Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
08-14-2016, 12:09 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-14-2016, 12:11 PM by YinYang.)
#91
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
I was waiting for someone at a mall one day, and started chatting to a young gay man about him being gay. He must have been about 18-20 thereabouts, and told me that his parents wrote him off about 2 years earlier, so I said that's a bit harsh, and he said he's hurt, but he'll wait for them to come around and he's not cross with them, he can understand their position because his own internal homophobia caused him to stay in the closet until his announcement to his parents which caused him to leave the house the same day.

So his reasoning was that if he himself, who's gay, found it unacceptable for so long, then his parents who's not gay, will likely find it much harder to comprehend. These coming out stories are the worst, some people just shouldn't be parents...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 5 users Like YinYang's post:
anagogy, BlatzAdict, Bring4th_Jade, ricdaw, rva_jeremy
08-15-2016, 10:35 AM,
#92
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
My internal homophobia comes from primarily my parents.

They found I was involved with an older man when I was a teenager. Sent him to jail. I was emancipated. On the way down the elevator in the courthouse after judge emancipated me, my dad said "Don't come to us when you are dying of AIDS"

In the fifteen years since then we have seen each other a handful of times and I maybe get and email from them once every couple of months. I have not really forgiven them for the ordeal. But it feels like the ball is in my court now. I have come to terms with the fact that I don't have to rebuild the relationship in order to progress.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 7 users Like Manjushri's post:
Billy, BlatzAdict, Brian_Sanchez, Bring4th_Jade, Chandlersdad, ricdaw, YinYang
08-15-2016, 02:20 PM,
#93
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-15-2016, 10:35 AM)Manjushri Wrote:  My internal homophobia comes from primarily my parents.

They found I was involved with an older man when I was a teenager. Sent him to jail. I was emancipated. On the way down the elevator in the courthouse after judge emancipated me, my dad said "Don't come to us when you are dying of AIDS"

In the fifteen years since then we have seen each other a handful of times and I maybe get and email from them once every couple of months. I have not really forgiven them for the ordeal. But it feels like the ball is in my court now. I have come to terms with the fact that I don't have to rebuild the relationship in order to progress.

Some words of sympathy for your hard path. 

A quick tarot spread suggests pre-incarnative planning.  You choosing parents who would not accept, they choosing to be the instruments of rejection.  It is, fundamentally, two exercises in one.  One, self-reliance leading to self-acceptance.  Two, the "stretch goal" of accepting and forgiving your parents for the inflicted pain. 

In similar readings, I also suggest a thought exercise.  How has the act of rejection changed the trajectory of your life, thoughts or emotions from what they would have been had the rejection not occurred?  You can compare your life to your siblings perhaps, if you have them and if they are straight.  Or to straight friends from similar families.  Then, would you change bodies with any of them to have their lives instead of your own?

I marvel at the bravery we souls seem to have in the Afterlife when we plan these lives of ours.  It can't only be that from the Afterlife's Eternity, a lifetime seems little more than a short dream.  No, I think we know how much pain a lifetime will inflict, but we come down here anyway.  By the billions.  Such courage!

Namaste, Manjushri, Namaste!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 6 users Like ricdaw's post:
Billy, BlatzAdict, Brian_Sanchez, Manjushri, Patrick, YinYang
08-15-2016, 05:00 PM,
#94
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
So I've read though some of this thread and I'm disappointed with how people are responding. Seems like there is a lot of anger and aggression, at each other, and at Ra. People are picking material out of the books and throwing it at each other. The message was simple. There is no right and wrong, all things are love and all service is to the one Creator. So if someone doesn't like gay people, that is okay. And if a gay person does not like the person that doesn't like him, that is okay too. Everyone is still learning and growing.

Ra says that homosexuality is an impairment...etc, etc. You may disagree with him but every student doesn't always agree with his teacher. But that is why he is your teacher. The idea is to learn from your teacher not him/her condemn because you disagree with their interpretation. My doctor had a great quote, "When the student is ready, the teacher will be there." Not everyone is ready to learn the LOO lessons. Some people need more time and some people need less.

So take your time thinking about what you've read in the LOO books. If you need to take a few weeks or longer off from LOO to digest, meditate, think it over, etc. Even if you have to throw it away to feel normal again, then do it. It took me 10 years of reading/thinking about these books until I have finally been able to move on and not worship the information. Have patience. All is one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like bluevision10s's post:
BlatzAdict, Patrick, Verum Occultum
08-15-2016, 11:02 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-15-2016, 11:18 PM by ricdaw.)
#95
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-15-2016, 05:00 PM)bluevision10s Wrote:  So I've read though some of this thread and I'm disappointed with how people are responding.  Seems like there is a lot of anger and aggression, at each other, and at Ra.  People are picking material out of the books and throwing it at each other.  The message was simple.  There is no right and wrong, all things are love and all service is to the one Creator.  So if someone doesn't like gay people, that is okay.  And if a gay person does not like the person that doesn't like him, that is okay too. Everyone is still learning and growing.

Ra says that homosexuality is an impairment...etc, etc.  You may disagree with him but every student doesn't always agree with his teacher.  But that is why he is your teacher.  The idea is to learn from your teacher not him/her condemn because you disagree with their interpretation.  My doctor had a great quote, "When the student is ready, the teacher will be there."  Not everyone is ready to learn the LOO lessons.  Some people need more time and some people need less.

So take your time thinking about what you've read in the LOO books.  If you need to take a few weeks or longer off from LOO to digest, meditate, think it over, etc.  Even if you have to throw it away to feel normal again, then do it.  It took me 10 years of reading/thinking about these books until I have finally been able to move on and not worship the information.  Have patience.  All is one.

I think you are misunderstanding the source of the incredulity and disappointment about what Ra is saying.  The anger is a reflection of the magnitude of that disappointment in that the material is SO IMPORTANT, how can it be so wrong here?

Your thesis here, that the greater Ra teaching, "all is one" excuses Ra's answer on homosexuality is exactly the same kind of excuse that white people make when confronted with "Black Lives Matter."  It is a false dichotomy to say, "no, All Lives Matter."  But white people aren't being gunned down by the police every other day are they?  It's like going to the doctor, "my left arm hurts!"  "Oh?" says the doctor.  "How's that right arm?  Because all limbs matter." And what would you think of such a doctor who spent the appointment looking at the other arm and your legs?  Would you feel THIS SMALL?  Your complaint delegitimized?

You too would be in the same thinking if, in answer to two questions, Ra had said:
  • Black skin is an impairment from the logos' design which was for white people. 
  • The polarity of male and female is master over servant: the female is lessor. 
  • The creator designed a master race, the others are accidental impairments and deviations from it. 
Homosexuality was not described as a variation in the human experience like height, weight, skin color, hair color, strength, stamina, charisma, intelligence, health, etc.  Nope. Homosexuality is an "impairment."

Words matter, bluevision. And for being a channel of exquisite clarity and precise words, Ra's words resonate with some of us deeply. 

To say, "not everyone is ready to learn the LOO lessons" is to be condescending and smug.  

To say, "the idea is to learn from the teacher" not to disagree, is actually directly counter to the teaching, which is to teach discernment and the use of free will which, BTW, INCLUDES rejecting the teaching. 

To say "all is one" so that these disagreements become trivial and unimportant, is to devalue the humanity of the people who are expressing something different. Hush you silly people.  You "just need more time" to understand what Ra is really saying, like "10 years of reading/thinking about it."

"Have patience."

Seriously. Do you not hear the condescension oozing from what you have written here?  Because I sure do. 
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like ricdaw's post:
Brian_Sanchez, Chandlersdad, Manjushri, YinYang
08-16-2016, 01:02 AM,
#96
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
I wonder what Quo would have to say about all of this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-16-2016, 01:44 AM,
#97
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Quote:Carla: Yes, I’m going to take it a step further because the source of my concern is this. I’ve examined my own self and have found strong elements of assertiveness, aggressiveness—male characteristics—which suggest to me that I’ve been a male plenty of times as well as being a female. It has not caused me any suffering in this life. I have known several women who were considerably more yang, I suppose would be the term I would use, and it has not caused them any suffering. I don’t know any female homosexuals, but I do have a friend who is a male homosexual and he is suffering a great deal because he has the same needs for love and nurturing that any other person has, but every instinct that he has puts him in a situation which is basically untenable in a sense of receiving a stable domestic environment which is full of support and genuine and continuing love from another human being.

This seems to be the fate of the homosexual, the male homosexual, very difficult to maintain companionship and affection over a long period of time. I don’t understand why the higher self would choose to so unbalance the incarnational pattern that two-thirds or more of the incarnations would be as women and then the soul would move back into the male body and be terminally confused. If you could shed any light on this suffering and its purpose, I’d be appreciative.

I am Q’uo, and we may suggest that within your third-density illusion the limitations which are experienced, on every front, shall we say, are designed to allow the entity to learn how to free the self. There are experiences that are most needful of balancing that require what seems within the incarnation to be greatly distorted circumstances. The cumulative effects of previous, shall we say, incarnations often decree that the upcoming incarnation provide the arena in which these various distortions may find the opportunity for balance. The choice of one biological gender or another will be made according to these distortions in need of balance. It may be that throughout the full third-density pattern of incarnations an entity would find it necessary to choose one gender over the other more often than not in order to fulfill a larger pattern of learning. The difficulties, as you call them, associated with this choice, in this case, as it has been called, homosexual orientation, are then incorporated into the larger pattern and utilized in the overall growth of the entity. Within the third-density illusion, the great array and degree of limitation is utilized as, shall we say, a force against which to test the spiritual strength, for within your illusion one must rediscover the foundation or fabric of one’s being time and time again.

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/issues/1986/1986_0525.aspx

Here in this one, Q'uo talks about the separation of male and female energies and how they are meant to be complementary.

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/issues/2009/2009_0411.aspx
There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like Bring4th_Jade's post:
BlatzAdict, Patrick, ricdaw, YinYang
08-16-2016, 04:23 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-16-2016, 05:21 AM by YinYang.)
#98
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Carla Wrote:Carla: Yes, I’m going to take it a step further because the source of my concern is this. I’ve examined my own self and have found strong elements of assertiveness, aggressiveness—male characteristics—which suggest to me that I’ve been a male plenty of times as well as being a female. It has not caused me any suffering in this life. I have known several women who were considerably more yang,

Interesting, I haven't read this session before. I'm the same as Carla in this regard, it has benefited me socially and it has made me a target professionally. Our business world is still very patriarchal, so I have had to go head-to-head with many of these "biblical men", lol, who thinks a woman should know her place. ~sigh~ They are a breed of their own, and almost always baby boomers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-16-2016, 04:25 AM,
#99
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-15-2016, 10:35 AM)Manjushri Wrote:  My internal homophobia comes from primarily my parents.

They found I was involved with an older man when I was a teenager. Sent him to jail. I was emancipated. On the way down the elevator in the courthouse after judge emancipated me, my dad said "Don't come to us when you are dying of AIDS"

In the fifteen years since then we have seen each other a handful of times and I maybe get and email from them once every couple of months. I have not really forgiven them for the ordeal. But it feels like the ball is in my court now. I have come to terms with the fact that I don't have to rebuild the relationship in order to progress.

I'm so sorry Manjushri.  I'd just like to reiterate what ricdaw said and that is that you are indeed a brave soul for having taken on something like that.  I forget how difficult a set of circumstances some people go through with their families.    
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Billy's post:
YinYang
08-16-2016, 05:25 AM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
As a half-faggot myself, I think that OP is completely missing the point of Session 31.

Ra never says anything about rats or studies done upon them, AFAIK, and I think that, instead, he's talking about transfer of a set of homosexual preferences via aural transmission, which is definitely possible.

I also don't think that he's saying that homosexuality makes one STS (in fact, I thought he stated elsewhere that homosexuality could be a very positive orientation?); I think he's referring to a particular type of energy buildup that might manifest itself different ways depending on the environment. Large cities have more gays than small towns.

As far as the medical establishment goes, ignore them. For every thing they're telling the truth about, there's a bunch that they're lying or lied to. The medical cartel is run by STS of the nastiest sort.

Anyways, the current social narrative doesn't allow for anything like, "homosexuality is (or, more accurately, can be) a learned behavior", especially since those people who know about the spiritual world, aren't allowed to talk about it. Certain people are trying to encourage the spread of alternative sexuality for some occult reason (which could be good or bad; I'm actually not certain), and it doesn't help those people if it sounds like homosexuality is some kind contagious disease.

At any rate, all modern (public) medical knowledge is not to be relied upon, because it intrinsically lacks a spiritual perspective that can't be ignored.

And, yes, there is sexual alchemy that can be done between two males, and this is especially prevalent in some traditions, but the male/female sexual energy transfer is important for occult reasons; humans naturally evolved towards male/female relationships for a reason, and there are things you can accomplish penis-to-vagina that can't be accomplished other ways.

Sorry if my answer isn't PC, but, I feel like many gays are so used to either gay-bashing bigots or coddling liberal douchebags that they forget there's a middle ground. Keep in mind that Ra takes steps to refrain from judging the worst sort of negative entities in his material; he certainly isn't judging gays for loving each other. He's talking about spiritual mechanics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Mahakali's post:
BlatzAdict, Patrick, rva_jeremy
08-16-2016, 11:31 AM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-16-2016, 05:25 AM)Mahakali Wrote:  As a half-faggot myself, I think that OP is completely missing the point of Session 31.

Ra never says anything about rats or studies done upon them, AFAIK, and I think that, instead, he's talking about transfer of a set of homosexual preferences via aural transmission, which is definitely possible.

I also don't think that he's saying that homosexuality makes one STS (in fact, I thought he stated elsewhere that homosexuality could be a very positive orientation?); I think he's referring to a particular type of energy buildup that might manifest itself different ways depending on the environment. Large cities have more gays than small towns.

As far as the medical establishment goes, ignore them. For every thing they're telling the truth about, there's a bunch that they're lying or lied to. The medical cartel is run by STS of the nastiest sort.

Anyways, the current social narrative doesn't allow for anything like, "homosexuality is (or, more accurately, can be) a learned behavior", especially since those people who know about the spiritual world, aren't allowed to talk about it. Certain people are trying to encourage the spread of alternative sexuality for some occult reason (which could be good or bad; I'm actually not certain), and it doesn't help those people if it sounds like homosexuality is some kind contagious disease.

At any rate, all modern (public) medical knowledge is not to be relied upon, because it intrinsically lacks a spiritual perspective that can't be ignored.

And, yes, there is sexual alchemy that can be done between two males, and this is especially prevalent in some traditions, but the male/female sexual energy transfer is important for occult reasons; humans naturally evolved towards male/female relationships for a reason, and there are things you can accomplish penis-to-vagina that can't be accomplished other ways.

Sorry if my answer isn't PC, but, I feel like many gays are so used to either gay-bashing bigots or coddling liberal douchebags that they forget there's a middle ground. Keep in mind that Ra takes steps to refrain from judging the worst sort of negative entities in his material; he certainly isn't judging gays for loving each other. He's talking about spiritual mechanics.

What do you mean by "aural transmission" ?

Sounds like you are saying it is mind-control? Someone is pumping the "faggot" (as you say) vibes into the minds of babies?

I don't think you or me or anyone will ever accurately guess what Ra meant when they said "aura infringement" but my hunch is that it is nothing like mind waves, and rather something physical that WE do to one another.

How many times a day (especially in more urban settings) is a male baby born and within minutes a doctor is chopping off some of his penis?

Just because we don't have conscious memory of it, did it not inflict TREMENDOUS physical and emotional trauma right out of the gate ? Literally?

I wonder what that kind of human-on-human trauma does to our collective psyche and individual auras?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-16-2016, 12:52 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-16-2016, 02:20 PM by YinYang.)
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
I thought this is quite applicable to this thread:

Quote:Questioner: This brings out the point of the purpose of the physical incarnation, I believe. And that is to reach a conviction through your own thought processes as to a solution to problems and understandings in a totally free situation with no proof at all or anything that you would consider proof, proof being a very poor word in itself. Can you expand on my concept?

Ra: I am Ra. Your opinion is an eloquent one although somewhat confused in its connections between the freedom expressed by subjective knowing and the freedom expressed by subjective acceptance. There is a significant distinction between the two. This is not a dimension of knowing, even subjectively, due to the lack of overview of cosmic and other in-pourings which affect each and every situation which produces catalyst. The subjective acceptance of that which is at the moment and the finding of love within that moment is the greater freedom.

That known as the subjective knowing without proof is, in some degree, a poor friend for there will be anomalies no matter how much information is garnered due to the distortions which form third-density.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like YinYang's post:
anagogy, Bring4th_Jade, Patrick, ricdaw
08-16-2016, 01:14 PM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-16-2016, 11:31 AM)Manjushri Wrote:  What do you mean by "aural transmission" ?

Sounds like you are saying it is mind-control? Someone is pumping the "faggot" (as you say) vibes into the minds of babies?

I don't think you or me or anyone will ever accurately guess what Ra meant when they said "aura infringement" but my hunch is that it is nothing like mind waves, and rather something physical that WE do to one another.

By "aural transmission", I mean, "transmission via the aura". And we're not necessarily talking about just babies; people of any age can develop a sexual preference, even though it's probably much easier for that kind of s*** to be imprinted at a young age, yeah.

"Auric infrinement", I think, means more or less the same thing as "aural transmission". The spread of something from one aura to another. I don't think you could boil that down to "mind waves" or to something "physical".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-16-2016, 01:21 PM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-16-2016, 01:14 PM)Mahakali Wrote:  
(08-16-2016, 11:31 AM)Manjushri Wrote:  What do you mean by "aural transmission" ?

Sounds like you are saying it is mind-control? Someone is pumping the "faggot" (as you say) vibes into the minds of babies?

I don't think you or me or anyone will ever accurately guess what Ra meant when they said "aura infringement" but my hunch is that it is nothing like mind waves, and rather something physical that WE do to one another.

By "aural transmission", I mean, "transmission via the aura". And we're not necessarily talking about just babies; people of any age can develop a sexual preference, even though it's probably much easier for that kind of s*** to be imprinted at a young age, yeah.

"Auric infrinement", I think, means more or less the same thing as "aural transmission". The spread of something from one aura to another. I don't think you could boil that down to "mind waves" or to something "physical".


Transmission and infringement have very different meanings to me.

If something is being transmitted into your aura, tell me what that means to you? Other than restating the words? Is it that your mind is being affected?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-16-2016, 01:38 PM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-16-2016, 01:21 PM)Manjushri Wrote:  Transmission and infringement have very different meanings to me.

If something is being transmitted into your aura, tell me what that means to you? Other than restating the words? Is it that your mind is being affected?

And, yet, I don't think Ra had a very different meaning in mind when he wrote that. He is, again, speaking from a purely mechanical, non-judgmental point of view, and he's talking about a type of behavioral pattern being imprinted on someone. Infringement, meaning "the action of limiting or undermining something", is a valid word to be used here, because it implies one pattern of behavior being "undermined" and replaced by another. It's not a moral judgment or a statement against homosexuality or any of that.

It's your aura being affected. How difficult is this to understand? How many ways are there to state it? Do you not know what an aura is?

I don't know how to break it down much further than "transmission via the aura", because I'm thinking of a pattern of behavior going from one entity to another via energy transfer, and I'm not sure what about that, exactly, doesn't make sense to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Mahakali's post:
Parsons
08-16-2016, 01:42 PM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-16-2016, 01:38 PM)Mahakali Wrote:  
(08-16-2016, 01:21 PM)Manjushri Wrote:  Transmission and infringement have very different meanings to me.

If something is being transmitted into your aura, tell me what that means to you? Other than restating the words? Is it that your mind is being affected?

And, yet, I don't think Ra had a very different meaning in mind when he wrote that. He is, again, speaking from a purely mechanical, non-judgmental point of view, and he's talking about a type of behavioral pattern being imprinted on someone. Infringement, meaning "the action of limiting or undermining something", is a valid word to be used here, because it implies one pattern of behavior being "undermined" and replaced by another. It's not a moral judgment or a statement against homosexuality or any of that.

It's your aura being affected. How difficult is this to understand? How many ways are there to state it? Do you not know what an aura is?

I don't know how to break it down much further than "transmission via the aura", because I'm thinking of a pattern of behavior going from one entity to another via energy transfer, and I'm not sure what about that, exactly, doesn't make sense to you.

I apologize for not knowing what an aura is. I know what some people think it is.
What do you think it is, is what I was getting at?


A pattern of behavior going from one person to another via energy transfer - I understand that conceptually, but cannot grasp how it works with my mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-16-2016, 06:25 PM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-16-2016, 01:42 PM)Manjushri Wrote:  I apologize for not knowing what an aura is. I know what some people think it is.
What do you think it is, is what I was getting at?


A pattern of behavior going from one person to another via energy transfer - I understand that conceptually, but cannot grasp how it works with my mind.


An aura would be the etheric body - the time/space body, in Law of One's terminology - which is made of the subatomic particles and the time dimension which gives them mass and connects from there to the higher bodies which have little to no physical existence, as well as the field around this body, and the resultant social memory complexes. I suppose it makes sense that the astral body is involved, to some degree, as is the physical body, but indirectly.

So aural transmission would be taking place in the time/space dimension. And there are many ways to transfer information in that dimension, even without direct physical contact.

In the case of homosexuality, it'd be more like an etheric trend. Homosexuality is bound to happen to someone in a given town or society for whatever reason, whether it be as an early imprint on preferences as result of an intense experience, previous incarnations in a body of the opposite sex, possession of the body by spirits of the opposite sex, or some other circumstance.

The more people there are in closer living conditions, the denser the etheric thoughtform or social memory complex created by that group of entities. This is why the U.S. government is so interested in mind control and the like, as well as why people like Mark Zuckerberg and Ray Kurzweil are trying to unite the entire world into a technological system - to create and control a dense etheric thoughtform created by Earth's inhabitants and enslave the population.

Anyways, once homosexual configuration enters the etheric makeup of, say, a city, it will be more and more likely to appear as a regular occurrence, the probability multiplied even more by the dense-ness of the etheric social memory complex of that area. The more and more it happens, the more accepted it becomes, the more people think about it, and the more it enters the ether until it reaches critical mass and you've got a civil rights movement and a whole gay section of town.

In a smaller town with much fewer inhabitants, having one gay person is unusual, and is likely to be met with serious enough resistance that it's prevented from happening very frequently.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-16-2016, 07:31 PM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-16-2016, 06:25 PM)Mahakali Wrote:  
(08-16-2016, 01:42 PM)Manjushri Wrote:  I apologize for not knowing what an aura is. I know what some people think it is.
What do you think it is, is what I was getting at?


A pattern of behavior going from one person to another via energy transfer - I understand that conceptually, but cannot grasp how it works with my mind.


An aura would be the etheric body - the time/space body, in Law of One's terminology - which is made of the subatomic particles and the time dimension which gives them mass and connects from there to the higher bodies which have little to no physical existence, as well as the field around this body, and the resultant social memory complexes. I suppose it makes sense that the astral body is involved, to some degree, as is the physical body, but indirectly.

So aural transmission would be taking place in the time/space dimension. And there are many ways to transfer information in that dimension, even without direct physical contact.

In the case of homosexuality, it'd be more like an etheric trend. Homosexuality is bound to happen to someone in a given town or society for whatever reason, whether it be as an early imprint on preferences as result of an intense experience, previous incarnations in a body of the opposite sex, possession of the body by spirits of the opposite sex, or some other circumstance.

The more people there are in closer living conditions, the denser the etheric thoughtform or social memory complex created by that group of entities. This is why the U.S. government is so interested in mind control and the like, as well as why people like Mark Zuckerberg and Ray Kurzweil are trying to unite the entire world into a technological system - to create and control a dense etheric thoughtform created by Earth's inhabitants and enslave the population.

Anyways, once homosexual configuration enters the etheric makeup of, say, a city, it will be more and more likely to appear as a regular occurrence, the probability multiplied even more by the dense-ness of the etheric social memory complex of that area. The more and more it happens, the more accepted it becomes, the more people think about it, and the more it enters the ether until it reaches critical mass and you've got a civil rights movement and a whole gay section of town.

In a smaller town with much fewer inhabitants, having one gay person is unusual, and is likely to be met with serious enough resistance that it's prevented from happening very frequently.

Two things :

if "aura" is what Ra refers to as the etheric (in Law of One terms) why did they not call it an "etheric infringement?"

And you say homosexuality is bound to happen for whatever reason? But Ra says it is the "aura infringement" which causes the impairment to those who have lived as the opposite gender more often. It sounds like you are saying something else causes it and the "aura infringement" spreads gayness as an idea that vulnerable ones cling to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2016, 01:19 AM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-15-2016, 10:35 AM)Manjushri Wrote:  My internal homophobia comes from primarily my parents.

They found I was involved with an older man when I was a teenager. Sent him to jail. I was emancipated. On the way down the elevator in the courthouse after judge emancipated me, my dad said "Don't come to us when you are dying of AIDS"

In the fifteen years since then we have seen each other a handful of times and I maybe get and email from them once every couple of months. I have not really forgiven them for the ordeal. But it feels like the ball is in my court now. I have come to terms with the fact that I don't have to rebuild the relationship in order to progress.

No you don't have to rebuild the relationship. But I suspect RA would say that in order to progress you must learn to forgive them and yourself for any lingering internalized homophobia. It can be very hard to forgive people who put a bronze age superstition (Christianity's hatred for gay people) above their own children. But this is a major CATALYST for evolution. Again, it does not mean you have to contact them in any way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2016, 02:37 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-18-2016, 02:39 AM by Mahakali.)
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-16-2016, 07:31 PM)Manjushri Wrote:  Two things :

if "aura" is what Ra refers to as the etheric (in Law of One terms) why did they not call it an "etheric infringement?"

And you say homosexuality is bound to happen for whatever reason? But Ra says it is the "aura infringement" which causes the impairment to those who have lived as the opposite gender more often. It sounds like you are saying something else causes it and the "aura infringement" spreads gayness as an idea that vulnerable ones cling to.

Sometimes I call someone by a pronoun, sometimes I call them by their name. I think that the difference in this case is that the aura refers to a combination of the biolelectrical and etheric fields that center around an entity, versus ether, which is a more general term for time/space energy and the physical energy which interacts with it. Both are valid, but "aura" is more specialized.

I don't think he means infringement in the way that you mean infringement. He means, again, an undermining of the original blueprint and replacement by another. Human bodies evolved to be wired to be attracted to the opposite sex as a means of reproducing, and so, when something happens in the time/space dimension that imprints a new pattern of behavior over a previous one, it is "infringement". So if you spent a lot of incarnations as someone of the opposite gender, then you're karmically/etherically attached to all that and then incarnate into a body with different programming, you can reprogram what that body was wired to do via your time/space attachment.

Yes, I do think that homosexuality is bound to happen on its own; that makes logical sense.

I wouldn't choose your choice of words "idea" and "vulnerable", but that's the basic idea; I view it more as a potentiality floating around in the etheric DNA of a particular city or society or world that actualizes itself when the possibility/probability complexes allow it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2016, 02:47 AM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-06-2016, 05:41 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  Very interesting information. I do appreciate it. I don't subscribe to the idea that we have the same face incarnation after incarnation. If so, I am going to be one of the world's ugliest women in my next female incarnation. Seriously, we supposedly change race (each having its own genetic facial qualities) and I think having the same face would be very counter-productive. I do not believe this is true. For the record, I do NOT think David Wilcock is Edgar Cayce, just because he looked like Cayce in ONE photo. I also do not automatically think Scott was this other man. To me it would take a type of vanity and ego to shop around for a set of parents and then somehow ensure that the exact right sperm impregnated the exact right egg simply to ensure you have the same face as your previous incarnation. That just seems like such a petty thing to do. Nonetheless, here is a photo of me in my last female life. Then there is a photo of me now. I admit the resemblance is striking! So I may be wrong.

But there is such thing as body karma, which increases the likelihood of, for example, someone's face looking like that of a previous incarnation, or whatever else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2016, 10:29 AM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-18-2016, 02:37 AM)Mahakali Wrote:  
(08-16-2016, 07:31 PM)Manjushri Wrote:  Two things :

if "aura" is what Ra refers to as the etheric (in Law of One terms) why did they not call it an "etheric infringement?"

And you say homosexuality is bound to happen for whatever reason? But Ra says it is the "aura infringement" which causes the impairment to those who have lived as the opposite gender more often. It sounds like you are saying something else causes it and the "aura infringement" spreads gayness as an idea that vulnerable ones cling to.

Sometimes I call someone by a pronoun, sometimes I call them by their name. I think that the difference in this case is that the aura refers to a combination of the biolelectrical and etheric fields that center around an entity, versus ether, which is a more general term for time/space energy and the physical energy which interacts with it. Both are valid, but "aura" is more specialized.

I don't think he means infringement in the way that you mean infringement. He means, again, an undermining of the original blueprint and replacement by another. Human bodies evolved to be wired to be attracted to the opposite sex as a means of reproducing, and so, when something happens in the time/space dimension that imprints a new pattern of behavior over a previous one, it is "infringement". So if you spent a lot of incarnations as someone of the opposite gender, then you're karmically/etherically attached to all that and then incarnate into a body with different programming, you can reprogram what that body was wired to do via your time/space attachment.

Yes, I do think that homosexuality is bound to happen on its own; that makes logical sense.

I wouldn't choose your choice of words "idea" and "vulnerable", but that's the basic idea; I view it more as a potentiality floating around in the etheric DNA of a particular city or society or world that actualizes itself when the possibility/probability complexes allow it.

Thanks for clarifying. Semantics is important to me when trying to understand one's interpretation of Ra Material, especially when one claims that another's interpretation is "completely missing the point"

Your interpretation of gayness floating in the ether just possibly happening to an etheric body due to various things does not seem to leave much room for an entity to make the choice.

How do you envision the process of gayness entering one's aura with respect to one making the choice to allow it??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2016, 02:36 PM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Wow, there are all sorts of ideas going on in here...

I will expand but I think Ra's words have been taken grossly out of context. The reason for the 'impairment' that Ra associates with homosexuality is because the red-ray energy is both reproductive and part of that initial calling to be of service. Thus the 'impairment' is simply that the individual will have to find an alternative route to move those energies up the centers.

I will be going over this with quotes but basically in Session 31 when they are talking about sexual polarities they do so within the context of 'male/female energies' and essentially suggest that a male or a female could be more dominant in either male or female energies (they say due to previous lives in alternate bodies) and it is the ENERGY that is responsible for the attraction.

Thus, a man with strong male energies and a man with strong female energies would be magnetically attracted in the same way as male and female. However, the 'impairment' then is that the reproductive power of the red-ray cannot be used and this is the 'sexual Confusion's that arises, this determined based on the idea that the sexual drive is biologically connected to reproduction.

With this reproduction is the initial charge towards service to others so those who cannot express themselves through reproduction may still attempt to use sexual energies towards service and thus relationships will be seen and attracted that reflect an acceptable use of this energy and hence the suggestion that in our densely packed cities it is more likely for an individual to encounter someone of the same gender with an opposite charge of the masculine or feminine.

Make no mistake though, Ra says fully that an entity such as this is capable of full green-ray expression and love. People don't have to be 'totally balanced' to either be harvestable or to get in to the green-ray. So I would suggest that maintaining a healthy sense of self and working on mutually serving relationships is just as effective for a homosexual as it is for a heterosexual.

The only 'impairment' is the innate challenge of self-acceptance and getting those reproductive energies moving in some way. My understanding is that many individuals who go in this direction are actually desiring of being of service but not being attracted to reproduction or the opposite gender thus find a 'regularization' for use of this red-ray energy. Therefore, I believe that all Ra was saying is that it is 'challenging' and hence the use of the word 'impairment'.

It is NOT that these people are broken, disabled or anything of the sort, simply that due to the structure of the planet these entities are at a slight 'disadvantage' not due to their capabilities but merely as a result of the state of the social environment. The disadvantage simply being that it will be more difficult to make use of the red-ray energies due to conditions of confusion.

It even seems suggested to me by Ra that the homosexual orientation is actually an internal attempt to balance out this disadvantage. (This disadvantage stems from the very strong 'masculine' and 'feminine' images which are ingrained in society.)

So, all in all, I don't think Ra has ever suggested there is anything 'wrong' with homosexuality and rather instead they highlight the conditions where it might become more common. Their suggestion of 'impairment', if you read the whole session, is clearly related to their discussion of 'bisexual' energies and the difficulties of dealing with the red-ray.

If Scott Mandelker really said any of that stuff, maybe that's why I've never been drawn to listen to him in the slightest.
Every path in life circles to the center.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 8 users Like Aion's post:
Manjushri, Papercut, Parsons, Patrick, rva_jeremy, spero, sunnysideup, ^j^
08-18-2016, 10:32 PM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-18-2016, 02:36 PM)Aion Wrote:  I will be going over this with quotes but basically in Session 31 when they are talking about sexual polarities they do so within the context of 'male/female energies' and essentially suggest that a male or a female could be more dominant in either male or female energies (they say due to previous lives in alternate bodies) and it is the ENERGY that is responsible for the attraction.

I am confused by this Aion.  If it were an energy based attraction, surely then we would see more people engaging in homosexual relations.  It would be far more common.  I suppose you could argue that people repress their attraction to people of the same sex because of their fears and taboos.  What role then does the body play?  Does the body have its own innate charge or is it completely colored by the spirit (which I'm assuming is where the charge is coming from)?  I have struggled with the concepts of male and female for quite a long time now and don't really know if you can say anything conclusive about either (i.e. x characteristic is male, y characteristic is female) or if it is completely open to interpretation.  What makes someone a man and someone a woman?  I'm really interested to hear what peoples frameworks are for understanding the nature of the sexes.

It seems to me that hostility towards homosexuals is a fear based response.  Something founded on ignorance.  I think it probably has something to do with the questions I have outlined above.  I feel the same fear inside of myself and I can't figure out where it is coming from and which belief or idea is responsible.  I have read that homophobia is a result of people repressing their own homosexual desires, and with the world around us being as a mirror, when those desires are reflected, they lash out in fear.  I don't know how true that is, but it is food for thought. 

Seth has a lot to say about homosexuality and he often talks about 'mans bisexual nature'.  The book 'The Nature of the Psyche' is loaded with stuff about sexuality, although I have not read it myself.  I could post some quotes from it about homosexuality and sexuality in general if anyone is interested.               
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Billy's post:
Aion, Manjushri
08-18-2016, 11:31 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-18-2016, 11:42 PM by Papercut.)
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Wait what, rats? Clearly I'm missing something. When has Ra use such an analogy? Isn't it just due to energy imbalances by over-incarnating a certain gender? I mean this body complex of ours is nothing close to what we actually are, right? please don't notice me, there's so much to read here, sorry! I love you friend.
The small is to the large as the large is to the whole.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2016, 11:39 PM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-18-2016, 10:32 PM)Billy Wrote:  
(08-18-2016, 02:36 PM)Aion Wrote:  I will be going over this with quotes but basically in Session 31 when they are talking about sexual polarities they do so within the context of 'male/female energies' and essentially suggest that a male or a female could be more dominant in either male or female energies (they say due to previous lives in alternate bodies) and it is the ENERGY that is responsible for the attraction.

I am confused by this Aion.  If it were an energy based attraction, surely then we would see more people engaging in homosexual relations.  It would be far more common.  I suppose you could argue that people repress their attraction to people of the same sex because of their fears and taboos.  What role then does the body play?  Does the body have its own innate charge or is it completely colored by the spirit (which I'm assuming is where the charge is coming from)?  I have struggled with the concepts of male and female for quite a long time now and don't really know if you can say anything conclusive about either (i.e. x characteristic is male, y characteristic is female) or if it is completely open to interpretation.  What makes someone a man and someone a woman?  I'm really interested to hear what peoples frameworks are for understanding the nature of the sexes.

It seems to me that hostility towards homosexuals is a fear based response.  Something founded on ignorance.  I think it probably has something to do with the questions I have outlined above.  I feel the same fear inside of myself and I can't figure out where it is coming from and which belief or idea is responsible.  I have read that homophobia is a result of people repressing their own homosexual desires, and with the world around us being as a mirror, when those desires are reflected, they lash out in fear.  I don't know how true that is, but it is food for thought. 

Seth has a lot to say about homosexuality and he often talks about 'mans bisexual nature'.  The book 'The Nature of the Psyche' is loaded with stuff about sexuality, although I have not read it myself.  I could post some quotes from it about homosexuality and sexuality in general if anyone is interested.               

Thanks I just bought that book. Always need an excuse to start reading Seth again. For some reason?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2016, 11:44 PM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-18-2016, 10:29 AM)Manjushri Wrote:  Thanks for clarifying. Semantics is important to me when trying to understand one's interpretation of Ra Material, especially when one claims that another's interpretation is "completely missing the point"

Your interpretation of gayness floating in the ether just possibly happening to an etheric body due to various things does not seem to leave much room for an entity to make the choice.

How do you envision the process of gayness entering one's aura with respect to one making the choice to allow it??

I mean... sexual orientation is a set of preferences, so... how to you "choose" your preferences? You resonate with a pattern, and it just sort of happens. Any choice, then, is spiritual and of a subconscious nature.

I guess that, at the point you began feeling homosexual attraction, you could choose to fight that, if you really didn't want to feel that way. I'm sure that if, on both conscious and subconscious levels, you wanted to change those preferences, you could conceivably find a way to do that, although you'd have to really, really want it, and be open to it on a spiritual level, or it would just fail (as evidenced by the miserably unsuccessful ex-gay movement).

And, yeah, there are people who have even managed to change their homosexual orientation through spiritual techniques in, for example, the ex-gay movement, but it more often ends up damaging someone psychologically, or just breaking them completely.

Spiritual mechanics aside, sexual orientation is just a set of preferences, no different than what kind of music you enjoy, what kind of books you read, etc. Certa8in stimuli produce a psychological and spiritual response; you didn't necessary choose those things, and changing them can be difficult.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2016, 11:53 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-18-2016, 11:54 PM by Mahakali.)
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-18-2016, 10:32 PM)Billy Wrote:  I am confused by this Aion.  If it were an energy based attraction, surely then we would see more people engaging in homosexual relations.  It would be far more common.  I suppose you could argue that people repress their attraction to people of the same sex because of their fears and taboos.  What role then does the body play?  Does the body have its own innate charge or is it completely colored by the spirit (which I'm assuming is where the charge is coming from)?  I have struggled with the concepts of male and female for quite a long time now and don't really know if you can say anything conclusive about either (i.e. x characteristic is male, y characteristic is female) or if it is completely open to interpretation.  What makes someone a man and someone a woman?  I'm really interested to hear what peoples frameworks are for understanding the nature of the sexes.

It seems to me that hostility towards homosexuals is a fear based response.  Something founded on ignorance.  I think it probably has something to do with the questions I have outlined above.  I feel the same fear inside of myself and I can't figure out where it is coming from and which belief or idea is responsible.  I have read that homophobia is a result of people repressing their own homosexual desires, and with the world around us being as a mirror, when those desires are reflected, they lash out in fear.  I don't know how true that is, but it is food for thought. 

Seth has a lot to say about homosexuality and he often talks about 'mans bisexual nature'.  The book 'The Nature of the Psyche' is loaded with stuff about sexuality, although I have not read it myself.  I could post some quotes from it about homosexuality and sexuality in general if anyone is interested.               

I think that the body has its own charge which is predisposed to certain behaviors, and most human bodies would be attracted to the opposite sex; I think that what Ra is referring to is when that genetic information is overridden by one's time/space attachments to a different configuration.

How do you figure that there would be more homosexuals if it was an energy based attraction? Maybe it's an energy-based attraction that is not as common for numerous reasons, one being how society frequently rejects this configuration as invalid, and another being that most people don't naturally resonate with it for whatever reason. And if there is a genetic component in some cases, it'd be hard to pass along (at least by vertical gene transfer), for obvious reasons.

Men and women are just different sets of energetic patterns that we've grouped into two categories based on their physical function. There are always exceptions.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Ra material doesn't use "bisexual" to mean the same thing that we think of as "bisexual"; it has a different definition entirely. I don't think that humanity in general has a tendency to be attracted to both sexes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-19-2016, 02:09 AM,
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-18-2016, 10:32 PM)Billy Wrote:  
(08-18-2016, 02:36 PM)Aion Wrote:  I will be going over this with quotes but basically in Session 31 when they are talking about sexual polarities they do so within the context of 'male/female energies' and essentially suggest that a male or a female could be more dominant in either male or female energies (they say due to previous lives in alternate bodies) and it is the ENERGY that is responsible for the attraction.

I am confused by this Aion.  If it were an energy based attraction, surely then we would see more people engaging in homosexual relations.  It would be far more common.  I suppose you could argue that people repress their attraction to people of the same sex because of their fears and taboos.  What role then does the body play?  Does the body have its own innate charge or is it completely colored by the spirit (which I'm assuming is where the charge is coming from)?  I have struggled with the concepts of male and female for quite a long time now and don't really know if you can say anything conclusive about either (i.e. x characteristic is male, y characteristic is female) or if it is completely open to interpretation.  What makes someone a man and someone a woman?  I'm really interested to hear what peoples frameworks are for understanding the nature of the sexes.

It seems to me that hostility towards homosexuals is a fear based response.  Something founded on ignorance.  I think it probably has something to do with the questions I have outlined above.  I feel the same fear inside of myself and I can't figure out where it is coming from and which belief or idea is responsible.  I have read that homophobia is a result of people repressing their own homosexual desires, and with the world around us being as a mirror, when those desires are reflected, they lash out in fear.  I don't know how true that is, but it is food for thought. 

Seth has a lot to say about homosexuality and he often talks about 'mans bisexual nature'.  The book 'The Nature of the Psyche' is loaded with stuff about sexuality, although I have not read it myself.  I could post some quotes from it about homosexuality and sexuality in general if anyone is interested.               

Good question, the reason I believe we do not see more homosexual activity per se is because the attraction isn't necessarily sexual in its expression. That is to say that someone who has a built up charge in the red ray moving to orange may not necessarily choose a sexual act in order to move that energy. Part of the confusion may be with the word 'attraction' as it can have both sexual and non-sexual meanings.

I would point towards such groups as men and women's fraternities and the overall tendency of men to commune with men and women with women. I think that the same energy which may be part of a homosexual orientation may be used differently by other individuals, channeled in different ways.

That meaning I think at the root of it the red ray energy is not just reproduction but is also the root of all relationships which are ultimately developed in the yellow ray. The red is ever the foundation though.

So, I would say that homosexuality is actually distortion which takes place in the orange/yellow part of the spectrum as a configuration to move red ray energies upwards. However, there are countless ways in which this energy may be moved up the centers and only some of them involve sexual activities directly, so my explanation would simply be that on a matter of numbers there are probably just so many possible avenues that it is only by 'chance' or random use of catalyst that some choose/are born with that particular configuration.
Every path in life circles to the center.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-19-2016, 03:24 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-19-2016, 03:25 AM by Billy.)
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-18-2016, 11:53 PM)Mahakali Wrote:  How do you figure that there would be more homosexuals if it was an energy based attraction? Maybe it's an energy-based attraction that is not as common for numerous reasons, one being how society frequently rejects this configuration as invalid, and another being that most people don't naturally resonate with it for whatever reason. And if there is a genetic component in some cases, it'd be hard to pass along (at least by vertical gene transfer), for obvious reasons.

I figured that if what we are attracted to is a persons energy signature, then we would see more people attracted to others of the same sex whose energy corresponds more with the opposite sex.  Masculine men would be attracted to feminine men and vice versa, and feminine women would be attracted to masculine women and vice versa.  Yet, I don't think I have ever been attracted to a man in a sexual or romantic way, even if he was feminine.  I have seen the same thing in others as well.  I might appreciate the way a man looks, but there isn't that same attraction as I may feel towards a woman.  I've been thinking about preferences as of late and your previous post has made me again question why we have certain preferences, and whether our preferences are something innocent (i.e. I prefer the colour yellow over blue) or if they perhaps point towards a distortion or erroneous thought process.  I was reading a debate the other day where people were arguing over whether or not saying that you have a preference for one race over another, when looking for a partner, was a form of discrimination or not.  It seems innocent enough, saying that you prefer x over z, but maybe there is more to it.    

Quote:Also, I'm pretty sure that the Ra material doesn't use "bisexual" to mean the same thing that we think of as "bisexual"; it has a different definition entirely. I don't think that humanity in general has a tendency to be attracted to both sexes.

I was referring to how Seth uses the word bisexual.  Here is a quote:

Seth Wrote:The love and cooperation that forms the basis of all life, however, shows itself in many ways. Sexuality repre­sents one aspect, and an important one. In larger terms, it is as natural for a man to love a man, and for a woman to love a woman, as it is to show love for the opposite sex. For that matter, it is more natural to be bisexual. Such is the "natural" nature of the species.
 
He is not talking solely about sex, but it does seem like he is saying sex between two people of the same sex is part of our nature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)