated opinions, IMHO!

  5. Wisened One

    Wisened One Crusader

    Unfortunately, EP: A lot of people seem to think that way, especially about gayness vs lesbianism, too.

    (I do NOT agree with him, btw) :no:

    Sad, huh?
  6. riptide

    riptide Patron with Honors

    Thank you.
  7. Royal Prince Xenu

    Royal Prince Xenu Trust the Psi Corps.


    I well remember asking you, as an authority (after all, you told auditors what to do), "What was the 'sex' of a Thetan?" You couldn't answer at the time, but in my own continued studies, I figured it out this way and others have have the right to disagree:

    a. A Thetan is a 'thought', it's date of conception/birth being the time that it broke away from the infinite to become its own 'self'. Therefore Thetans have different ages and experiences.

    b. A very new/young Thetan is probably going to be more effect of the body than cause over it, so 'nature' will run its course and hormones will most likely dictate a hetero-behavior.

    c. An intermediate aged Thetan who has lived mostly in one type of sex body (say female), and then is born into a male body, may well by nature and preference find itself conforming to homo-behavior--which may or may not respond to auditing.

    d. Those who've had a strong negative experience with a member of the opposite sex may never want to go there again (sorry a piece of liver chopped in half with a blunt axe just isn't my thing).

    e. A 'very old soul' ready to move on to whatever the next stage of spritual evolution is, has probably left the sex game behind and wouldn't care what other people did.

    f. Finally I decided that a Thetan is generally sexless, and a body is just a body (whether it be a Ferrari or a Volvo), so what we do with them sexually is entirely our own business and completely ephemeral in nature.

    And remember, whatever you do, stop if it draws blood!
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2008
  8. Tim Skog

    Tim Skog Silver Meritorious Patron

    I would say that MANY of the culties don't like homosexually inclined people, but not all. (What percentage of culties hate gays who can say?) I had a brother (now deceased) who was gay. I found that there was very little talk about gays and I rarely ever saw any reaction by scn'ers to gays, except in the Sea Org.
  9. Lee_from_phx

    Lee_from_phx Patron with Honors

    I'm not 100% right 100% of the time, but I stand by what I wrote. Unlike a lot of people I don't have buttons on homosexuality, and I'm not constrained by a cowardly need to be "PC" about things. The only thing I care about is the truth, and if someone can't handle the truth then my telling them something they don't want to hear is the least of their problems.

    If you want to understand the hows and whys of AIDS in relation to gays, I suggest you read this book:

    The "boys without girls" reference is one of the more significant insights to be found there.

    As for the idea that homosexuality is an inborn condition and not a choice, this is what gays themselves say and I've never seen a shred of credible evidence to suggest otherwise. It makes no sense that someone would consistently choose to be something so ridiculed (when not abhorred) by the rest of society. Homosexuality is also not something that can be changed. Back before it was removed from the DSM as a psychiatric condition, and especially when it was considered a crime, a great deal of time and effort was spent trying to turn gays straight. Nothing was ever successful in doing anything but encouraging gays to keep their off-kilter orientation to themselves.

    Efforts by evangelicals to "pray the gay away" as South Park so eloquently put it, have resulted in people who, like alcoholics, go from one day to the next abstaining from homosexual sex and attempting to suppress homosexual feelings, but without ever changing their fundamental nature.

    The vast majority of people are straight. A few are not. Someday we'll understand why, but until then the most that can be done is to encourage everyone, whether gay or straight, to be responsible about the sexual choices that they make. If more people were more responsible, AIDS wouldn't be the plague that it is, especially among male homosexuals, IV drug users, and the women who sleep with them.
  10. Lee_from_phx

    Lee_from_phx Patron with Honors

    Well your experience was different from mine, which isn't surprising because $cientology, while a cult, is not a complete monoculture. The attitude towards gays at an entry-level org in California or New York or Florida would not necessarily be the same.

    The staff and public at the Phoenix Org were about as anti-gay as the SO members I knew when I was living at PAC. It wasn't something that people found and excuse to talk about mind you, but when the subject did come up, the reaction was always negative. I also heard stories of gay people being kicked out, shunned, etc, by the cult, which made no sense to me.

    I myself was affected by this unconscious group-think and bought into it to some degree, though I always questioned it. I was never able to get a straight and consistent answer as to why gays were supposed to be so terrible. Isn't homosexuality just another abberation? Wouldn't helping a gay person who wished to be straight (which many of them do) be a good thing?

    It wasn't until I left the cult and started reading more about the true history of Hubbard that I found out about Nibs and realized that the anti-gay zeal I saw was just an extension of Hubbard's own hatred for his son. All of the explanations and excuses within the cult were just post-hoc rationalizations.

    I'm glad that you didn't have to deal with this yourself. It is an ugly part of the cult that I think more light should be shined upon.
  11. EP - Ethics Particle

    EP - Ethics Particle Gold Meritorious Patron

    He calls 'em like he sees 'em!

  12. Lee_from_phx

    Lee_from_phx Patron with Honors

    Your disagreement is noted, but irrelevant.
  13. Lee_from_phx

    Lee_from_phx Patron with Honors

    Now you make a comparison between me and a jackass racist.

    If you're trying to do the old guilt by association bit, you might want to choose someone I actually have some relation to. If this is a straw-man attack, you might want to actually find an argument that bears a superficial resemblance to something I've said.

    If you're comparing me to George Wallace simply because you don't agree with me and wish to perceive me as being like him, well then that is what I call a personal problem, and not a statement of substance requiring any response from me.
  14. Tim Skog

    Tim Skog Silver Meritorious Patron

    In my previous post I took issue with all culties being anti-gay. I should learn to read the entire post.

    Lee, you are correct about homosexuals being born gay or predisposed to becoming gay at some point in life. Most gay people will tell you they did not choose to be gay. But to say choosing to be gay is like choosing to be a leper is nonsense.

    Comparing sexual orientation to a disease is wrong .

    The aids issue being a result of promiscuity is not accurate. Promiscuity among persons of the same sex may increase the chances of contracting the aids virus, but a first time sex act with someone of the opposite sex can also lead to contracting aids.

    Yes, safe sex is a good idea as most people would agree.

    Heterosexual people are promiscuous and contract aids. Does that also upset you? I sense a wee bit of an anti-gay tone in your post. Tell me if I'm wrong.
  15. Royal Prince Xenu

    Royal Prince Xenu Trust the Psi Corps.

  16. Carmel

    Carmel Crusader

    I could say a lot in response to your posts, but I'll try to keep it simple, and just point out a couple of the things that you said which I find off the rails.

    I can grant that something may have gone awry on a physical level somehow for someone to be homosexual rather than heterosexual. However, it beats me how you can assume that a homosexual, simply because of his sexuality will be more aberrated in his behaviour than a heterosexual.

    When it comes to my experience in the past, and now my experience with one gay kid (who mixes with and works with many gays) and two straight kids - 'fuck fests' (especially at a young age) are common in both the gay and straight communities, just as monogomy is when a bit of maturity sets in.

    I don't know where you get your data from. Many homosexual males refrain from sexual activity altogether, many are happily monogomous, and just like straights, there are many who are promiscuous.

    Nup - if you knew the actual percentage of homosexuals you'd be surprised! There are way way more than only a few who are not straight, and that's for sure!
  17. Operating DB

    Operating DB Truman Show Dropout

    And let's not forget the Kinsey sexual awareness scale and the studies that Kinsey did on human sexuality. "The Kinsey scale attempts to describe a person's sexual history or episodes of their sexual activity at a given time. It uses a scale from 0, meaning exclusively heterosexual, to 6, meaning exclusively homosexual." (from Wikipedia)

    I tend to think there was a pendulum swung way in the opposite direction in the 70's during gay liberation where some gay man felt they could finally come out of the closet and go from not being able or allowed to have any if little sex to feeling OK about having lots of it, like a kid in a candy store. Like making up for lost time. Plus it was the era of free love, swingers, etc. The onset of HIV/AIDs started the pendulum swing back in the other direction. These days I'm finding more and more gay couples choosing monogamy especially the older they get. I even met a gay couple way back in the 80's where one of the partners other half was the only guy he had ever had sex with. Very rare though. However, I agree statistically that a certain percentage of gay men will have more sex partners overall than a straight or lesbian couple. Lesbians seem to be more monogamous than any other group.

    As for visibility of gays it's not just the flamboyant and easy to spot ones that are out there. They're all over the place (just like SP's are, lol). They just don't flaunt it and make it obvious. The out and loud ones are really in the minority of the whole rainbow colored gay culture.
  18. Royal Prince Xenu

    Royal Prince Xenu Trust the Psi Corps.

    You mean the ones who are actively advertising? Not fond of OTT types myself, but in my Welfare studies we learned that approximately 10% of the Western Population will be actively gay. That includes OTTs and closeted "downlows", along with the majority who are "everyday people" who just happen to be gay.
  19. Lee_from_phx

    Lee_from_phx Patron with Honors

    Comparing a sexual orientation to a disease is not WRONG, but it can be inaccurate. In my case it was not.

    My comparison of homosexuality to leprosy was in regards to how society treats lepers and how it treats gays. My point was that just as no one would choose to be a leper, neither would anyone choose to be gay. If being gay were a choice, then wouldn't it make more sense to choose not to be gay than to stay "in the closet" about it?

    What I said about AIDS being a matter of promiscuity IS accurate. You can't catch it from a toilet seat, a handshake, or a hug. It is a fragile virus that does not persist in the environment. The only way that it can be contracted is through the transmission of bodily fluids. Now that transmission can take the form of a blood transfusion, or through IV drug users sharing needles, or it can be the result of sex.

    The risks of contracting it from a blood transfusion are minimal because blood banks test their supply religiously. It can happen of course, but it is highly unlikely. Being an IV drug user is a giant dose of FAIL, a pass/fail IQ test, loserville. For normal people, this leaves sex as the only likely means of transmission.

    But even with sexual activity, the risk of transmission is not 100%. Males are far more likely to pass it onto a female than the other way around. With condoms, the risk drops enormously.

    Unfortunately for gays, anal sex is far more likely to result in the virus being transmitted due to the abrasion and bruising that this act creates. Break the skin and toss a little HIV infested semen on it, and voila you've got a new patient on your hands! But even then condoms are an effective preventative measure. Unfortunately there has been a recent trend away from condom use by gay men. They even have a name for this shift: the barebacking movement. When half your potential sexual partners are HIV positive, having sex without a condom is a game of Russian roulette. I cannot fathom why anyone would do this. If half the women I met were infected, I'd stay home and masturbate for the rest of my life.

    Were more people monogamous instead of promiscuous, the transmission of HIV though sex would slow to a crawl, and the disease would be essentially contained. This is especially true of gay men, for whom this disease is still a plague almost 30 years after it first arrived on the scene. You would still have the problem of HIV being spread through shared needles of course, but that can be improved by simply making needles more readily available. Needle exchange programs don't make people into junkies, but they can sure help prevent junkies from spreading AIDS. Contaminated needles can also be sterilized by soaking them in bleach, provided that the bleach solution is passed through the needle itself. This also helps protect against Hepatitis-C, which is the other major plague for IV drug users. Sadly the junkies most likely to get infected are the ones least likely to possess the lucidity to do this consistently.

    It all comes down to personal responsibility and making wise choices. I've known several gay couples who were in a committed relationship. Neither partner was HIV positive and neither was concerned about contracting the virus. They didn't have to be because they weren't doing anything that would put them at risk. They only had sex with each other and as long as they remained monogamous they had nothing to fear. Just being gay doesn't make someone more susceptible to the virus, but being promiscuous sure as hell does.

    This is a big part of why I support gay marriage. If the ability to get legally married will help gay men to settle down and stop chasing cock, then by all means do it. Of course one does not need the state to certify a relationship in order to be sexually responsible, but if it will help some people to do this, then I'm all for it, even if it only saves one life.

    None of what I'm saying here is any secret, nor should it come as any sort of a surprise to you. Look around yourself, pay attention, find the cause-and-effect relationship between actions and consequences. They aren't hard to spot.

    As for whether I'm anti-gay, I'm not. But neither do I see being anti-gay as a moral failing. I'm not a leftist so I don't worship at the altar of political correctness and moral relativism. I'm not caught up in the craze to canonize gay people and praise their culture. I judge people based upon their character and the choices they make, and sexual orientation is not a choice. But what someone DOES as a result of that orientation is a choice. Being gay does not mean that someone has to make bad choices. Neither does it require them to be of low character. One can be gay and act with responsibility, honor and integrity, both inside the bedroom and out.

    Like I told someone else, I don't have a "button" on homosexuality. Just because I don't like Opera music doesn't mean I would deny others the right to enjoy it. The same is true of sex. What I like does not have to be what anyone else likes, and vice versa. But I do want people to make good choices about what they do, and avoid putting themselves and others in harm's way. And I most certainly reserve the right to disapprove of bad choices. Being "non-judgmental" is not a moral virtue, but an act of cowardice. In the case of STDs, making good choices means being monogamous. If someone can't be monogamous, then they should be careful and practice safe sex. Short of this they're being profoundly stupid, putting themselves and others at risk, and should be taken to task for it. Gay or straight makes no difference.
  20. Lee_from_phx

    Lee_from_phx Patron with Honors

    I don't think that gay men are more likely to be aberrant in their sexuality, I think they are simply men being men.

    Like I said before, it is boys without girls.

    Most men, and especially young men, if given access to easy sex with multiple partners, would gladly participate. This is NORMAL for men, or at least for the young and foolish variety.

    In heterosexual relationships, it is the female who acts as the moderating influence, the one who refrains from jumping into bed 5 minutes after meeting. This is normal for women. It takes time and effort to talk a girl out of her panties. She has an instinctive tendency to make you wait and prove that you want something more than just sex. Men chase women and women choose men. This isn't a grand conspiracy, but simple human nature.

    In the case of male homosexuals, this moderating influence is not there. As a result, young gay men tend to be very promiscuous. Not all of them are of course, but far more than what you see in heterosexual men who are constrained by being involved with females.

    It makes me happy when I see a gay couple in a committed relationship. I breathe a sigh of relief because not only are they going to be safe, but they are setting a very good example for others like themselves.

    If being promiscuous was harmless and just good fun, I wouldn't complain about it. But the fact is that having sex with multiple partners puts a person at vastly increased risk for contracting a sexually transmitted disease. I wonder if this risk is why these diseases are called sexually transmitted. Could it be a coincidence?

    I also believe that being promiscuous causes psychological harm, but that damage is extremely minor in comparison with winding up in a casket at age 35 after a slow and lingering death from a PREVENTABLE disease contracted at age 20.

    If you are right and gay men are becoming more sexually responsible then I'm VERY, VERY, VERY glad to hear it. :happydance: It always makes me happy to see someone making good choices in life with the cards that they have been dealt.