Moderation, censorship and protectionism.

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

I´m writing this post with all due respect I have for Bill and the moderation team, but I can´t ignore and be complacent with wrong attitudes.

Our colleague, EYES WIDE OPEN, posted an article (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?60676-An-ad-hominem-attack-on-Doug-Hagmann) of clear prejudiced, ignorant and homophobic nature, so we could discuss and express our opinions about it.

The article itself was biased, which means that, beyond any doubt, it reflects the personal opinion of the author. Of course, the article itself was a critique, and critiques are inevitably personal.

Well, first of all, whenever a journalist writes a personal article, reflecting his personal view, he must assume responsibility over it and its consequences. It´s his opinion, as it reflects what he thinks as an individual, after all.

Going straight to the point. Our colleague posted the article for our appreciation and criticism. The absolutely ridiculous content, naturally, didn´t generate very positive feedback, though.

Then, the moderation, feeling offended because the author of the article is someone of their esteem, quickly changed the title to "..ad hominem attack.." and definitively locked the thread later on.

The problem is that, if fair criticism towards an article that reflects the personal points of view of the author can be considered an ad hominem attack, then you´re automatically forbidden to criticize 90% of articles and books out there.

This is an argumentative fallacy. It´s not an ad hominem attack when you criticize any article that happens to reflect the author´s opinion. Period. Simply because, in such cases, it´s impossible to criticize one without automatically criticizing the other.

An ad hominem attack is when you try to invalidate the content by ridiculing the author. This is not the case here, where the content of the article was actually ridiculous, and since it reflects the mindset of the author because the article is about his opinion, it inevitably leads us to conclude that the mind behind the opinion is utterly ignorant. There´s no way to disassociate one from another.

To conclude, I´d like to respectfully state that this was an act of censorship, protectionism and consequently an act of manipulation, when someone is deliberately filtering information in order to artificially shield the reputation of someone of their personal preferences.

If that article, and it´s criticism, was an ad hominem attack, it was the author who did it to himself. He´s an adult, a professional, and should think twice before speaking nonsense. His reputation is his responsibility.

Well, I know this thread itself probably wont last long, or will be moved to the oblivious corners of the forum, but I absolutely insist on stating my opinion.

Most of the times, the moderation team and Bill do a very good and reasonable work in managing this place, but not this time.

As a side note, it simply makes no sense to censor this article around here, since the author itself has published it in his own website. If you don´t want the whole world to see the asshole that he really is, then you should email him asking him to remove it.

If his horrible article affects his credibility, then it´s exclusively his fault. There´s nothing you can do to shield his insane opinions from the world´s judgment.

I love you guys, but you´re wrong.

With all due respect,

Raf.

[Bill Ryan]

------

Hi, Raf:

It's absolutely fine to start a thread and discuss the topic of homophobia in our society, in other cultures, how it's manifested (or not) throughout history, and the various reactions to all of the above. I think that would be very interesting, and I would support it.

[Anchor]

What happened with the closing of that thread is not censorship (the thread is visible).

Issues like this are baited hooks for forums like this one.

[WhiteFeather]

Raf: IMO The thread was a train wreck from the get-go when it left the station. Again Its My Opinion. It could of lead to some incredible mud slinging's and casualties to its members of Avalon. To safeguard the members, i feel Bill did the right thing to Pull It! It could of gotten ugly, thats what i picked up from it anyhow. I could be wrong.

[RMorgan]

------

Hi, Raf:

It's absolutely fine to start a thread and discuss the topic of homophobia in our society, in other cultures, how it's manifested (or not) throughout history, and the various reactions to all of the above. I think that would be very interesting, and I would support it.

Hey Bill,

This isn´t about homophobia itself. It´s about mislabeling, censoring and locking a thread to artificially try to shield someone else´s reputation, to exempt him from his own responsibilities and consequences of his actions.

Frankly, the same sex marriage stuff is pretty simple. I can´t even understand why people still debate it. People have the right to love, be loved, and be happy. That´s it. Equal rights mean equal rights. Period.

I could never understand homophobia itself, because honestly, I judge a person by his or her character and I couldn´t care less about his or her sexual orientation. It´s none of my business.

What´s there to discuss about homosexuality or same sex marriage? Nothing...I´ll leave this debate for the hateful and ignorant.

Raf.

[ThePythonicCow]

This isn´t about homophobia itself. It´s about mislabeling, censoring and locking a thread to artificially try to shield someone else´s reputation, to exempt him from his own responsibilities and consequences of his actions.
That's not why we moved, retitled and closed that thread.

But there's no sense in my attempting to say why we did that again. Several people have tried that already, to no avail, including just above.

If you could, please, at least quit misrepresenting our motives.

[RMorgan]

This isn´t about homophobia itself. It´s about mislabeling, censoring and locking a thread to artificially try to shield someone else´s reputation, to exempt him from his own responsibilities and consequences of his actions.
That's not why we moved, retitled and closed that thread.

But there's no sense in my attempting to say why we did that again. Several people have tried that already, to no avail, including just above.

If you could, please, at least quit misrepresenting our motives.

Paul,

I´m sure you know I´m a reasonable man.

As soon as you´re able to objectively and clearly explain your reasons to qualify that thread as an ad hominem attack, I will then be able to interpret your actions the way you want them to be interpreted.

So far, as far as I can understand, your premise for labeling it like you did is absolutely flawed, but I keep my mind open to the possibility of being convinced of the contrary.

As far as I can see, if that same article was written by someone else you didn´t personally care about, you wouldn´t interfere. It means that your personal bias is interfering with your work as a moderator, which opens a serious precedent.

Please, don´t take this as personal. It´s not. It´s my opinion and I stand by it until convinced otherwise.


...To safeguard the members, i feel Bill did the right thing to Pull It! It could of gotten ugly, thats what i picked up from it anyhow. I could be wrong.

Hey my friend,

What I don´t get is: To safeguard the members from what? From realizing that the author is totally ignorant and narrow minded, and has absolutely no condition of assuming the role of opinion leader? From realizing that he´s a moralist right-wing extremist whose ideals are half an inch close to fascism? From realizing that, in his opinion, only those who share his opinions and moral principles deserve freedom?

Cheers,

Raf.

[SilentFeathers]

It's interesting watching the very fabric of a once somewhat stable society come apart at the hinges and basically self destruct over the most idiotic reasons the mind can comprehend......contradictions at every turn and ridiculous hypocritical political and moral correctness within almost every topic mentioned recently,

Raf, grab a cold drink and kick back and watch the world come unglued with me....there's really not much more we can do when logic, reason, and common sense reaches extinction.

[mojo]

I can understand how others felt in wanting to defend the character of an individual sharing intimate/confidential knowledge, and felt this way about Dr Greer (some accusations are even more suspect now, ie. Mr Webre calling Antonio mind controlled) the same as Greer. Accusations on Greer were allowed to persist and they were not called ad hominem attacks and wonder how the Hagman thread was different?

[mosquito]

It's interesting watching the very fabric of a once somewhat stable society come apart at the hinges and basically self destruct over the most idiotic reasons the mind can comprehend......contradictions at every turn and ridiculous hypocritical political and moral correctness within almost every topic mentioned recently,

Raf, grab a cold drink and kick back and watch the world come unglued with me....there's really not much more we can do when logic, reason, and common sense reaches extinction.

You said it !!!!!!!!!!

[Bill Ryan]

Accusations on Greer were allowed to persist and they were not called ad hominem attacks and wonder how the Hagman thread was different?

The 'charges' against Greer were:

That he was lying about the ETs' benevolence, about abductions, and about what the US involvement with the ETs was.
That he had been involved in illegal activities.

None of (1) or (2) above applies to Hagmann, or to any other alternative media writer/ speaker/ researcher than I'm aware of - whether I personally like them or not. There's no comparison to be made.

[norman]

I don't yet know if this thread is supposed to be about the mechanics of keeping a forum running or about homosexuals.

If it's about the forum mechanics, I'm bored with them popping up every so often and ending up with a few bannings followed by a quiet spell where nothing much happens.

If it's about homosexuals, the thread title should be changed to something more on target and then we can all pile in some very frank opinions that I'm sure we all need to get out into the open.

It's not just about opinions and tolerance either. There is science and conspiracy theory about this stuff too.

I'm knackered right now and just heading for bed but I hope the discussion on this thread goes somewhere worthwhile.

[Sierra]

It's funny ... someone can say, " A very important aspect of those goals focuses on breaking down all cultural standards of morality, including the promotion of all forms of homosexuality, promiscuity and degeneracy as “normal and healthy.”

So ... the abuse and rape of women (1 in 4) and children, the pedophilia running rampant (1 in 5 or 1 in 3 depending on who is talking), the CIA drug running, the jailing and murder of our nonwhite population, the corruption of our courts, the violence in our civil police force, the formation of an internal paramilitary get ... 'ardly ever mentioned.

How come are men so hung up on dicks? The big picture guys, the big picture...

Sierra :behindsofa:

[TigaHawk]

Just a note that's kinda relevant. I'm 27, only just managed to come out of the closet a month ago. Why so long? My parents threw me out when i tried explaining that to them when i was 17, last at night when it was pissing down rain with nothing but the clothes on my back and told me not to come back untill i had it "out of my system". From that point on in my head i thought there was something wrong with me, and got this far by putting that part of myself in a box, which ends out you cant just put a part of yourself in a box without putting alot of other parts of yourself into that box with it.

Took the help of a new found tinfoil-hat friend at my new job and a referral to a totally unconventional psychotherapist (two sessions! very powerfull!) before everything clicked and fell into place.

Tho im now comfortable with my new found self it can still be uncomfortable because of what society and general attitude of other people. I have to be carefull about it in the workplace, purely because i've heard very homophobic outburss from colleagues that i have to work with, my life could be made very miserable by them.

The attitude is similar to that of units and body corporate and pets. Most units are simply no pets allowed. Why? Because a few people that have the power to make decisions purely dont like the idea of it, they think that pets are dirty, loud and would cause disturbance.

I have my cat with me in my unit, long before an old fella with alot of cash bought a unit and moved in with his small dog. They tried to tell him otherwise, he took them to court. Body corporate lost very badly, and were told flat out they cant deny pets for no good reason. When it became official i put through the paperwork for my cat, he's now registered as living with me formally because it's ok. But there was no odor, noise or disturbance from him ever - but purely if they had of known about him... there would suddenly be those issues. Relates perfectly with the topic of Homosexual's.

[Beren]

If we ever want to grow as humanity we would have to be totally honest to what we think or say or do.

I stopped following many alternative news just because what overall they continually say is negativeness. I don`t mean that they aren`t right in some cases but they are exclusively concentrating of "all hell breaking loose" and such, they all also sell something be it gold, silver ,beans , vitamins or ammo and DVD as bonus features as how to survive...

I am over this.

But here and there we find a real treasure in alternative views upon the world and real news.

We should appreciate this. We should grow up.

Same is with homosexuality ( beng honest). In our cores we all are souls - spirits - sexless.

But in bodies we come as male or female. Who knows why some soul chose to experience something in this life?
We should not judge but we should also not close our eyes to what`s obvious.

A homosexual couple cannot naturally produce offspring (thus give the opportunity to a new soul to come here).
They can use ovums and sperm with other people but they themselves cannot do anything.

This is a telling sign. Very often homosexual men and women are way out of the balance in their emotional life and everyday life WHICH makes them a perfect target for exploit by corporations who make money on them , by dark entities who suck their life energy so greedily and readily (a sugar candy for the dark ones - the emotionally unstable person).

But deep inside we are all one. And defining our selves with our sexuality be it hetero or homo is actually decreasing ourselves into realms of body only where we are slipping away from spiritual unity into chaos of the world.

Remember you are not straight or gay, hetero or homosexual. You are a soul of God.
Stop lowering yourself according to the world desire, according to the someone else agenda.

When we raise in conscience we have no desire for sex of any kind. We have the desire for unity. Unity of holiness of souls. We don`t care then are you having a vagina or penis because we are above the bodily desires. And then and only then having sex is a sacred act.

You can`t be identified and proud homosexual and expect to grow in consciousness.
You can`t be identified and proud heterosexual and expect to grow in consciousness.

If you identify in any of the categories in the sexual sense then you`re missing the point and actually align yourself with lower vibration of the body.
You`re free to do that but consequences are that you will go down in spirit and not up.

I know people who were both homo or hetero and who realized that they want to elevate themselves and not be identifies by sex.

So being totally honest must be our present choice, otherwise we`re stuck thinking that we aren`t.

And lastly, whenever one wants to stir the pot and draw attention elsewhere - one chooses very taboo topic and voila! Humans forget what they were talking about in the first place.

I trust Bill`s decision was right. As for Paul, he as moderator may change things as any of them can, that`s the rule of the forum. But so far I didn`t notice in my whole time on Avalon that they were acting as censors.

Maybe I am wrong and I stand to be corrected but let`s face it people, quit the pettiness and actually grow.

[Dennis Leahy]

Just doodling on the prison walls but hey, it's no wonder that TPTB (especially in the US) keep using gender, genitalia (and who wants which kind) as a hot-button issue! They have done their homework, and know that anything to do with sex and sexuality is just like smacking the hornets nest.

Wade Frazier likes to use the phrase that Godzilla rarely ever has to lift a claw. Now that the divisive sex-based memes have taken such deep root, TPTB don't ever have to do anything more about it - we do it to ourselves. Though, I suspect they sometimes push that button just because it is so much fun to see us light up like a Roman candle.

Raf, it will be generations before we (ALL of us) gain enough maturity and compassion to become tolerant of sexual (and racial) issues that so easily divide us now. If the world religions remain (especially Christianity and Islam), we may never achieve anything higher than "tolerance." Many many people have sexual and racial baggage. Let's call it "douchebaggage." I can see your point, but I can also see Bill's point - and at this moment on Earth this particular guy isn't important for his douchebaggage, but he may be very important for the "insider" information coming through him. We weren't lucky enough to have this info come through someone with less douchebaggage, or even no douchebaggage at all. His un-Christian, intolerant, homophobic rant has been noted. We won't "fix" him - he can only fix himself, and only if he wants to. He is not a moral leader, but may have some valuable 'insider' insights.

Dennis

[Another1]

I helped a young man last year who was trying to adjust to himself. He (told me that) was being beaten on a regular basis in a small town and had been dis-owned by all family. I offered him 3 months of total peace, freedom from harm, no hassles. At his request, I kept his secret about being gay.

It was my observation during this time that he was torturing himself. The people here welcomed him with open arms. He had more friends than me in a very short time and when he finally decided to 'out' himself to the new friends, they all laughed and said they knew all along. I could not have conciously planned a better welcoming for him if I had tried, yet he continued to torture himself.

He gained total acceptance and support, a real job and was dating without fear of being beaten. His dates were welcome in my home though I really did not care for all the facebook 'friend' requests to come of being on his friends list *g. In the end, to the dismay of all of us, he tortured himself into going back to the other world where he was overtly abused on a daily basis.

I ran into this once long ago in a factory. Of 50 employees on my night shift, 4 were gay women who were adament they were being harrassed and treated differrently. I was their supervisor, gave them good performance reports and raises because they were good employees. They got in our face regular like about being gay. It was playfully insitgated on their part most of the time and I honestly do not remember any real problems. This led to me making the bold statement, if the company is trying to fire you for being gay, I will defend you. Enter laugh track here: These ladies took the report to the president, got a handsome severence package in return for promise not to bring action later and I was fired for disloyalty to the company. I had attorneys laughing at me for a week over that one.

I look forward to the politicians and activists getting board with this bandwagon. It's setting people at odds with themselves and others who could be allies.

[gripreaper]

Just doodling on the prison walls but hey, it's no wonder that TPTB (especially in the US) keep using gender, genitalia (and who wants which kind) as a hot-button issue! They have done their homework, and know that anything to do with sex and sexuality is just like smacking the hornets nest.

Wade Frazier likes to use the phrase that Godzilla rarely ever has to lift a claw. Now that the divisive sex-based memes have taken such deep root, TPTB don't ever have to do anything more about it - we do it to ourselves. Though, I suspect they sometimes push that button just because it is so much fun to see us light up like a Roman candle.

Dennis

AND the Supreme Court has nothing better to do but adjudicate whether certain unions want to grant the "State" the right to contract and to abdicate their freedoms by demanding the right to enter into a contract with the State, subjecting the union to all the statutory rules and regulations of the State, based on some illusory and non existent benefits, other than taxation, which is voluntary!

The whole debacle is so convoluted and misguided, its utterly amazing to me regardless of the insanity of gender preference and sexuality.

[Bubu]

This is an argumentative fallacy. It´s not an ad hominem attack when you criticize any article that happens to reflect the author´s opinion. Period. Simply because, in such cases, it´s impossible to criticize one without automatically criticizing the other.

The wording below clearly does not apply to the article but the author


man is simply utterly ignorant and incapable of independent and unbiased thinking.

If anything I see in this is baited hook, oh yes that's correct Anchor. why insist on discussing a topic that is next to useless anyway.

watch out friends

Thanks Bill and the mod team for that action

[RMorgan]

This is an argumentative fallacy. It´s not an ad hominem attack when you criticize any article that happens to reflect the author´s opinion. Period. Simply because, in such cases, it´s impossible to criticize one without automatically criticizing the other.

The wording below clearly does not apply to the article but the author

man is simply utterly ignorant and incapable of independent and unbiased thinking.



...Which is a simple logical conclusion based on his own stated opinions.

As I said before, there´s no separation between author and content in articles that reflect personal opinions.

If his personal opinion is ignorant, prejudiced and biased, then he´s consequently ignorant, prejudiced and biased as a person.

Therefore, it´s not an ad hominem attack, but simply an inevitable direct connection.

Well, let alone his other opinions about other pretty relevant matters for his working field, like that way he´s always and repeatedly using the word Marxism and Socialism to mislead his readers into thinking that, using his own words, there´s a "Marxist takeover of America" happening right now, while in fact, what´s truly happening is exact the contrary.

That´s quite interesting, actually...Almost all his articles include at least one instance of the term Marxist, Communist or Socialist, always associated with completely opposed things...That´s something to think about as well.

As a journalist who writes about politics and economics, the way he´s constantly misleading his audience naturally leads me to believe that either he´s ignorant on such matters, which I doubt, or he´s doing it deliberately.

The way I perceive it, he´s a right-wing extremist pushing his own agenda, painting everyone who goes against his ideals either as communists or perverts.

Now, personally, I don´t know what kind of "insider" would choose a man like this as his spokesman, but I imagine he´s got at least some ideological affinity with him, which does put certain things in perspective.

Anyway, since I started talking, I´ll go on and repeat that so far, there´s nothing special about his so called insider; Like usual, all he´s always saying is that this or that is about to happen, that collapse is just around the corner, and nothing really happens. Looks to me like fear porn at its best.

You guys Americans should be extra careful...Think about the general message that this man spreads through his articles, then think if that´s the future you want to build for your nation. He might be the enemy of your enemy, but it doesn´t mean he´s your ally...

Your "mainstream" alternative media is gradually turning itself into a very dangerous kind of media of extremist character...You might want to ask why, at some point.

Raf.

[Bubu]

Hello raf,

"Next to useless" in the sense that personal opinion and personal preferences is personal in its real sense. As everyone is unique every one is entitled to his/her own opinion. With him criticizing the gay is no different than you criticizing him. If you say he is utterly ignorant then that makes you one too.

Sorry just setting the record straight. good way of learning isn't it?

[RMorgan]

Hello raf,

"Next to useless" in the sense that personal opinion and personal preferences is personal in its real sense. As everyone is unique every one is entitled to his/her own opinion. With him criticizing the gay is no different than you criticizing him. If you say he is utterly ignorant then that makes you one too.

Sorry just setting the record straight. good way of learning isn't it?

Sure, there´s no difference...Following this precept, one can´t criticize anything otherwise he equalizes himself to the subject of his critique...Great...Great way to make everyone silent.

Let´s close this forum, then. There´s nothing more to talk about. You can´t criticize Obama, corrupt politicians, criminals, bankers, the new world order, myopic ideologies or anything else, because if you do that, you´re going to equalize yourself with the criticized part...If you say that Ben Bernanke is a scoundrel, then it means you´re a scoundrel as well...If you say that Piers Morgan is a joke, then you´re the joke instead...If you read a mediocre article in the newspaper, you can´t criticize it, or you´ll become mediocre yourself.

Sorry, but there´s no logic in this reasoning.

Oh, and personal opinion becomes something much more than personal when stating it becomes your job and you end up influencing a lot of people through your statements...In this case, there´s always much more behind opinions, which is commonly called agenda.

[naste.de.lumina]

This debate demonstrates perfectly how fear is a weapon treacherous and cruel.
The fears difficult to intercept and decipher because they are ingrained in our subconscious.
Fear of hurting.
Fear of losing.
Fear of regret.
Fear of exposure.
Fear of loneliness.
Fear of disappointment.
Fear of exceeding.
Fear of opine.
Some of them. They depend on the degree of related emotions.
Finally, fear of failure, despite being human and subject to many errors, because it is part of human characteristic and learning experience that provides the error.
Provides the experience of consciousness expansion and consequently decision making wiser.
And we make thousands of decisions every day, hours, minutes and seconds of our life.
Love without fear to all who can make mistakes (we all do).

[Bubu]

Hi raf,

I don't know if your fully awake now or still sleepy.

If I criticize obama for being ugly that does not make me ugly either.

But if you criticize others for criticizing others then that makes you same as him. There is a big difference can't you see it?

[nonesuch]

RMorgan has stated as clearly as I ever could what I was going to post on the original thread, but I didn't get there before the thread was shut down and critics of Doug Hagman's incendiary article were targeted by staff as the reason for doing so. Paul may have taken criticism of Doug personally or as an attempt to discredit him (Doug) for ulterior motives. I didn't see it that way. I took his judgement that the discussion was not worth enough to him to bother deleting a post equating gays with reptilians perhaps too personally as well. Our agreement on that isn't necessary. I doubt any discussion on Avalon about homophobia or God's Loving Word against gay people's 'false' identity and even their existence, which Doug unambiguously implied, will go over any better even if we don't name names.

[DarMar]

This is extra!

A dude came and judged some persons which he labeled as homosexuals. (for others to read)
Then other person judged his actions on forum. (for others to see)
Ofc, it wouldn't be fun at all if mods didn't decide to judge too (for caring of others again)
So new thread should be opened to judge the mods!

Can we lets say not read article if it hurts? Or maybe try read it and if something not feels right about person, send him a couple of good thoughts atleast?
Or we should bash him into the ground even more than he already is? You think any phobia state comes from healthy soul?

label homosexual has been made for purpose of manipulation, infact whole sex thematics is hot-button thematic as Dennis said in this thread.
You think aware persons should use labels made by others?

But i c the point you trying to make here Raf.
Im kinda in thoughts because i was off grid for some time, and when came back, human brain size reached pea size in no time!
Even small me got bashed for revealing some things over net to certain people, that's why i needed to lay off for some time...
Thing is ... from famous 21.12... people didn't start to ascend but to rapidly descend..
Friend which was growing in consciousness for 17-20 years degraded to almoust primate in this short time :(

So i wonder... even if i see where you point at.. Is it really important to argue about person which has some jugmental opinion?
Or would be more important to decode way out of prison planet?
because how things are ... this won't be fun at all

let's say he is ignorant fool. And lets say whole proect Avalon agrees on that 200%
What things that change?

or..

let's say he is god of journalism and god's messenger..
Really, what thing tat change.

Believe it or not we will be still in same life situation no matter which path we choose. Because that is what i call distraction.
Awaken soul NEVER takes offered possibilities, he rather makes his own. That way he can still see actuality above perception.

Stay sharp brothers.

[Ilie Pandia]

Earlier on this forum, Eyes Wide Open linked to one of Doug Hagmann's latest articles (http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/8757) and pointed out the homophobic views expressed in there.

Unfortunately, the discussion was opened in such a way as to cause much divisiveness and arguments on the forum. The thread was closed and moved out of the public area.

But in doing so, a hidden implication was made, though not intentionally, and I write this to correct the issue.

The implication was that Doug's homophobic views are to be ignored because the troubles of the gay community are not as important as the testimony that Doug Hagmann has related to far.

So I want to acknowledge that after reading Doug's piece fully, his views are indeed homophobic. His article is an attack on the gay community and it should not be minimized in the light of his other articles.

At the same time, I want to bring to your attention that discussions about sexuality are a great trigger and they are being used to cause huge distractions and divisiveness on purpose.

It is my personal understanding that now the gay community is being used to cause a rift. There should really be not gay/straight talk, but only freedom of choice for all human beings (and other beings as well), but this issue is used to now to polarize the population some more.

So, I acknowledge Doug's homophobic attack, it should not be ignored or not discussed, but I also urge you to do your best and discuss it calmly, without emotional charge. As I've said I suspect that this issue is deliberately used to stir trouble. Shying away from it or fighting over it are not solutions.

[Sierra]

I look at it this way. 10% of the population is gay. After lifetimes as one gender, we switch. We switch gender, careers, nationality, race, religion, you name it, we do it. We are complete sl*ts when it comes to choosing our next lifetime, apparently even to the point we do evil to provide evolutionary growth to our nearest and dearest.

When we switch to bodies of a different genders, that lifetime tends to be same sex love oriented, because we have not yet switched mental gears to go with our new genders.

Every single one of us has been and done everything, yes we're all that. :becky:

As for Doug Hagmann, listen to the man. He has clearly and obviously been raised a Republican Christian, you cannot expect the man to be other than he is, according to his training and upbringing, a good God fearing man... And I would not want to be his gay son or daughter, but c'mon... His language is classic rattle off the categories without thinking hence no sight or seeing available to be aware of the unkindness or impact of his words. It is obviously canned programming, not vicious, vitriolic, hatred and malice as exhibited by the orcs of Westboro.

A little tolerance, a little kindness for all of us in our various incarnations goes a long way. Because whatever boat we put down the most, that is the next boat we'll be on.

Credit DH as a whistleblower, that is enough for one incarnation, and certainly more than most of us currently have on our plates. Let's not be ungrateful someone is putting themselves in a very dangerous position to keep us in the loop.

Let's save the subject of lifetime gender assignments for a good thread, treat the subject in itself as the point of discussion, not as an opportunity to personally drag someone through the gutter to be pilloried and burned. That is a very bad way to start a conversation on a topic that causes so much pain to so many, with pointing, accusing fingers. Ugh.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, evolutionary growth is the only way we are going to get through this lifetime we have served ourselves, and throwing stones while the planet is imploding is really stupid Orc/Troll behavior. I mean... THIS is what we're gonna squabble about now?

Really?

Believe me, if the **** hits the fan the way many of us assume it will, you are not going to give a rat's ass who is passing the ammunition.

Really. Big picture guys, big picture.

TigaHawk, thank you for the tone of your words, we are lucky to have you here. It sounds as if you have gone through hell, and kept your integrity intact.

Sierra

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

As far as I can see, if that same article was written by someone else you didn´t personally care about, you wouldn´t interfere. It means that your personal bias is interfering with your work as a moderator, which opens a serious precedent.

Please, don´t take this as personal. It´s not. It´s my opinion and I stand by it until convinced otherwise.


I agree. Many of us are guilty of this. I see this from Mods and members alike. I include myself in this.





...To safeguard the members, i feel Bill did the right thing to Pull It! It could of gotten ugly, thats what i picked up from it anyhow. I could be wrong.

Hey my friend,

What I don´t get is: To safeguard the members from what? From realizing that the author is totally ignorant and narrow minded, and has absolutely no condition of assuming the role of opinion leader? From realizing that he´s a moralist right-wing extremist whose ideals are half an inch close to fascism? From realizing that, in his opinion, only those who share his opinions and moral principles deserve freedom?

Cheers,

Raf.

well said.

This is my last post on the article.


Last night I thought about contacting the mods to change the topic title of the Hagmann thread to something less inflammatory.
I wish I had followed through now as I see it has been locked.
As I said in the opening post in the other thread, I respect freedom of speech and everyone has their own opinions.
I was just expressing mine as Doug expressed his in his article.
I did not set out to start a fight.
I was just browsing his site as I do from time to time and was was shocked to see such a post from someone whom I formally respected.
The info from his insider I feel is very important and I am greatfull for Doug getting it out there.
I am not throwing the baby our with the bath water here.
I have gay friends so this subject is very close to my heart and I found that article very offensive as well as the authors views as did others in that thread.
However, I said what I wanted to say so will not post anymore regarding that article.
I am sorry if it came across as an attack. It was not meant to be.
My apologies to Bill and the mods.
It was an expression of my anger and I would have posted the same had I come across a similar article by some other author that I regularly followed.
I cant help but call out this stuff. I wish I was more eloquent like other posters here. But I am not. I don't really have a way with words.
I seem to get myself in trouble all the time here.

[sdv]

Thank you for posting that article EUES WIDE OPEN. I did not see it as an attack on Doug Hagmann, but as him revealing his opinions in his own words. Now that he has aired those views in public, supporting him and giving him a public forum can become a way of also giving his beliefs support (it's okay what you said Doug because you revealed insider information).

In South Africa, Eugene De Kock and Dirk Coetzee, among others, blew the whistle on Vlakplaas (they spoke to journalist and revealed the truth). Those journalists never forgot that they were talking to monsters. Those journalists made the truth public but never hid the fact that the truth came from despicable monsters, and never excused those monsters.

I'll see if I kind find an article from someone like Max Du Preez in which he maybe explains how you get the truth without compromising your own integrity by pretending that the person giving you the information is not despicable in some way and by not hiding that in revealing the truth.

[Lifebringer]

I think among the rules, they state if the comments or media permeate the peaceful hearts and minds here in short, upset people, then they use the discretion, like everyother site to have rules of respect or not be posted. It's really not about protecting or shielding the author or others that read his stuff off "his/her" site, but with all the people who come here to converse in calm rational and respectful manner, it's only fair that others respect the same rules to post, eh?

I've been here a but a minute in Galactic time, but have to tell you, I can get the other emotional baggage, elsewhere, anywhere in the lower unawakened mass propagandic media. Opinion pieces belong in the media circus. It's where we drop truth links to let others make their decision on whether they want to know more. If others want to expand their opinion, perhaps, I'm not explaining it right?

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

In a weird bit of timing, Natural News just published this article on weather or not its possible to have a calm debate on gay & race issues!

http://www.naturalnews.com/041029_social_media_experiment_racism.html


After landing myself in some pretty hot water over the past few days running an online social media experiment, I've decided to halt the test and disclose what we've been doing here at Natural News. Yes, it's true: We've been running a social media "stress test" to find out whether internet users could have a rational discussion on edgy topics like race, gender and same-sex marriage. For this test, I personally penned several eyebrow-raising articles on topics we normally would not cover




The results of the experiment are mixed. Essentially, they reveal two very important things about America's online social media culture: People are SMART, but they're also sharply DIVIDED and become quite irrational on highly-charged issues like race, gender and sexual orientation. These results, in retrospect, aren't all that surprising.




We also discovered that the most touchy subject of all is anything involving a black woman. To criticize a black woman, regardless of the nature or the focus of the criticism, is to invite yourself to be immediately labeled a racist. The only way to NOT be labeled a racist is to only say complimentary things about women of color. This is unfortunate, because it means there is no possibility of rational discussion about any issue involving a woman who just happens to be black. So if the next President of the USA, for example, were a black woman, she could immediately become a complete dictator because no criticism of anything she does would be tolerated in our society.



(bolding not mine)


This is another disturbing discovery: People tend to react to the titles of articles, regardless of what the articles actually say. Apparently, the title is enough for people to draw a conclusion about the merit of an entire article these days. I think I could get a lot more stories published, by the way, if I only write the titles and don't bother with the text.



The conclusion to all this is mixed. When it comes to issues involving race, social media users are wildly irrational and impossible to communicate with. When it comes to issues involving sexual preference, however, they seem to be more grounded and able to think more critically. So race is the hot-button issue where people lose their minds more than anywhere else.


Pretty interesting stuff. I still find it very hard to not post straight away after reading something that winds me up. "Anger is an energy" as John Lydon sang once. But rarely is it a positive one.

[Fred Steeves]

Many many people have sexual and racial baggage. Let's call it "douchebaggage." I can see your point, but I can also see Bill's point - and at this moment on Earth this particular guy isn't important for his douchebaggage, but he may be very important for the "insider" information coming through him. We weren't lucky enough to have this info come through someone with less douchebaggage, or even no douchebaggage at all. His un-Christian, intolerant, homophobic rant has been noted. We won't "fix" him - he can only fix himself, and only if he wants to. He is not a moral leader, but may have some valuable 'insider' insights.


I like your term there Dennis, "douchebaggage". (LOL) That's a zinger I won't forget. Anyway, I was actually rather stunned to see the thread closed, and interpreted as inflammatory last evening. I had been following it when taking breaks at work, and it caused me to do some meticulous thinking on the subject which had previously not been done. My first inclination kept being the old don't throw the baby out with the bath water, but then a second thought (a question) was always hot on it's heels. The man's judgment.

It's always helpful to have real life experience to draw upon when dealing with difficult matters, and I began asking myself what I would think/do if I knew Doug personally, and suddenly heard him speaking this way about my uncle who is gay, and married to another man. I love my uncle dearly, and he is a very thoughtful and spiritual person to boot. So on a personal and emotional level Doug would very quickly be exiting my life, and on the take a step back analytical level, I would be seriously questioning the man's judgment.

Of course this doesn't mean he has nothing useful to say, but if he has shown himself to be so blatantly off base on one thing, then the rest automatically becomes suspect. What other gaping holes are there in his logic and the way he sees the world???

So I just didn't see the thread as an "ad hominem attack on Doug Haggman" at all, I was actually thankful the information was brought to the forefront. It was an opportunity for some deep consideration.

Could it have been worded and presented more eloquently? Sure, I can grant that. But at the same time, I've seen very similar stuff fly through here without so much as a peep.

So it goes...

P.S. Hey Raf, if I were you brother I would let this go. There ARE certainly bigger fish to fry, and anyone who is supposed to see the information about Doug has/will see it. We generally have pretty free run of this place, and there is no other like it. Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree, and the censorship topic is a sleeping dog that's best to leave lay.

[4Talismans]

I don't identify as lesbian although I live with another woman. I don't identify as American although I love this country and I was born here. I identify as a human being, and thats pretty much it. But that doesn't mean I don't care about homophobia. We have to care because our kids are dying every day from it. Every bit of homophobia that gets called out, and named for what it is is important. Thank you EYES WIDE OPEN. You don't know who may have read that, or who needed to read it. And you added to the energy of love and acceptance instead of hate and divisiveness.
As far as censorship and moderation go... it's a tough and thankless job. And there are times when the ad-hominem problems make it impossible to do the right thing as was explained so eloquently in the OP. I have not seen any attempt at censorship, personally. If there were this thread would not be open.

[Ernie Nemeth]

A person's opinions are their own. That said I do not hang around with bigots, nor do I attentively listen to what a bigot has to say, regardless of their claims.

[Lifebringer]

Hi Paul; Just read it. Got the yucky in the stomach feeling. Or the stirring of my chakra, just processing it. You were right to remove it when so many are working on shedding hatefilled intentions, which the Creator and God never wished us to use to harm. Thank you for your consideration and I understand about the temptation to go back into the "tit for tat bag" when it is read in the comments. It is another of the Willie Lynch divisions. Ole St Plantation himself. He said that to divide them in biases, is to conquer their spirit and remove their confidence in themselves.

Boy, that ole snakey rascal was devious to play on the emotions of taught hate or dislikes of color, to distract picking your pocket at the banks.
It would be wise to see who's buttering his babble online, but really to delve into the dark recesses/regresses just isn't my job. My job is to help people become aware of the snakey clauses that have been removed, or put in our governmental structures, to cave the American Dream, workers, women and minorities in this country and around the world. Follow the swastika tats, and you'll see a lot. The people helping to fund this attitude of ignorance of the colors of the rainbow, are the breadcrumbs to follow and the reason why Citizen's United didn't want to disclose.

They don't just fund elections, they fund the whole board with fiat money in exchange for the value in countries.
Perhaps "PRISM" equals People Reaping Ignorance Supporting Media.
They all merge together and use the strings to "Lynch" US/World.

[mgray]

If Bill believes Doug Hagmann's published words are important, that is his right. And with his knowledge we should take heed.
But Bill should not get to choose which published words are important and which should be disregarded.
We are not lemmings here, taking it at face value.
Research into Hagmann's thoughts on other subjects gives context to the author and his believe system, which could cloud his thoughts.
Most times you put a person on a pedestal, look out below.

[Bill Ryan]

-------

A brief personal note (having just woken up to read the thread, with interest, to see how it had developed overnight).

My thanks to all for the intelligent comments. It's an interesting and complex debate, and I support the open discussion. The thread that was closed showed all the signs of deterioration by normally high Avalon standards. This one is the opposite. I appreciate Raf for starting it.

[Carmody]

This isn´t about homophobia itself. It´s about mislabeling, censoring and locking a thread to artificially try to shield someone else´s reputation, to exempt him from his own responsibilities and consequences of his actions.
That's not why we moved, retitled and closed that thread.

But there's no sense in my attempting to say why we did that again. Several people have tried that already, to no avail, including just above.

If you could, please, at least quit misrepresenting our motives.

Paul,

I´m sure you know I´m a reasonable man.

As soon as you´re able to objectively and clearly explain your reasons to qualify that thread as an ad hominem attack, I will then be able to interpret your actions the way you want them to be interpreted.

So far, as far as I can understand, your premise for labeling it like you did is absolutely flawed, but I keep my mind open to the possibility of being convinced of the contrary.

As far as I can see, if that same article was written by someone else you didn´t personally care about, you wouldn´t interfere. It means that your personal bias is interfering with your work as a moderator, which opens a serious precedent.

Please, don´t take this as personal. It´s not. It´s my opinion and I stand by it until convinced otherwise.


...To safeguard the members, i feel Bill did the right thing to Pull It! It could of gotten ugly, thats what i picked up from it anyhow. I could be wrong.

Hey my friend,

What I don´t get is: To safeguard the members from what? From realizing that the author is totally ignorant and narrow minded, and has absolutely no condition of assuming the role of opinion leader? From realizing that he´s a moralist right-wing extremist whose ideals are half an inch close to fascism? From realizing that, in his opinion, only those who share his opinions and moral principles deserve freedom?

Cheers,

Raf.

Raf,

There's always a fine line between getting it right and having people misinterpret what you are doing.

A line that also includes dealing with preconceived notions that ride within people, notions that they may feel are correct and logical, even though they are assigning logic to emotionally derived and cloaked projections.

One cannot shatter a community and it's growth, in the effort to be perfectionist in how one handles all aspects.

Time and time again, such a tactic of 'extreme purity' in actions and motives, has shown that it fails. As, after all, the given community is in the act of growing, and is not wholly perfect. And it never will be perfect.

Thus, perfection in presentation and act cannot be pursued. It never will be, in any functional scenario that includes many people at and in different stages of growth.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the context of maintaining a stable space, group, or environment of growth for those who are not perfect, your demands are illogical.

[donk]

I appreciate the efforts Raf and eyes, Ilie’s post is dead on. I’d just like to interject this into the conversation:

If you are going to take the “conspiracy” angle on the homosexual “agenda” and care to maintain any credibility across the board--outside of your supporters and like-minded people, you tread with great care and sensitivity. It does not seem to me he did that.…just look at what happened here—nothing but division.

From my perspective, it seems he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what people who don’t “understand” him think, so whatever message is not for you—you people that can’t get over yourself and your emotional attachment to hang-ups about sexuality—it is only for the enlightened, like him….and those that would protect us from his “misunderstood” remarks.

I ask his supporters: what purpose did the transmission of that “information” serve?

[RMorgan]

Hi everyone,

I´d like to thank you for keeping this thread polite and respectful. That´s the only way to conduct a fruitful discussion.

Now, I´d like to clarify some things.

Some of you may be thinking that I´m making a big deal out of small things and you´re relatively right. There are bigger things to worry about...right?

However, I went through a lot of changes during the last months and, for many reasons, I´ve learned that nothing can be neglected, specially the small, almost invisible things, because people have already been neglecting these apparently insignificant things for centuries, until that at some point, when people realized they should pay attention to those previously small issues, they had already grown so big, that nobody knows how to figure them out.

As I said on another thread, society is shaped as a pyramid, regarding all its aspects. In this specific case, you must be aware that , deposited at its base, there are a trillion small issues that we need to overcome before we can progress and solve the major issues on top.

We´ve been talking about pretty big stuff here, but why we can´t never come up with a practical and immediately applicable solution? Because we need, as a society, to solve small stuff first. There´s no shortcut.

It´s like if life worked from bottom to top, only that the only way you can reach and solve the top issues, is by eliminating the bottom ones, which allows gravity and momentum to bring the top issues to your reach...There are no stairs...No elevators...No shortcuts.

This thread is mostly centered around two issues: the moderation and lock down of that other thread and homophobia.

When those moderation choices were made regarding that other thread, an issue was created. It wasn´t there before. I guess by now you have an idea on how such apparently small issue could grow out of control, eventually leading to unnecessary conflict in this environment and beyond. Remember that this forum is a miniaturized model of society, and everything that happens here can happen anywhere else, but in much bigger dimensions.

The other issue is homophobia, which indeed carries a lot of energy. Behind the word lives the meaning, and the meaning, in this case, is oppression. The exact same moment happened many times before: We have abolished slavery and some people were against it. We gave women the right to vote and some people opposed it. We have granted black people the right to vote, to go to universities to be equal in the eyes of the law, but some people were against it...

The same people that are now against same sex marriage, were always against any measure to restore freedom, were always against natural consciousness evolution. If the world was managed by people like Hagmann, we would still be living in a XVI century like society, or worse.

First, have in mind that, before law, there was freedom in its purest form, where anyone was naturally free to do whatever they want but also free to suffer the full weight of the consequences of their actions. The law was created as a ridiculous attempt to regulate freedom, and freedom doesn´t like being regulated. Freedom is self regulated and doesn´t need laws or morals; It´s beautiful and cruel, like nature.

Anyway, this is about the conflict generated by oppressed and oppressor. It´s the energy of freedom claiming back its territory. Conflict generates energy beyond rational comprehension, and such energy can either be released and, as you know, energy is never lost, but transformed into something else, or such energy could be oppressed, locked, and it gets denser and denser, because it has got nowhere to go, not enough space to expand, until it eventually implodes, releasing chaos.

So, again, be careful with who or what you support. Be extra careful to where you direct your energy to. Life is magic, and each gesture, word and thought has a meaning that goes way beyond what our intellect could ever rationalize.

You only get to be who you want to be if you live with absolute awareness of the whole, where the tiniest of things is indistinguishable from the gigantic.

Reality is not an illusion; Just the contrary. It´s much more real than we could ever imagine, and the vast majority of things happen at levels that are either so small or so overwhelmingly huge, that we can´t make sense of them; Literally.

So, more important than watching your steps is to watch everything that happens in the space in between them.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Whiskey_Mystic]

You mods know that I support you. Even when my best buddy was banned.

I think you should take another look at what Raf is saying.

[christian]

A general comment: Removing disruptive emotional charges makes communicating so easy. I'm so glad that I have no horse in this race. :)


Well, let alone his other opinions about other pretty relevant matters for his working field, like that way he´s always and repeatedly using the word Marxism and Socialism to mislead his readers into thinking that, using his own words, there´s a "Marxist takeover of America" happening right now, while in fact, what´s truly happening is exact the contrary.

Behind the scenes, the establishment is very much into Marxism/Socialsm/Communism in the sense of creating a centrally controlled society, I think. Rockefeller endorsed Mao, Wallstreet bankers founded the Bolshevik revolution, numerous high-ranking politicians in the US openly endorsed communistic ideas at one time or another... Corporatism, Communism, Fascism, it all boils down to a tiny elite tyranically ruling over everybody else. The left-right debate is phony in my eyes, it's freedom vs. tyranny, self-determination vs. feudalism.

Hagman from all I know about him seems to be in favor of a lot of freedom but with a hardcore Christian taint, wanting to limit individual freedoms that I think shouldn't be limited.

As for the "Is Hagman homophobic" thread, it was very lop-sided, in my opinion, an overly harsh attack against Hagman. But we can all help to put it into perspective.

In my opinion, his most important point in this article is:


A very important aspect of those goals focuses on breaking down all cultural standards of morality, including the promotion of all forms of homosexuality, promiscuity and degeneracy as “normal and healthy.”

This is what's happening, I think, which of course doesn't mean that every gay person is corrupting the society. Look at many inventors, philosophers, and great spirits from ancient Rome or Greece for instance. But Hagman would like to prohibit homosexuality in general:



It was in 1986, a mere 27 years ago, that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state’s rights to enact sodomy laws in the landmark case of Bowers v. Hardwick. Citing then Chief Justice Warren Burger, “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.” That fragile thread of morality lasted only 17 years. In 2003, the Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in other states.

Although it was contended at the time that the latter case had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, Supreme Court Justice Antonion Scalia astutely saw through the smoke screen and during oral arguments, flatly admonished anyone who would listen that the decision would open the floodgates toward the recognition of same-sex marriage. And so it did.

I think he'd be better off focusing on more important crimes and solutions to societal problems. I'm not into homosexuality and I wouldn't really encourage anyone to get into it because personally I feel like it's healthy to embrace your gender and find someone of the other gender for a healthy energetic interchange. But I do acknowledge that there may be such a thing as a gender-indentity problem within some people, so I know I should be prudent with judgements.

In general people should follow their dreams as long as they do it voluntarily and don't harm others, I think for some people being gay may be a good choice, for some people it may not. In any case, people should be free to choose. To counteract moral degeneration, I'd suggest simply live a good life, inspire others freely, and call out the real tyrants and psychopaths that are deliberately hellbent on putting down humanity.

[RMorgan]

A general comment: Removing disruptive emotional charges makes communicating so easy. I'm so glad that I have no horse in this race. :)

Hey Chris,

Just some brief comments about your reply.

First, the figure of a central authority is not a premise of Marxism and all its variations, but a premise of totalitarianism, which is a variable that could be applied to any social economical model.

All those guys, when they had supported allegedly socialist models, they were just conducting their business as usual. They are known to finance all sides of the same war.

Everybody should read Carl Marx, who is your fellow countryman. The man was simply brilliant...If society was advanced enough to apply and improve his theories without corruption, we would be living in a much better society right now.

About the degeneration of society, homosexuality is far from being a determining factor. The degeneration of society is driven by a majority, from many aspects, while homosexuals are part of a minority; They simply don´t have enough power to degenerate society on their own. As a quick observation, homosexuals are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

If you could read minds, probably you would find much more dirty little secrets in the Sunday´s mass, than you could find in a gay club. Morality is nothing but a cheap mask used as a pathetic attempt to hide what´s behind it.

Another point is that being gay is not a choice, just like being born blond, black, yellow or diabetic. It just happens and there´s nothing you can do about it. There´s no choice or "cure". I have many gay friends, and they had made that clear to me a number of times.

Of course, there are people who engage homosexual adventures just to try something different, which is indeed a choice, but those are not natural born homosexuals.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Sierra]

Raf says, "You only get to be who you want to be if you live with absolute awareness of the whole, where the tiniest of things is indistinguishable from the gigantic."

God is in the details. :)

[Beren]

Another point is that being gay it´s not a choice, just like being born blond, black, yellow or diabetic. It just happens and there´s nothing you can do about it. There´s no choice or "cure". I have many gay friends, and they had many that clear to me a number of times.

Of course, there are people who engage homosexual adventures just to try something different, which is indeed a choice, but those are not natural born homosexuals.

Cheers,

Raf

Raf,

It is a choice but a one which is made before a soul came into this life.
You don`t have to believe this but many a expert of this field can testify this.
Many psychiatrists or MD who dealt with life between lives phenomena can point you in this that everything is a choice before we go on into next adventure in body.

Other question is why some soul chose to be homosexual in this life and hetero in others...

My question is why humans (most) are feeling very ugly when they see homosexual acts?
Is it something deeply ingrained in psyche?

Do we try to over rationalize it now - the one of the many human acts and behaviours?

First and foremost we have to observe the fine connection between our acts and thoughts and words and the results of the same.
Maybe the deeply ingrained sense of extending the species or enabling the new soul to come in physical is awaking the fire in us when we see the act of another human being who chose to act differently...

There is freedom of choice but we cannot negate or ignore the emotions and feelings we have when we observe our or someone else`s choices.
We can feel the possible result thus we grow the particular emotion towards it.

There are few stages of the emotion:

1. a man or woman sees other men or women in homosexual behaviour
2. an instinct kick in of specie preserve and a outburst of negative feeling (because homosexual cannot extend the specie naturally)
3. if the first reactionary emotion is controlled (if it doesn`t outburst as anger deemed as homofobia) then comes the second of rationalizing it
4. then comes understanding of why someone is doing something and realization of free will of that someone
5. but then that someone cannot ask for right of free will for their acts without allowing the act of free will of others who see their acts as erroneous
6. then the conflict arises which is basically name calling of two polarized sides
7. conflict can be dealt with only with higher understanding of who we are- not bodies - souls-spirits
8. homofobia implies that someone is afraid of homosexual act or people, some are afraid because of various reasons-thus they attack
9. but also there others who are not afraid of homosexuality but do not see it as high human expression, rather as depression of certain soul`s potential.
10. and then if all these stages are passed through one emerge as a person who is above sexual division and personal choices understanding that they are personal choice s which will have consequences - good or bad.

All this above is and can be used for any instance not just a choice of homosexual or heterosexual act.
A person is not defined by what he or she does in an intimate way.
But if a person wants to be identified as homo or hetero sexual- it implies that this choice colors every aspect of their lives.

For example I am heterosexual but I don`t walk around telling everybody how proud I am of being one, I don`t post on facebook endless comments about what do I as heterosexual want and do and I don`t put hashtags of hetero everywhere, I don`t emotionally harras all about my sexuality and how many women I want to **** or anything other that is connected to openly brag myself about what my sexual choice is.


And I know many homosexuals who doesn`t do either of these things. They know who they are and they are fine with it. They look at the bigger picture.


In this context of emotionally unstable people of both choices , corporations are heavily abusing their lives.
Women are constantly sexualized for the sake of selling the product, men are started to being that as well.

Then same corporations introduced the political correctness to people now threatening their free expression so you have both examples of men and women, Homo or hetero.
Sex is being heavily abused theme because it`s a glue to all kind of parasites because through sexual acts we release enormous energy.

[naste.de.lumina]

In my view, although the topic have originated in a discussion about homophobia, reactions and attitudes turned him into a discussion of principles.
I understand that Raf is defending the principles that form the basis of his character. And these principles can not be modified according to the circumstances of sympathy and / or friendship, under penalty of being discredited.
It's a difficult topic but it can provide valuable moments of intense reflection and reaffirmation of purpose and principles defined by consciousness as a goal.
Grateful to all.

[mevlana]

Accusations on Greer were allowed to persist and they were not called ad hominem attacks and wonder how the Hagman thread was different?

The 'charges' against Greer were:

That he was lying about the ETs' benevolence, about abductions, and about what the US involvement with the ETs was.
That he had been involved in illegal activities.

None of (1) or (2) above applies to Hagmann,

there might be difference between lying and believing. If I see someone performing tracheotomy to 5 years old girl who has allergic tracheal spasm. i will approach him to help securing the tube which one has to be fixed surrounding tissue. If this was staged at Eastern of Turkey's suburban probably we would be considered as abductors and child torturer which would cause our self were lynched by locals.
If I witnessed same scene at western Turkey metropolis street I would try to stop the person in that situation which any immediate second an ambulance could arrive the place. Maybe Dr.? Greer was witnessed his all experience similar to my first sample and considering all interference are benevolent. My advice to him if he see me coughing from my smoking habit's result , performing a tracheotomy on me would not be appreciated and welcomed.
your second reasoning as a
"That he had been involved in illegal activities."
This is subjective issue depends on who governing and lawmaking is.
I could be accused for been involved in illegal activities these days even though my same action would be considered a heroic act 10 years ago.

[Nickolai]

I cant help but call out this stuff. I wish I was more eloquent like other posters here. But I am not. I don't really have a way with words.
I seem to get myself in trouble all the time here.

Dear EYES WIDE OPEN,

I have no clue why should you ask for apologies here. It's promised that the forum is for humans who seek understanding and it is also promised we are free to speak what is on our mind....

You shouldn't be!

[Strat]

This thread is getting convoluted. The main point of the thread was/is(?) censorship.



Going straight to the point. Our colleague posted the article for our appreciation and criticism. The absolutely ridiculous content, naturally, didn´t generate very positive feedback, though.

Then, the moderation, feeling offended because the author of the article is someone of their esteem, quickly changed the title to "..ad hominem attack.." and definitively locked the thread later on.


If this thread were to have an official mod team reply it would be:



I want to acknowledge that after reading Doug's piece fully, his views are indeed homophobic. His article is an attack on the gay community and it should not be minimized in the light of his other articles.


You should be an attorney...joking!

So we're basically all on the same page.

So should moderators change original thread titles? If so, what conditions would demand a title change?


---------------

Yes thread titles should change under certain circumstances. For instance if someone creates a thread and the title is, "got a question" and the context of the thread is about faraday cages, then ideally that would warrant a title change to, "faraday cage question" or whatever. Also if the title itself is offensive then it should be changed (deleted). This would include blatant profanity, racism, sexual references, marketing (spam) etc.

I don't see any other reason to change thread titles.

Regarding gay rights: 50 years from now people will look back and think how could we have been so prejudiced? Kinda like how we look back 50 years ago and think how could we have been so prejudiced?

Prejudiced isn't the word I'm looking for, doesn't carry the weight. I'm kinda using it as a blanket term. Someone with a better command of the English language help me out.

[BrianEn]

We live in a prejiced society. You can't really escape nor fight it at every turn. I hate a lot of the attitudes that I encounter. Have faced it myself as my nationality is known for its love of alcohol. It's no where near the levels that other have to face.

This video is about a grade 3 teacher who runs an experiment to help her students understand what it feels like to be discriminated against. I was astounded with the effectineness of her methods and how she grounded her students afterwards.

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-a-teacher-make-her-3rd-grade-kids-hate-each-other-for-the-best-reason-imaginable-2?c=ufb1

I highly recommend this vid.

[Snoweagle]

Personally, I agree with the closure of the previous thread.
I also agree the views of Doug Hagmann were strongly homophobic by definition.
I also agree the moderators were correct to discontinue the personal attacks on any individual for what ever comments made.
That is Avalon, we are here to discuss topics. Discrediting the information provided is fair game though not the messenger.

A powerfully emotive topic requiring a global paradigm shift in cultural beliefs, has and will continue to be controversial, yet as already stated, is a tiny blip on the multitude of enforced changes forced on the global consciousness to separate and divide communities during this period of hierarchical change. A forceful distraction aligned with the gamut of pervasive decline in morality hardly entices nor encourages immediate acceptance and tolerance where once there was none. Change is painful, time is the healer, if we have enough.

Arguing strongly or forcibly for unerring unequivocal acceptance for same sex marriage will not win the day. State your case and allow others to do the same, hopefully and eventually, a semblance of temperate respect and dignity will champion this belief. Expect some stormy seas during this transition.

A cautionary opinion: a topic of such torrid opinions, now enshrined lawfully places everyone under the eagle eyed litigators watchful gaze. Protecting the principles of the Avalon forum is one thing, which I support but preventing the Avalon players from crossing any self inflicted legal issues has also to be considered which we must, (gags), accept the moderators reasonable decisions. Successfully and with difficulty, we have witnessed here during this debate.

Hopefully not off topic, which I have discussed with others quietly, during the 1930-1945s during the rise of National Socialism in Europe, minority groups were targeted. I am concerned now that with the rise again of National Socialism in North America with well acknowledged Camp systems, why this doesn't seem to be of concern as history has a habit of repeating itself.

Personally, as a single heterosexual man with both straight and gay friends, am coming out of retirement to start my own stable of ladies:-)
So all is good here:-)

Thank you Avalon for great discussion and discernment. Respect.

[AuCo]

Sorry to have missed the boat (previous thread). In regards to homosexuality, this is what I have observed:

- Women sterilization: strongly opposed [by general population]
- Abortion: costly and not all that welcomed
- One child policy: what a mess - China has 30 million men that cannot find their mate.
- Homosexual: by nature (or so some said) - now about 10% and growing.

I looked around. There were children growing up falling in love with boy/girlfriends - a beautiful thing. Then overnight some turn gay/lesbian. I told my friends that it must be the water. Well, vaccines come in liquid form mostly.

On the second hand, the Greek armies did not have vaccines back then that historians noticed.

There again, off the chart I go.

[christian]

Everybody should read Carl Marx, who is your fellow countryman. The man was simply brilliant...If society was advanced enough to apply and improve his theories without corruption, we would be living in a much better society right now.

Oh, I just wanna be free. I don't like any kind of society where—even if you don't do any harm to others—you are forced to do certain things for the "benefit of the collective." Because the end (=benefit) doesn't justify the means (=force).

I'm all for actions that are for the benefit of the whole, but they gotta come from the heart voluntarily through conviction, not through law. In that spirit, I'd rather suggest to read the Austrians like Mises or Hayek. :cool:


About the degeneration of society, homosexuality is far from being a determining factor. The degeneration of society is driven by a majority, from many aspects, while homosexuals are part of a minority; They simply don´t have enough power to degenerate society on their own. As a quick observation, homosexuals are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Looking at the Latin roots of degeneration, I find:




de- = reversal, undoing, removing
genus = race, kind

Homosexual sex doesn't produce offspring. Humanity would die out if everybody would only choose to have homosexual relationships. So this can't really be it, hence in my eyes homosexuality is but a tolerable deviation, kind of like so many other things that humans do that are rather unhealthy but that some or even many people might somehow enjoy.


Another point is that being gay is not a choice, just like being born blond, black, yellow or diabetic. It just happens and there´s nothing you can do about it. There´s no choice or "cure". I have many gay friends, and they had made that clear to me a number of times.

I understand that there probably is a predisposition of some kind. But then again, people have all kind of predispositions from past lives, not all of them are good, in fact many can be quite negative. People then may act compulsively and say, "that's just how I am, I have no choice." I'm not saying that homosexuality is or should be considered a crime, but many criminals justify their crimes exactly like that.

The way I see it, the physical and energetic bodies of males and females complement each other. If there is an imbalance somewhere, you might be drawn to homosexual relationships. Maybe if you as a homosexual person really work on a balance within your gender, you might overcome this and be no longer 'without choice.' Of course, this is only my speculation, it's only a thought that I entertain. I don't wanna force this perspective on anyone, especially not on people who would come to tell me how they experience it very differently and how I'm completly wrong. They may be right.

[Freed Fox]

I don't want to offend anybody here, but then again many of the comments (whether intentional or not) would be quite offensive to a homosexual.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. That should be blatantly obvious to anyone, even without scientific data to support it. To other heterosexual men here; did you ever, at any point, make a conscious decision to like women? Did you ever choose to not be attracted to other men? No. Of course you didn't. That was simply your predisposition.

The argument that same-sex relationships don't produce offspring is a tired one. Is 7 billion people simply not enough? Do we really need to be procreating like rabbits until overpopulation really does become an inescapable problem? Does every couple need to see childbearing as the bottom line, when there are already thousands of orphans with no one to care for them? Procreation is not the bottom line. Love is. Homosexuality isn't some kind of virus or contagious disease that, if allowed, is going to spread and doom the human race. Such absurd implications convey a severe misunderstanding of this issue, and is rather thinly veiled homophobia.

Of course, homophobia itself isn't of any major concern, unless it is acted upon (such as, for instance, claiming homosexuality is a 'problem' that needs to be somehow 'fixed').

[christian]

I don't want to offend anybody here, but then again many of the comments (whether intentional or not) would be quite offensive to a homosexual.

Which comments? Please clarify, let's figure this out. :)

[Ernie Nemeth]

We sure are messed up about sex. We can't even admit it is fundamentally governed by our own desire to orgasm, not on a sexual partner. I think homophobia is a convenient cover to our real hang-up, which is masturbation. No one wants to talk about that one. It's easier to target a small group and discuss their, not our own, deviant/non-deviant behavoirs.

Sex is sex, it's fun, it feels good. (So long as it is between consenting, respectful adults)

Procreation is another thing altogether...

[RMorgan]

Everybody should read Carl Marx, who is your fellow countryman. The man was simply brilliant...If society was advanced enough to apply and improve his theories without corruption, we would be living in a much better society right now.

Oh, I just wanna be free. I don't like any kind of society where—even if you don't do any harm to others—you are forced to do certain things for the "benefit of the collective." Because the end (=benefit) doesn't justify the means (=force).

I'm all for actions that are for the benefit of the whole, but they gotta come from the heart voluntarily through conviction, not through law. In that spirit, I'd rather suggest to read the Austrians like Mises or Hayek. :cool:



Hey Chris,

I wont discuss homosexuality with you, because I totally disagree with your perspective and discussing it wouldn´t take us anywhere.

However, I can discuss Marxism and socialism, since it´s a much more black and white theme, with little possibility of relativization.

First of all, the only socialist model where the individual is obliged to do things which may go against his will, is the totalitarian state socialism, which assume totalitarian characteristics similar to those of fascism or any other authoritarian regime.

Apart from that, there are many extremely interesting models that I suggest you to explore, such as Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), which of course comes from Marxism, and is a system that I truly believe to be a much better alternative to our current one:


Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.

Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism, and by some as a synonym for left anarchism.

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.

Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

I´m not sure if you enjoy Noam Chomsky´s work, but if you do, he´s a Libertarian Socialist, and has a lot to say about the subject.

Here´s a video interview, where he explains some concepts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkaO12X-h1Y

Another nice article, by Chris Wilson:

How a Libertarian Capitalist Became a Libertarian Socialist (http://www.std.com/~mhuben/wilson_1.html)

Another one, by Felipe Corrêa:

The Libertarian Socialist Thought of Noam Chomsky (http://www.fondation-besnard.org/article.php3?id_article=581)

From my point of view, it´s the freer, most democratic, horizontal, anti-authoritarian and viable social economic system that we could apply in today´s society.

I believe most people on Avalon would be interested to study such system, since it´s extremely aligned with what most of us believe to constitute a fair system, where there´s no pyramidal structure, no controlling elite, no authoritarian government, and where democracy is truly in the hands of the people.

I know most Americans still carry heavy residues of cold war propaganda, so, please be open minded and try to look to the terms Marxism and Socialism from an unprejudiced perspective, specially in this specific case, because Libertarian Socialism is very very interesting and promising.

By the way, using the term Marxism as pejorative, as Hagmann and Jones use all the time, is an idiot generalization. I´m absolutely sure that Carl Marx would not appreciate the authoritarian model of socialism, just like Adam Smith would not appreciate the current model of Free Market.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Freed Fox]

I don't want to offend anybody here, but then again many of the comments (whether intentional or not) would be quite offensive to a homosexual.

Which comments? Please clarify, let's figure this out. :)

I don't want to go pointing fingers, Christian. This topic is divisive enough as it is. The points I touched upon generally indicate what I take issue with. It is easy enough as a heterosexual to approach this topic in a cold and clinical fashion, but it is a matter of human rights, tolerance of something which is entirely harmless but is treated as otherwise by quite a few, and an issue which is too often met with physical and psychological abuse.

[ulli]

To find out if sex and procreation are linked we might want to ask those who engineered our genes in the first place.
They must have had a terrible fear of humanity dying out one day....hence they ensured the fun part, and even made the sex instinct stronger than the mind.

[ulli]

The one thing wrong with homosexuality is that it has become a movement, predatorial, organized,
with the extreme end made up of men and women at war with the bigots in society.
The two are like opposite sides of the same coin.

So I have some thoughts about it...opinions. Having worked in the fashion world some of my best and oldest friends are gay.
(They love astrologers, lol)
One thing I noticed over the decades...I have yet to meet one happy OLD queen.
Gay marriage is one way for them to remedy that.
Having given themselves to indulging their bodies they have become dependent on physical beauty and attractiveness...
which like everything else that is engrained soon becomes a habit and keeps soul growth stuck.
Life style is always a choice, always.
If one has tendencies that could lead one down a path of unhappiness one might want to take a closer look at what fed those tendencies in the first place. Not for the sake of society, but one's self.

[Anchor]

I don't want to offend anybody here, but then again many of the comments (whether intentional or not) would be quite offensive to a homosexual.


I am sick and tired of people using this "someone might be offended" line to stifle conversation.

This forum must not become a place of eggshells.

Difficult subjects take a little bit of courage. Being made to walk on eggshells is not appropriate.

Remember: Offense is taken, not given. (Said by Ricky Gervais (http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/852081/ricky-gervais-addresses-jokes-without-apology)among others)

If someone is trying to cause offense, then throw them off the forum. The moderators will take care of this - so dont worry about it. Just tell the truth and be respectful, that is all you need to do.

If someone is trying to talk about a difficult subject then so long as its appropriately in context and conducted respectfully, if anyone takes offense then that is their problem - and perhaps one they need to deal with.

The subjects spoken of in this thread do need to get covered by us all sooner or later.

The whole messy gamut of a subject is interwoven with some of the most distorted and dissimilar views you will encounter on anything, ie. it is encapsulated in those "offensive" topics. Real harm has been done to man, and real healing is needed to get past this.

I wonder if this forum lacks the maturity to do this successfully, and the wildly differing views on this subject will always end up being confronting to some others - quite possibly beyond their comfort zone - prompting and shouts of "I am offended". This forum claims to be a safe place, I am not sure yet its safe enough to do this subject justice.

This topic has gone so far away from its purpose its actually getting silly - and it now needs a title change to stay on topic!

Bill invited a thread on the subject right at the start.

As an ex-homophobe (!), a product of poor sex education, and a boys school at my formative age, I have plenty to contribute to that debate when it happens in the right place and in the right context - and I may well offend some people by describing some of my past behaviors and attitudes which were essentially born of ignorance and the social conditions in which I developed.

These issues which are common and potentially significant blocks for many people on the spiritual path. We don't all have the skills and experience to remove these blocks without pain to ourselves or others. From time to time that pain will manifest consciously as offense for many.

The meta-offense we should all feel is finding out that none of it was real in the first place! All humanity in all its forms is beauty and light. Finding that out is hard for a lot of people - letting go of hard won judgements and modes of thought. Applying the principles of purity to the human condition is painful.

It is also offensive to the powers that would like you not to do that and realize who you are and your place in light.

And to those powers, I say f**k you ! :)

[christian]

Apart from that, there are many extremely interesting models that I suggest you to explore, such as Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), which of course comes from Marxism, and is a system that I truly believe to be a much better alternative to our current one.

Libertarian Socialism promotes a "non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property," which I absolutely do not want. If I create a wooden chair, I don't think anybody has the right to take it away from me, only death or Mother Nature. This kind of freedom that I mean where you can keep what you build is the soil on which the highest achievements can grow, I think, when humanity is able to maturely handle the responsibility that comes with freedom. For that, people need inspiration, not laws. They need to see the bigger picture, then they will naturally act responsibly. For humanity to get there is my goal, and I'm patient, it may take bazillion human lifetimes, but I'm in no hurry. :)




many of the comments (whether intentional or not) would be quite offensive to a homosexual.

Which comments? Please clarify, let's figure this out. :)

I don't want to go pointing fingers, Christian.

Well, you already did, like a sweeping finger-pointing around the room, saying that some comments were offensive. If you don't really want to talk about that, then I'd say don't point in the first place, even if you point unspecified. This is kind of passive-aggressive behavior, I reckon, no offense. If you'd know me personally, you'd know I'm far from perfect in my personal interactions with others. I think all of us, even the best, display some kind of 'personality disorder' to some degree. :hug:

Anyways, in my opinion it's perfectly fine to talk about things in a mature way, I'm still interested in what statements may be offensive. I realize that it's inappropriate to discuss certain topics too much because of the stuff that it triggers in some people, but in general I strongly believe in clear and open communication in order to figure things out. :)

I know that my views on homosexuality might offend people, but they are surely not meant to. All I'm saying against homosexuality is that if everybody would only have homosexual sex, humanity would die out. And that shows how rigid homosexuality should not be the norm, in my opinion, cause I'd like to see humanity evolve.


We sure are messed up about sex. We can't even admit it is fundamentally governed by our own desire to orgasm, not on a sexual partner.


To find out if sex and procreation are linked we might want to ask those who engineered our genes in the first place.
They must have had a terrible fear of humanity dying out one day....hence they ensured the fun part, and even made the sex instinct stronger than the mind.

I do sexual kung fu (see here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?42674-The-Essence-of-Tantric-Sexuality&p=452640&viewfull=1#post452640)), so I don't do sex for the orgasm, but rather to refine energies in an ecstatic way. I do enjoy sex a lot, but I can happily live without it for virtually any amount of time, also without masturbation, I can do energy work combined with a movement of the PC muscle and be just fine and enjoy it a lot. That's also what our bodies are capable of, they're not just treacherous machines that make us behave stupid endlessly, the power of consciousness can elevate us beyond that.

[DeDukshyn]

Interesting pov's here, although, admittedly I only read the first few and last few posts. I never judge a person's character by a specific post or whatever, because I sometimes play devil's advocate, stir the pot a little here and there just to get people thinking and expanding their thoughts. There have been posts from some members that I totally disagree with or even sickened by, but it doesn't mean I won't thank and support their very next post if it has value for me. The value of the individual is never questioned, the timing of that value, perhaps.

So I try not to have this issue at all, and no matter who says who is right or wrong, at the end of the day if we can't set our judgements aside or stop holding these judgments past the point of it's initial appearance within oneself, then we are all guilty. The solution to this problem is a) stop assigning judgement to an individual for a personal POV, and b) when judgment does exist, do not carry that energy forth. If everyone did this Raf's issue vanishes for the most part, and thus does any reaction to that viewed as offensive.

So on that I agree that protectionism isn't the right answer either, but encouragement for the individual to seek value in other's pov and where it cannot be found, find what you value elsewhere or add to the discussion constructively even if opposing in view.

Taking things too seriously or caring too much what others think is always a root of issues ...

My 2 cents.

[Beren]

And when you round things up even this talk we have here is all about moderation, censorship and protectionism.

An atmosphere is being heavily created in the world about gay rights. Every human has a right of free will to do as he/she so please.
But there will always be a consequence - good or bad.

As Ulli said modern homosexual groups are predatory and they live of their loud attack on opposite group. Does it really help people who identify as homosexual?
No. It makes them look like cheap drama queens. Which most of them aren`t in the long run.

Some realized that either gay or straight they are human and they want to overgrow sexualizing the everyday life and choices they make.

Predatory mindset is always the same - the attack.
Hence everybody who do not support homosexual life style are named bigots of homophobes. Now this is a classic judgement. This is offensive and name calling.

Why someone is offended if other human who also have free will is not agreeing in their choices?
We don`t need to be equal because we aren`t but we need to have unity in soul and spirit so that everyone can show their uniqueness not identical and uniformal attitudes , thoughts and reactions- just like from the text book.

Men and women are not equal but if each side treats the other with respect we live in harmony. But if you threaten me with a fine if I don`t agree with your lifestyle then what that makes you?

Who gives you the right to judge me and else?

That is censorship or thought and prohibition of freely expressing is moderation. We have this in big scale in the world.
And protectionism?

So I say I don`t support homosexual lifestyle and marriages and adoption, then one comes and judge me because of this, brand me as bigot and homophobe and tries to enact laws which will fine me because of what? Of my own personal opinion and vocalization of the same?

But if I support homosexual lifestyle then I am good guy?

Protectionism.

Political correctness or who ever makes the rules decides what we are going to think-right?

Thus we continue to discuss what are moderation and protectionism and censorship...even in this issue about human sexuality.
Remember all is a choice at higher places from where we came. Negating this is also a choice. But it looks like uninformed choice, running away from responsibility by stating that "we didn`t chose this hence we are not responsible"...

Someone once said Karma is a bitch... It`s not. It`s just whatever you ever sown - you will definitely reap. Cause and effect- Universal law.

[Freed Fox]

I am sick and tired of people using this "someone might be offended" line to stifle conversation.


That doesn't really apply to my post. I may have used that line, but I didn't then subsequently withhold my opinions because of that sentiment. I have said everything I care to say on the matter.

Also Anchor, I actually agree with your statement that this thread's title should be changed to reflect the course of conversation. However, that's a decision which is to be made between the moderation, and the threads creator, not you or I. Furthermore, if the creator of this thread is open and willing to discuss what is being discussed, it is not off topic.

Based on what I clearly wrote, christian, you should be able to extrapolate on your own which posts I was referring to. I didn't mince words by not naming names. The thread about Hagmann was closed because he was accused of homophobia, and now you want me to specifically state individuals who have exhibited similar positions. It isn't because you intend to moderate them. If the moderation in this regard was to be consistent, I would be the one expecting to be moderated.

Of course, it should be common sense that Doug Hagmann's homophobia doesn't automatically invalidate everything he puts out and brings forth. Just like DeDukshyn's sentiment above that we should not condemn and demonize one another based on our individual points of view should be common sense. But perhaps like Anchor suggested, this forum isn't ready for that.



This forum must not become a place of eggshells.

Chelley says hi.

[Bubu]

Hi Raf my friend,

First I’d like to say sorry for using strong words but to me that is the most accurate way of telling you how Mr. Hagman felt with your words that is stronger than mine.

If in case you find bad in my post or my behavior now or in the future please do correct me in any manner you wish. I will be glad to say “I stand corrected” people do it here all the time and that is the right thing to do. We are here as students and teachers as well. We help each other to learn. We debate to learn and not for any other reason.

The mod team has done an excellent job in handling this, we shall commend them for that.

Julian

Because we need, as a society, to solve small stuff first.

[ulli]

This statement is so loaded... Gotta love it.
Not only in that it addressed bigotry,
But also divisiveness.

http://i.imgur.com/qafoHtq.jpg

[Anchor]

This forum must not become a place of eggshells.

Chelley says hi.

LOL - thanks for that chuckle.

You could certainly say that her approach and mine are somewhat different! Nevertheless we are both pointed in the same direction.

To be clear, I wasn't trying to aim at you, but that "offended" thing rears its ugly head whenever the going gets tough.

I have a lot of time invested in this forum. It remains a wellspring of good thought and I do still see it as a valuable collection of gifted and clever people. I like to contribute if possible to any ideas that will help keep it that way. I don't like seeing people offended. I don't like accidentally causing offense - but sometimes it will happen.

Sometimes I think we fool ourselves by winding the bands of tolerance too narrow. Its hard to have an open and frank discourse in those narrow bands.

[gripreaper]

This thread is still going?

[DeDukshyn]

And when you round things up even this talk we have here is all about moderation, censorship and protectionism.

An atmosphere is being heavily created in the world about gay rights. Every human has a right of free will to do as he/she so please.
But there will always be a consequence - good or bad.

As Ulli said modern homosexual groups are predatory and they live of their loud attack on opposite group. Does it really help people who identify as homosexual?
No. It makes them look like cheap drama queens. Which most of them aren`t in the long run.

Some realized that either gay or straight they are human and they want to overgrow sexualizing the everyday life and choices they make.

Predatory mindset is always the same - the attack.
Hence everybody who do not support homosexual life style are named bigots of homophobes. Now this is a classic judgement. This is offensive and name calling.

Why someone is offended if other human who also have free will is not agreeing in their choices?
We don`t need to be equal because we aren`t but we need to have unity in soul and spirit so that everyone can show their uniqueness not identical and uniformal attitudes , thoughts and reactions- just like from the text book.

Men and women are not equal but if each side treats the other with respect we live in harmony. But if you threaten me with a fine if I don`t agree with your lifestyle then what that makes you?

Who gives you the right to judge me and else?

That is censorship or thought and prohibition of freely expressing is moderation. We have this in big scale in the world.
And protectionism?

So I say I don`t support homosexual lifestyle and marriages and adoption, then one comes and judge me because of this, brand me as bigot and homophobe and tries to enact laws which will fine me because of what? Of my own personal opinion and vocalization of the same?

But if I support homosexual lifestyle then I am good guy?

Protectionism.

Political correctness or who ever makes the rules decides what we are going to think-right?

Thus we continue to discuss what are moderation and protectionism and censorship...even in this issue about human sexuality.
Remember all is a choice at higher places from where we came. Negating this is also a choice. But it looks like uninformed choice, running away from responsibility by stating that "we didn`t chose this hence we are not responsible"...

Someone once said Karma is a bitch... It`s not. It`s just whatever you ever sown - you will definitely reap. Cause and effect- Universal law.
I think I am supporting your post with this ... as an extension, correct me if I am wrong.

There is no need for anyone to either support or not support. Indifference in this case allows the freedoms that is each our birthright. As another thread brought this topic up, there is far more to reality than something and it's opposite, yet the polarities are strong in this day in age and thus it is sometimes hard to see.

I support peoples personal freedoms, and I am indifferent to other's feelings on this. No polarity to support or not is required by anyone.

[norman]

I don't suppose there is really any way of finding out for sure, but I'd like to know if the proportion of homosexuals, in the total population, has significantly risen in the last 100 years.

I mean a real figure that ignores all the social stigma and hiding of it. And, also ignores rape and violence of warfare.

I'm only guessing, but I think it has, and that would make this subject a hell of a lot more interesting than just 'respect' lessons.

[ThePythonicCow]

The thread about Hagmann was closed because he was accused of homophobia
Not true ... honest.

Bill, who closed the thread, and Ilie, who said it perhaps the best of any of us, stated why the original Hagmann thread was closed.

In my opinion, the opening post from EYES WIDE OPEN was inflammatory, divisive, distracting, ...


Unfortunately, the discussion was opened in such a way as to cause much divisiveness and arguments on the forum.

Such topics as homophobia and whether Doug Hagmann is homophobic, like many topics on this forum, can be handled one of two ways:

With a bit of care and respect supporting a healthy discussion, or
with the effect of inflamming, dividing or distracting.

Neither the topic, the accusations nor the target of the accusations were the primary reason for my moderation actions (title change and thread move) on the earlier thread, nor (as best I understand) for Bill's closing that thread.

The manner of handling the topic was the primary reason.

This present thread has been and remains a good example of how to handle controversial topics (such as all the above, as well as such questions as whether or not I am a misguided censor) in a healthy fashion.

At the individual level, neither I nor any other mod, nor Bill himself, have a responsibility for "protecting" the "innocent" minds of responsible members from thoughts we deem misguided. Not our job. We couldn't do it if we tried. Only the responsible individual can do that, for themselves.

But moderators in particular, and members in general, do have some responsibility to resist overly inflammatory, divisive, and distracting material, as it harms the forum. Most any of us who have observed several forums on the Internet over a period of time know that this can happen.

In this particular case, in addition to the potential broad spectrum harm to the forum, there was also the specific risk of improperly (see below) distracting us from some possibly valuable testimony coming through Hagmann from an anonymous whistleblower. It is an entirely fair question (not one I'd personally ask, but some might ask) whether Hagmann's views on homosexuality reflect poorly on the value to us of this whistleblower testimony, but that question too is one that can be handled one of two ways, as listed above, one of them proper, one not.

Thanks for the continued good discussion!

(Not that it matters much anymore, but as to the original question, whether Hagmann is a homophobe: From the little bit that I've seen in the last day, he appears here (http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/8757) to be staunchly opposed to homosexuality for religious or moral reasons, and for what he perceives to be its impact on society, but I have no idea whether he fears, is phobic of, homosexuals or homosexuality. But that's just my view, and rather off topic for this thread, except to note, by way of example, that one can address that question without excessive agro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_%28MMORPG_terminology%29).)

[jagman]

Not one mention of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Oh damn I just mentioned it lol
I really don't want to touch this hot potato so i'm leaving quietly.

[gripreaper]

If there's a meaningful unit of speech which cannot be conjugated within the diagram of the sentence, then the linguistic etymology may be identifying its cognates within a contextual imperative of allusion of an obtuse nature relevant to the languages, having features in common but opposite or inverse in particular complex roots, occurring in the parts of the discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw doubt on its meaning, within the substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect for the topic at hand.

Or, there could just be a dangling participle somewhere

[Sgt-Bones]

If there's a meaningful unit of speech which cannot be conjugated within the diagram of the sentence, then the linguistic etymology may be identifying its cognates within a contextual imperative of allusion of an obtuse nature relevant to the languages, having features in common but opposite or inverse in particular complex roots, occurring in the parts of the discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw doubt on its meaning, within the substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect for the topic at hand.

Or, there could just be a dangling participle somewhere

LOL...my just exploded brain this reading ;)

[ThePythonicCow]

If there's ...
... now I'm wondering if my propensity for convoluted constructs has inspired gripreaper to another classic :)

[naste.de.lumina]

If there's a meaningful unit of speech which cannot be conjugated within the diagram of the sentence, then the linguistic etymology may be identifying its cognates within a contextual imperative of allusion of an obtuse nature relevant to the languages, having features in common but opposite or inverse in particular complex roots, occurring in the parts of the discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw doubt on its meaning, within the substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect for the topic at hand.

Or, there could just be a dangling participle somewhere

The official writer of Obama's speeches would be envious of this ability to turn a short sentence in a paragraph.

[Sierra]

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.

Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism, and by some as a synonym for left anarchism.

Cheers,

Raf.

Every government gets converted to a totalitarian state eventually. It kind of does not matter what government we have if the governors are spiritually and ethically grounded. How often does that happen no matter what form of government is in place?

When I see people advocating one form of government over another, because "it would work for the benefit of all", I think two things:
a) It has not been put into practice yet (and corrupted by human nature)
b) It is a Utopian pipe dream

The ONLY country today (that I am aware of) where the leadership is "for" the people is Bhutan. Their standard of measurement is "happiness", I kid you not.

The assessment of gross national happiness (GNH; Wylie: rgyal-yongs dga'a-skyid dpal-'dzoms) was designed in an attempt to define an indicator that measures quality of life or social progress in more holistic and psychological terms than only the economic indicator of gross domestic product.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness)

Oh, and Tibet as it used to be, they *are* the only government on the historical record, that stopped their imperial phase for spiritual reasons, walked away from their invasion of China.


The role of Buddhism was significant in the history of Tibet. From about the 7th century on, Buddhism was to play an ever increasing role in Tibetan culture and history. From that time until about 300 years ago, Tibet was one of the only cultures to have turned away from militance to become a totally peaceful society. Tibet was to carry a legacy of seeking power and empire building that was shared by many cultures but it was to transform itself into a society where nearly two-thirds of its expenditures went for education in the Buddhist faith. No longer did Tibet seek to control lands but remained hidden from the world is the isolation of the Himalayas.

No where in human history did a society embark on such a dramatic transformation as did Tibet. It took hundreds of years but Tibet went from one of the most feared societies who attacked China, India, and Persia to a peaceful kingdom dedicated to altruism. This unique transformation left Tibet struggling in isolation yet with a measure of peace found withing the heart of Buddhism.
From http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/tibet/tibet_history.html

The point I'm trying to make is that no system of government goes well, unless the collective population of any government style, hold themselves ethically and spiritually accountable, and teaches the next generation to do the same.

So it always falls back to do we have enough individuals in a population group that are clearing themselves, holding themselves accountable for what they put out into the world.

And perhaps sometimes, it does not matter what you do, the center cannot hold, just call it a phase of the Kali Yuga cycle for a lack of a better way to label the situation (that perhaps we find ourselves in today). Perhaps these cycles of golden age to boom and bust happen as a way to determine, are we spiritually responsible no matter what form of government under which we live and die? Perhaps incarnation cycles on earth, include a testing time as a graduation exercise ...

Sierra

[Sierra]

If there's a meaningful unit of speech which cannot be conjugated within the diagram of the sentence, then the linguistic etymology may be identifying its cognates within a contextual imperative of allusion of an obtuse nature relevant to the languages, having features in common but opposite or inverse in particular complex roots, occurring in the parts of the discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw doubt on its meaning, within the substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect for the topic at hand.

Or, there could just be a dangling participle somewhere

LOL...my just exploded brain this reading ;)

Yeah, that was aweful! :yield:

[ulli]

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.

Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism, and by some as a synonym for left anarchism.

Cheers,

Raf.

Every government gets converted to a totalitarian state eventually. It kind of does not matter what government we have if the governors are spiritually and ethically grounded. How often does that happen no matter what form of government is in place?

When I see people advocating one form of government over another, because "it would work for the benefit of all", I think two things:
a) It has not been put into practice yet (and corrupted by human nature)
b) It is a Utopian pipe dream

The ONLY country today (that I am aware of) where the leadership is "for" the people is Bhutan. Their standard of measurement is "happiness", I kid you not.

The assessment of gross national happiness (GNH; Wylie: rgyal-yongs dga'a-skyid dpal-'dzoms) was designed in an attempt to define an indicator that measures quality of life or social progress in more holistic and psychological terms than only the economic indicator of gross domestic product.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness)

Oh, and Tibet as it used to be, they *are* the only government on the historical record, that stopped their imperial phase for spiritual reasons, walked away from their invasion of China.


The role of Buddhism was significant in the history of Tibet. From about the 7th century on, Buddhism was to play an ever increasing role in Tibetan culture and history. From that time until about 300 years ago, Tibet was one of the only cultures to have turned away from militance to become a totally peaceful society. Tibet was to carry a legacy of seeking power and empire building that was shared by many cultures but it was to transform itself into a society where nearly two-thirds of its expenditures went for education in the Buddhist faith. No longer did Tibet seek to control lands but remained hidden from the world is the isolation of the Himalayas.

No where in human history did a society embark on such a dramatic transformation as did Tibet. It took hundreds of years but Tibet went from one of the most feared societies who attacked China, India, and Persia to a peaceful kingdom dedicated to altruism. This unique transformation left Tibet struggling in isolation yet with a measure of peace found withing the heart of Buddhism.
From http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/tibet/tibet_history.html

The point I'm trying to make is that no system of government goes well, unless the collective population of any government style, hold themselves ethically and spiritually accountable, and teaches the next generation to do the same.

So it always falls back to do we have enough individuals in a population group that are clearing themselves, holding themselves accountable for what they put out into the world.

And perhaps sometimes, it does not matter what you do, the center cannot hold, just call it a phase of the Kali Yuga cycle for a lack of a better way to label the situation (that perhaps we find ourselves in today). Perhaps these cycles of golden age to boom and bust happen as a way to determine, are we spiritually responsible no matter what form of government under which we live and die? Perhaps incarnation cycles on earth, include a testing time as a graduation exercise ...

Sierra

The yugas last too long. I say annual revolutions and term limits.

[Sierra]

And perhaps sometimes, it does not matter what you do, the center cannot hold, just call it a phase of the Kali Yuga cycle for a lack of a better way to label the situation (that perhaps we find ourselves in today). Perhaps these cycles of golden age to boom and bust happen as a way to determine, are we spiritually responsible no matter what form of government under which we live and die? Perhaps incarnation cycles on earth, include a testing time as a graduation exercise ...

The yugas last too long. I say annual revolutions and term limits.

Burn baby, burn!

[christian]

Based on what I clearly wrote, christian, you should be able to extrapolate on your own which posts I was referring to.

It's not that I can't extrapolate, my request was motivated by the idea that in order to have a mature and constructive conversation, things should be communicated openly, clearly, and humbly. If you've got something on your mind, and if you're sufficiently convinced that it's not just wild anger or any other low-scale emotion fueling your sentiment, then please let it out, don't just make allusions.

This is what the new paradigm is about, in my eyes. I don't want you to "name names," but I'd appreciate you communicating issues, not "he or she said something offensive," but "I find that this and that statement can be seen as offensive." There's no harm in that, quite to the contrary, I think.

I for one want to establish telepathic communication as the norm at some point. Then all your thoughts would be known to everybody anyways. I think to bring this paradigm into existence, if you want to, you can support it by keeping what you speak very much in alignment with what you think, focus your intention on conveying your message very openly and clearly on every level, written or spoken but also in mind communication, the latter of course being not that easy on an online forum.


The thread about Hagmann was closed because he was accused of homophobia, and now you want me to specifically state individuals who have exhibited similar positions. It isn't because you intend to moderate them. If the moderation in this regard was to be consistent, I would be the one expecting to be moderated.

I think Paul adressed this (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?60701-Moderation-censorship-and-protectionism.&p=696688&viewfull=1#post696688) very well. The underlying spirit of this thread is very different. :)





This forum must not become a place of eggshells.

Chelley says hi.

This is another vague allusion. :wink:

Let's be realistic about this, Chelley was pretty much on one end of the spectrum, having almost no consideration for the fact that people in general must be in the appropriate state to receive, handle, and digest information. This inconsiderateness is not the level on which the forum operates.

It doesn't operate on the other end of the spectrum either, I hope, as in being overly protective, but there will of course be issues like the Hagman thread where opinions about that differ, fair enough, we're all just doing and saying what we think is appropriate. We're trying to work on ourselves, become more able and aware in every sense, but this takes prudence and forbearance.

[Wind]

Sexual orientation is not a choice. That should be blatantly obvious to anyone, even without scientific data to support it. To other heterosexual men here; did you ever, at any point, make a conscious decision to like women? Did you ever choose to not be attracted to other men? No. Of course you didn't. That was simply your predisposition.

The argument that same-sex relationships don't produce offspring is a tired one. Is 7 billion people simply not enough? Do we really need to be procreating like rabbits until overpopulation really does become an inescapable problem? Does every couple need to see childbearing as the bottom line, when there are already thousands of orphans with no one to care for them? Procreation is not the bottom line. Love is. Homosexuality isn't some kind of virus or contagious disease that, if allowed, is going to spread and doom the human race. Such absurd implications convey a severe misunderstanding of this issue, and is rather thinly veiled homophobia.

Of course, homophobia itself isn't of any major concern, unless it is acted upon (such as, for instance, claiming homosexuality is a 'problem' that needs to be somehow 'fixed').

I thought not about writing to this emotionally charged thread, but I agree with your message and I have to add my view to it. We all are souls in these meat suits and our souls are sexless... We all have had lives as women and men, but sometimes we might have more lives as men or women. Homosexuality actually is a choice that you make before you incarnate here. You might choose to be gay because you want more lessons in life or maybe you want to make other people understand diversity. I think that most if not all humans have some bisexual traits, others might just be more heterosexual and others might be more gay.

However, love is the most powerful thing in the universe and it goes beyond genders. There is conditional love that is associated with your loved ones and close friends and then there is unconditonal love that has no bounds.

Never stop loving, because that is the only thing that truely matters.

And everything happens for a reason...

[SilentFeathers]

My opinion:

A soul quark zapping and bouncing around the universe doesn't all of a sudden stop and choose to "incarnate into a meat suit human being on Earth to be gay".....That's ludicrous to my way of thinking.

Perhaps some people are born thinking that they should of been the opposite sex, but acting upon that is "a choice" IMO.

To each his own but what I am seeing is beyond the privacy of ones home/bedroom and being forced upon the public, being forced upon everyone to accept as normal behavior regardless of their beliefs and or moral values. Hypocritical Political Correctness is not the same as equality......

It is a sign of an unbalanced society, a confused species, and now a public conditioning/manipulation to further cause division and conflict for a sinister agenda.....what's next? conditioning our children that marriage between a man and a woman is now abnormal and or a thing of the past? That gays now have more of a right to sit at the front of the bus than those that are not gay?

Personally I feel that if someone wants to be gay that is there right.....but they and or the government has NO RIGHT to force ME to accept it as a public spectacle and for me to step aside to give them the "right of way".

Judge me as you may, but that is my opinion about this issue.....it has gotten out of hand and outta control to say the least.

PS: this post outta get the thread sparking again!

[christian]

Personally I feel that if someone wants to be gay that is there right.....but they and or the government has NO RIGHT to force ME to accept it as a public spectacle and for me to step aside to give them the "right of way".

I don't quite understand what you wanna achieve. What does "accept something as a public spectacle" mean? Do you want to forbid Christopher Street Day parades? If someone is a football fanatic and has a party about it, it's his or her thing. Let them celebrate, same goes for gay people. You don't have to participate. Do you mean that gays should only be allowed to be gay in secret?


being forced upon everyone to accept as normal behavior regardless of their beliefs and or moral values

Accepting something as normal means to accept it as the norm, i.e. being taught that this is how you should be. I don't think that this is happening, it's more about tolerating gays and not discriminating them, which is fair enough, in my opinion.

[SilentFeathers]

I'm not trying to acheive anything, I just posted my opinion and it is what it is.....judge it as you feel you need to.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Well as I said before, I am not an eloquent person as the previous thread showed. I am glad to see something positive come out of it however. This is a better thread.

[Mike]

Raf, i'm afraid i'm one of those ignorant fools who only vaguely knows what true Marxism is, let alone it's relative position vis a vis socialism, vis a vis communism, and vis a vis the rest of the 'isms' listed on this thread and elsewhere. I try not to deal is 'isms' of any sort really, as I find them to be limiting and nuance deficient (at least that's what I tell myself to justify my ignorance) once you identify with one, you forsake all others; it's like pledging allegiance to a religion or something. all have their merits and demerits, and I s'pose i'm a bit of this and a bit of that...look, all I know is that capitalism doesn't work, or at least it's not working now, and calling it the "lesser of the evils" as I often hear it referred to here it the states, is nothing but an annoying default position for the intellectually lazy. I know this because i'm intellectually lazy...but in my defense you wouldn't catch me dead wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt, ironically or otherwise, unless I knew the man's history like the back of my palm, ok? alright then, moving on to more stuff I know exactly jack-sh!t about...

homosexuality: Chris, the gay gene was actually discovered. look, I would never fault you for forgoing assless chaps in a gay pride parade, but I do find your position worrisome. "a tolerable deviation?" "unhealthy?" mate, you sound like Hitler attempting political correctness.
OxV9Z1gNyQA

this is pretty funny...worth watching...
JjQlh52Em3o


yesterday (or was it the day before?) I wrote a long, brilliant:p, meandering post for Raf's original Hagmann thread, only to find that the thing had been closed (damnit!). I still wanted to make a public statement of some sort, but not having the energy or motivation or integrity of a Raf, I decided against a thread and instead left a msg on Bill's wall, which represents the extremely condensed version of said brilliant albeit aborted post. he responded thoughtfully and courteously, and as I said to him, it really makes no sense to continue to rhetorically bludgeon any mods or members with my opinion, as we're likely to never agree, regardless of my brilliant arguments and rebuttals. I will not repeat everything I said there, here, (see: laziness) but I think it's sufficient to say that I strongly disagreed with the thread's being renamed and closed.

that's it for now. but stay tuned: I might have something utterly meaningless to say later.

p.s. I challenge everyone here to *not* marry until it's legal for Christian and his partner to do so as well.

[Zampano]

I am just throwing this piece in here

hlVBg7_08n0

[naste.de.lumina]

Raf, i'm afraid i'm one of those ignorant fools who only vaguely knows what true Marxism is, let alone it's relative position vis a vis socialism, vis a vis communism, and vis a vis the rest of the 'isms' listed on this thread and elsewhere. I try not to deal is 'isms' of any sort really, as I find them to be limiting and nuance deficient (at least that's what I tell myself to justify my ignorance) once you identify with one, you forsake all others; it's like pledging allegiance to a religion or something. all have their merits and demerits, and I s'pose i'm a bit of this and a bit of that...look, all I know is that capitalism doesn't work, or at least it's not working now, and calling it the "lesser of the evils" as I often hear it referred to here it the states, is nothing but an annoying default position for the intellectually lazy. I know this because i'm intellectually lazy...but in my defense you wouldn't catch me dead wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt, ironically or otherwise, unless I knew the man's history like the back of my palm, ok? alright then, moving on to more stuff I know exactly jack-sh!t about...


Leveraging your text on 'ism' my friend.
Music posted yesterday in another thread PA. It has to do with the facets of the choices.
Called 'Ideology', with Inglês subtitles. And the artist was bi-sexual.
So we have two issues into one in this video.

EOoZae6RT4A

Cazuza - Ideology.

Ideology is the third solo album of the Brazilian rock singer Cazuza, released in 1988.É the hard conceptual and is Also Considered their best studio album and won the Sharp Award for best album in the year of its launch. Considered one is the best of his albums and it Cazuza talks about his relationship with AIDS and with the album cover death.2 Caused some controversy because mixed swastikas and stars of today Davi.3 Ideology sold over 2 million copies.

AIDS (Which he Suffered from disease since 1985) returns to manifest itself in October 1987. Cazuza is hospitalized at St. Vincent Clinic in Rio de Janeiro, for the case of a new pneumonia. Soon after, he was seeking treatment in the United States. Upon returning to Brazil in early December 1987, after two months of treatment at the New England Hospital Boston, Cazuza starts recording for a new album. Ideology, launched in 1988, includes the hits "Brazil," "It's My Party Show" and the title track "Ideology". Ideology was voted song of the year. "Brazil" (Sharp Award in 1988) was re-recorded by Gal Costa and was the opening theme of Vale Tudo Globe.
On July 7, 1990, Cazuza dies at age 32.

[christian]

homosexuality: Chris, the gay gene was actually discovered. look, I would never fault you for forgoing assless chaps in a gay pride parade, but I do find your position worrisome. "a tolerable deviation?" "unhealthy?" mate, you sound like Hitler attempting political correctness.

Haha. :biggrin1: He'd have said intolerable deviation, I guess. :wink:

All I'm saying is, I hope that not all of humanity resorts to gay sex only, for then humanity dies out. I think that's common sense.

:hat:

As for the gay gene... I don't buy that at all.

Genes do influence us, but there's more to who were are. If I'd buy into the gay gene, then I might as well buy into the rapist gene and arrest (or abort) people preemptively. This is eugenics.

So, who's Hitleresque? :p

¤=[Post Update]=¤


p.s. I challenge everyone here to *not* marry until it's legal for Christian and his partner to do so as well.

Ah, I had overlooked this... I don't get it. :biggrin1:

[Mitzvah]

Raf old man,

People's obsession with SAFETY. COMFORT.

People being small. Their fear.

The social program. Be nice don't do anything uncomfortable. Don't say anything that makes others upset or 'un-safe'.

Safety is valued over freedom. Freedom isn't safe, it's not secure, you have to fly without a net, and no one to erase things that cause discomfort.

This is why this world is not free. People want safe instead of free. A noble idea. We look cool discussing it. Safety is key...and keep freedom locked away.

Not free, there's no even a desire to be free. Content to talk about free.

True spiritual and personal growth is painful, uncomfortable and unsafe. Personal growth people don't demand censorship, what they have endured is far more harsh than some unnerving words. People disturbed by mere words.

The universe hears that and responds, and give people what they want. A nice orderly world controlled and monitored by others.

Here and abroad. Its not just the 'sheep' that want safety, its why the alt media is filled with spiritualists and whistleblowers to tell them what's going to happen. To make them feel safe.

But truly free people can't be censored. You might have to bit your lip in the safety league but something larger than them being small is listening. To the free person.




Hey folks,

I´m writing this post with all due respect I have for Bill and the moderation team, but I can´t ignore and be complacent with wrong attitudes.

Our colleague, EYES WIDE OPEN, posted an article (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?60676-An-ad-hominem-attack-on-Doug-Hagmann) of clear prejudiced, ignorant and homophobic nature, so we could discuss and express our opinions about it.

The article itself was biased, which means that, beyond any doubt, it reflects the personal opinion of the author. Of course, the article itself was a critique, and critiques are inevitably personal.

Well, first of all, whenever a journalist writes a personal article, reflecting his personal view, he must assume responsibility over it and its consequences. It´s his opinion, as it reflects what he thinks as an individual, after all.

Going straight to the point. Our colleague posted the article for our appreciation and criticism. The absolutely ridiculous content, naturally, didn´t generate very positive feedback, though.

Then, the moderation, feeling offended because the author of the article is someone of their esteem, quickly changed the title to "..ad hominem attack.." and definitively locked the thread later on.

The problem is that, if fair criticism towards an article that reflects the personal points of view of the author can be considered an ad hominem attack, then you´re automatically forbidden to criticize 90% of articles and books out there.

This is an argumentative fallacy. It´s not an ad hominem attack when you criticize any article that happens to reflect the author´s opinion. Period. Simply because, in such cases, it´s impossible to criticize one without automatically criticizing the other.

An ad hominem attack is when you try to invalidate the content by ridiculing the author. This is not the case here, where the content of the article was actually ridiculous, and since it reflects the mindset of the author because the article is about his opinion, it inevitably leads us to conclude that the mind behind the opinion is utterly ignorant. There´s no way to disassociate one from another.

To conclude, I´d like to respectfully state that this was an act of censorship, protectionism and consequently an act of manipulation, when someone is deliberately filtering information in order to artificially shield the reputation of someone of their personal preferences.

If that article, and it´s criticism, was an ad hominem attack, it was the author who did it to himself. He´s an adult, a professional, and should think twice before speaking nonsense. His reputation is his responsibility.

Well, I know this thread itself probably wont last long, or will be moved to the oblivious corners of the forum, but I absolutely insist on stating my opinion.

Most of the times, the moderation team and Bill do a very good and reasonable work in managing this place, but not this time.

As a side note, it simply makes no sense to censor this article around here, since the author itself has published it in his own website. If you don´t want the whole world to see the asshole that he really is, then you should email him asking him to remove it.

If his horrible article affects his credibility, then it´s exclusively his fault. There´s nothing you can do to shield his insane opinions from the world´s judgment.

I love you guys, but you´re wrong.

With all due respect,

Raf.

[DeDukshyn]

As for the gay gene... I don't buy that at all.

Genes do influence us, but there's more to who were are. If I'd buy into the gay gene, then I might as well buy into the rapist gene ...


I'm not 100% sold on the gay gene either. I would need to look into that a fair bit to be convinced. The reasoning behind my disbelief in a "gay" gene is that I think everyone has propensity to be far more accepting to variations in both sexuality and relationship "styles", but it has been "cultured" out of us. It may have been done on purpose by those who control major religions to create more division in humanity - and if that was the goal it certainly worked. I do not believe there are any more "gay" or "alternative sexual lifestyle" people in this day in age than any other age in time - the only thing that changes is cultural perception and nothing else.

Take a look at animals. Anyone who has ever owned or observed a lot of cats know that many are bisexual. It's something one has to accept if you want to have many cats - maybe why many only get one, lol. What about other animals? Same story here. Dolphins are extremely sexual animals and males even have a special hole so they can engage in "homosexual" activities. Blame God if it grosses one out - this is reality.

We can also make a distinction between relationships and sex. In the world of "gayness", somehow one of these means the other; cultural programming again, but in reality there is no natural connection between these two. To give you an example, I have a close friend of mine that I refer to as my "gay" friend, but he is not gay, but he does enjoy sex with both sexes, and I have had to thwart his advances on occasion, which I learned to do comfortably - some people really get freaked out by stuff like that ;) He says he will never have a relationship with a man ever, the thought is very undesirable to him; In fact he has a kid and has only ever had relationships with women, ever. So clearly this distinction between sex and relationship, which rarely exists in anyone's mind, really needs to exist for us to fully understand the situation. I admit, that I am completely ignorant just for the fact that I am not gay or bi, so who the hell am I to judge how it feels, what it is like, how people "become" that way or anything. All I can do is observe reasonable thought processes that considers each of these points. So that is what I did. ;)

My 2 cents ;)

[Mike]

homosexuality: Chris, the gay gene was actually discovered. look, I would never fault you for forgoing assless chaps in a gay pride parade, but I do find your position worrisome. "a tolerable deviation?" "unhealthy?" mate, you sound like Hitler attempting political correctness.

Haha. :biggrin1: He'd have said intolerable deviation, I guess. :wink:

All I'm saying is, I hope that not all of humanity resorts to gay sex only, for then humanity dies out. I think that's common sense.

:hat:

As for the gay gene... I don't buy that at all.

Genes do influence us, but there's more to who were are. If I'd buy into the gay gene, then I might as well buy into the rapist gene and arrest (or abort) people preemptively. This is eugenics.

So, who's Hitleresque? :p

¤=[Post Update]=¤


p.s. I challenge everyone here to *not* marry until it's legal for Christian and his partner to do so as well.

Ah, I had overlooked this... I don't get it. :biggrin1:



well look Fuhrer:), I agree with you obviously on not wanting the entire world to go gay (i'd be sprinting furiously to the nearest underground bunker with one of those 15th century chastity belts on if that were the case)... but I don't even think gays want that. no one wants that, and that has about as much chance occurring as the entire population of earth growing a 3rd arm....so i'm not too clear on where you're going with that.

the fact that you'd equate gays with rapists, even if you're attempting a harmless example, speaks volumes to your (in my opinion) vastly misguided views here. it reminds me of those who lament gay marriage, fearing the acceptance of it will lead to other insidious trends, like the pairings of man and ape, or woman and horse, or transvestite and pig. what will we do then, they say incredulously? and the only thing preventing me from mourning their unfortunate lack of brain cells is this hilarious vision of man and animal pairings taking over the earth...(sir,will you take this pig as your bride?)..and I have to laugh!

you really doubt the gay gene? you ever seen Richard Simmons? Little Richard? RuPaul? do you think they're all just faking it to piss off the right wing? Chris, you're normally so damn intelligent...have you been infiltrated by nefarious other-dimensional entities? are you a former member of Stephen Greer's team? have you been experiencing any lack of sleep or appetite lately? ok, now please grab your testicles and cough...;)

p.s. oh, I was just having a little fun with the previous p.s....

[Sierra]

Raf, i'm afraid i'm one of those ignorant fools who only vaguely knows what true Marxism is, let alone it's relative position vis a vis socialism, vis a vis communism, and vis a vis the rest of the 'isms' listed on this thread and elsewhere. I try not to deal is 'isms' of any sort really, as I find them to be limiting and nuance deficient (at least that's what I tell myself to justify my ignorance) once you identify with one, you forsake all others; it's like pledging allegiance to a religion or something. all have their merits and demerits, and I s'pose i'm a bit of this and a bit of that...look, all I know is that capitalism doesn't work, or at least it's not working now, and calling it the "lesser of the evils" as I often hear it referred to here it the states, is nothing but an annoying default position for the intellectually lazy.

Yeah, democracy or rather the republic that we have (direct democracy is when people participate directly in the government, representative democracy is when a government that consist of representatives elected by the citizens. And this is how we get royally screwed in a degenerate government that quits representing us.) has nothing to do with capitalism, which plain and simple is a pyramid scheme, hence the boom and bust cycle our economy goes through with great regularity.

[Sierra]

Take a look at animals. Anyone who has ever owned or observed a lot of cats know that many are bisexual. It's something one has to accept if you want to have many cats - maybe why many only get one, lol. What about other animals? Same story here. Dolphins are extremely sexual animals and males even have a special hole so they can engage in "homosexual" activities. Blame God if it grosses one out - this is reality.

We can also make a distinction between relationships and sex. In the world of "gayness", somehow one of these means the other; cultural programming again, but in reality there is no natural connection between these two. To give you an example, I have a close friend of mine that I refer to as my "gay" friend, but he is not gay, but he does enjoy sex with both sexes, and I have had to thwart his advances on occasion, which I learned to do comfortably - some people really get freaked out by stuff like that ;) He says he will never have a relationship with a man ever, the thought is very undesirable to him; In fact he has a kid and has only ever had relationships with women, ever. So clearly this distinction between sex and relationship, which rarely exists in anyone's mind, really needs to exist for us to fully understand the situation. I admit, that I am completely ignorant just for the fact that I am not gay or bi, so who the hell am I to judge how it feels, what it is like, how people "become" that way or anything. All I can do is observe reasonable thought processes that considers each of these points. So that is what I did. ;)

My 2 cents ;)

Hetero geese mate for life. So do gay geese. :)

[DeDukshyn]

... <trim> ...

you really doubt the gay gene? you ever seen Richard Simmons? Little Richard? RuPaul?

Perhaps those are just regular gay people that had the "excessiveflamboyancy" gene ... :P :P

== UPDATE ==

After some more thought, one also must consider that 99.9% of their genes are not expressed, and, under new research I have stumbled across that the expression of genes can be influenced by many factors including the mind. So that begs the questions of whether we all have the gene and the propensity to be gay or not and it is within the mind that determines whether that gene is expressed or not?

But I digress ... just a rambling thought. If the topic interested me enough I might be inclined to do the research to answer my questions, but it doesn't. ;)

[Ernie Nemeth]

I believe Wade, of all of us, is onto something of substance. The scarcity paradigm is so pervasive in our thinking, rightly or wrongly so, that we cannot even envision a world of abundance. But our technologies are now close to that goal, again inways we cannot yet imagine because we have yet to let the old authority go. They are obsolete in a world of abundance.

And what is the underlying fundamental of abundance but abundant free energy. This will free mankind like nothing has ever done before. It has no precedent. The nature of government in the future is impossible to imagine due to our myopic history, altered and censored as it is, and our iron grip on the fear of the mere mention of scarcity.

There will come a time, when the new physics breaks through the wall of egos that brick it in at present, when every citizen, every person on earth will have virtually full autonomy, freedom and unlimited resources. How will we interact then, no one can say.

[christian]

well look Fuhrer:), I agree with you obviously on not wanting the entire world to go gay (i'd be sprinting furiously to the nearest underground bunker with one of those 15th century chastity belts on if that were the case)... but I don't even think gays want that. no one wants that, and that has about as much chance occurring as the entire population of earth growing a 3rd arm....so i'm not too clear on where you're going with that.

I appreciate your respect, mein treuer Kamerad.

:drum:

I know that gays probably don't want that and also that it's virtually impossible. I was making this point cause you were objecting to me saying unhealthy. It's unhealthy for a race if everybody is gay. I mean that being gay cannot/shouldn't be the norm, hence it's a deviation. That's not discriminating, that's a plain fact, in my eyes.


the fact that you'd equate gays with rapists, even if you're attempting a harmless example, speaks volumes to your (in my opinion) vastly misguided views here.

I was pulling out a very illustrative example, one where people would do horrible things to others because of the other person's genes. I wanted to show very clearly that your argument was based on eugenics quackery.

I neither believe in the gay gene nor in the rapist gene. My disbelief in both is the common demininator here. I also don't believe in the genius gene. See, I'm "equating" gays with geniuses. :wink:


you really doubt the gay gene? you ever seen Richard Simmons? Little Richard? RuPaul? do you think they're all just faking it to piss off the right wing?

OK, someone is very gay. Hence it has to be in the genes? Isn't that quite a leap? There's a plethora of reasons, I suspect. Genes may play their part, but they are surely not the sole determining factor, I reckon.


Chris, you're normally so damn intelligent...have you been infiltrated by nefarious other-dimensional entities? are you a former member of Stephen Greer's team? have you been experiencing any lack of sleep or appetite lately? ok, now please grab your testicles and cough...;)

Check... no hernia. :hat: Had a good night's sleep and I'm eating like a king.

Thanks for the flowers anyways mate, right back at ya. :hug:

Steven Greer wouldn't have been the first guy to hit on me, but I can keep guys like him at a distance... If I had been infiltrated by some nefarious interdimensional reptoids, I'd be all for being gay, I guess. :)


p.s. oh, I was just having a little fun with the previous p.s....

lol :biggrin1:

[Mike]

you don't believe in the genius gene, Chris? clearly you havent been reading my posts;)

well we all know the entire population will never be entirely homosexual, so even offering it up as a reference point to use phrases like "unhealthy" and "tolerable deviation" make little sense to me. oh well.

just to be clear: would you say that homosexuality, as it currently stands - as a "deviation" and not as world-wide plague - is unhealthy?

p.s. heil hitler!;)

[ulli]

you don't believe in the genius gene, Chris? clearly you havent been reading my posts;)

well we all know the entire population will never be entirely homosexual, so even offering it up as a reference point to use phrases like "unhealthy" and "tolerable deviation" make little sense to me. oh well.

just to be clear: would you say that homosexuality, as it currently stands - as a "deviation" and not as world-wide plague - is unhealthy?

p.s. heil hitler!;)

And my guess is that have not yet experienced the power of mind over matter, or mind over genes...
which is higher and overrides the gene theory.
This is the angle I hear Christian proposing, in my view.
There is no dogma in his statements, nor did he say that governments should interfere in people's choices....
he only stated his beliefs about genes and choice, coming from his experience as an enlightened being.
Which is fair.
Also I believe that Christian is a galactic soul, who only visited Germany briefly to get a decent academic and brain-sharpening education, but he is not one of "them" Nazis.

Personally being originally from Germany, but having left there as a child, only to discover anti German sentiments blasting at me wherever I met uneducated Brits in London, I find even the most humorous insinuations about my German heritage tedious now, having had to put up with people too ignorant to know that I was born well after WW2, and received a non fascist education...actually more socialist than Nazi.

So it grinds me a bit to have to see this kind of rhetoric still popping up in 2013. Will it ever end?

About the thought-trumps-gene theory: few people know about it, (although many Avalonians do....)
because of the elite's efforts to keep all those metaphysical, occult sciences, and self-transformation schools hidden from the masses, as the spreading of such knowledge would hurt their power base.

[Mike]

you don't believe in the genius gene, Chris? clearly you havent been reading my posts;)

well we all know the entire population will never be entirely homosexual, so even offering it up as a reference point to use phrases like "unhealthy" and "tolerable deviation" make little sense to me. oh well.

just to be clear: would you say that homosexuality, as it currently stands - as a "deviation" and not as world-wide plague - is unhealthy?

p.s. heil hitler!;)

And my guess is that have not yet experienced the power of mind over matter, or mind over genes...
which is higher and overrides the gene theory.
This is the angle I hear Christian proposing, in my view.
There is no dogma in his statements, nor did he say that governments should interfere in people's choices....
he only stated his beliefs about genes and choice, coming from his experience as an enlightened being.
Which is fair.
Also I believe that Christian is a galactic soul, who only visited Germany briefly to get a decent academic and brain-sharpening education, but he is not one of "them" Nazis.

Personally being originally from Germany, but having left there as a child, only to discover anti German sentiments blasting at me wherever I met uneducated Brits in London, I find even the most humorous insinuations about my German heritage tedious now, having had to put up with people too ignorant to know that I was born well after WW2, and received a non fascist education...actually more socialist than Nazi.

So it grinds me a bit to have to see this kind of rhetoric still popping up in 2013. Will it ever end?

About the thought-trumps-gene theory: few people know about it, (although many Avalonians do....)
because of the elite's efforts to keep all those metaphysical, occult sciences, and self-transformation schools hidden from the masses, as the spreading of such knowledge would hurt their power base.


so what are you saying exactly? that Little Richard sat in front of a mirror, chanting "i want to be flamboyantly gay" over n over till it finally happened?

running Hitler jokes aside, i know Christian is one of the good guys, Ulli, and i know you are too, but i expect a little more out of my galactic souls:wink:

i'm not from Germany, but if i told you my last name my heritage would be clear. i'm as german as it gets. i'm not sure that'll make my Hitler jokes any more tolerable for you or not, but i thought i'd mention it anyway. ok, i'll stop the Hitler jokes....just for you;)

[Ernie Nemeth]

Thanks Chinaski, you're funny today.

The tantric sex thing stunned me. The rest of that thought cannot be finished inmixed company. But...

Reminds me of the two bulls on the top of a hill, looking down at a herd of cows. The young bull says, "Hey pop, let's run down there and have our way with one of those cows!" His da drawls, "Na, let's walk down and have our way with all of them." hehe?

[Mike]

Thanks Chinaski, you're funny today.

The tantric sex thing stunned me. The rest of that thought cannot be finished inmixed company. But...

Reminds me of the two bulls on the top of a hill, looking down at a herd of cows. The young bull says, "Hey pop, let's run down there and have our way with one of those cows!" His da drawls, "Na, let's walk down and have our way with all of them." hehe?


Love that one, Ernie:)

IbUxePfsoWE

[norman]

If this thread ( so far ) was a section of a movie, it would be the part where there's a lot of shadowy head following and eyes observing the multiple story line threads on the brink of an action scene where we all get to see how it fits together.

Be a shame to cut the budget and leave us with an unmade epic, me thinks.

However, I do realize that the executive producers are holding their hands closer to the abort button than the finish button.

What usually happens is that the actors and the techies, and possibly the director, reluctantly decide to do their own financing to bypass the compromise at the top level.

Only history decides if it was a classic, the money never does.

[Mike]

If this thread ( so far ) was a section of a movie, it would be the part where there's a lot of shadowy head following and eyes observing the multiple story line threads on the brink of an action scene where we all get to see how it fits together.

Be a shame to cut the budget and leave us with an unmade epic, me thinks.

However, I do realize that the executive producers are holding their hands closer to the abort button than the finish button.

What usually happens is that the actors and the techies, and possibly the director, reluctantly decide to do their own financing to bypass the compromise at the top level.

Only history decides if it was a classic, the money never does.


indeed sir.

and i notice Christian has just entered this thread, and of course i have to go now...and i'm certain he'll say something clever, and i'm already annoyed i won't have a chance to respond to it tonight:):fencing:

i'd really like to hear from our gay members, personally. might keep the executive directors from pulling the plug;)

[Beren]

Ulli & other German friends , hold on , there will be always Heil Hitlers upon you...
Don`t allow this to quench your open spirit...

For others , be them German or not (I`m not German and Serbians and my Slavic brothers Russians & Polish heavily suffered under Hitler`s boot, but that`s long gone now) it is history now.
Hitler is dead and his deeds with him.
Maybe there are Hitler wannabees today but they know no nation, they are in every nation.

In case of Raf`s thread here , I believe there was a lot of (if not all) comments which are extremely well said.
Kudos to all!!!

[ulli]

you don't believe in the genius gene, Chris? clearly you havent been reading my posts;)

well we all know the entire population will never be entirely homosexual, so even offering it up as a reference point to use phrases like "unhealthy" and "tolerable deviation" make little sense to me. oh well.

just to be clear: would you say that homosexuality, as it currently stands - as a "deviation" and not as world-wide plague - is unhealthy?

p.s. heil hitler!;)

And my guess is that have not yet experienced the power of mind over matter, or mind over genes...
which is higher and overrides the gene theory.
This is the angle I hear Christian proposing, in my view.
There is no dogma in his statements, nor did he say that governments should interfere in people's choices....
he only stated his beliefs about genes and choice, coming from his experience as an enlightened being.
Which is fair.
Also I believe that Christian is a galactic soul, who only visited Germany briefly to get a decent academic and brain-sharpening education, but he is not one of "them" Nazis.

Personally being originally from Germany, but having left there as a child, only to discover anti German sentiments blasting at me wherever I met uneducated Brits in London, I find even the most humorous insinuations about my German heritage tedious now, having had to put up with people too ignorant to know that I was born well after WW2, and received a non fascist education...actually more socialist than Nazi.

So it grinds me a bit to have to see this kind of rhetoric still popping up in 2013. Will it ever end?

About the thought-trumps-gene theory: few people know about it, (although many Avalonians do....)
because of the elite's efforts to keep all those metaphysical, occult sciences, and self-transformation schools hidden from the masses, as the spreading of such knowledge would hurt their power base.


so what are you saying exactly? that Little Richard sat in front of a mirror, chanting "i want to be flamboyantly gay" over n over till it finally happened?

running Hitler jokes aside, i know Christian is one of the good guys, Ulli, and i know you are too, but i expect a little more out of my galactic souls:wink:

i'm not from Germany, but if i told you my last name my heritage would be clear. i'm as german as it gets. i'm not sure that'll make my Hitler jokes any more tolerable for you or not, but i thought i'd mention it anyway. ok, i'll stop the Hitler jokes....just for you;)

No need to..Im just a bit more sensitive today than usual...stuck in bed with sickness....
distracting myself with my favorite forum to escape boredom.
I can handle all jokes directed at me...
it's just that the endless decades of the anti-German innuendos have worn me down.
In their predictability they lost the power to get a friendly and jovial laugh out of me.

One more thing that I noticed...you read stuff into Christian's post that wasn't there.
Nor should he have to live up to your expectations.

The gene thing is something worth looking at, as well as the darker side of homosexuality, which is an organized effort to catch young straight kids, as they are a greater challenge for the more jaded types, of whom there are plenty...I've spent time in their company, too.

People called me a fag hag in the US, or poofter lover in Britain. I know what I am talking about...the gay community is just as diverse as the rest of us.

Some gay men with strong feminine identities and less aggressive personalities are scared of whats happening at the moment, because it is going too far or their taste, and don't agree with what goes on in those gay pride parades this year.

I don't like to voice what I'm against, normally I focus on the road ahead and being creative in my expression in a positive sense.

But I will say it now...I'm against all extremes that deliberately are designed to create unwanted division...and all rigid dogma, which is actually why I left the fashion world...dogma in there far greater than in most religions.

And the same goes for a large part of the organized gay scene, which is being defended by anyone who has issues with more moderate views than their own.
All views should be acceptable, to keep the discussion going, including some of the moderately critical, yet non-bigoted views about the gay scene.

[ThePythonicCow]

However, I do realize that the executive producers are holding their hands closer to the abort button than the finish button.
Despite the dubious cow jokes ... all is well ... carry on :).

[christian]

well we all know the entire population will never be entirely homosexual, so even offering it up as a reference point to use phrases like "unhealthy" and "tolerable deviation" make little sense to me. oh well.

just to be clear: would you say that homosexuality, as it currently stands - as a "deviation" and not as world-wide plague - is unhealthy?

I have some gay and bi-sexual friends, one of them a really good friend actually, well educated, travels a lot, interested in the bigger picture, takes good care of himself, the whole 9 yards. We first met at the gym and at some point he admitted that he'd hit on me, but that he respects me being straight. Very well. He says most of the gays he knows would be a lot more offensive.

Anyways, in my personal perception, there's something off with the energetics of gay guys. I mean, they may be OK and quite healthy overall, maybe even more so than a lot of straight people, but the way I perceive their energy, the energy of a healthy gay person is simply not flowing as it does in a healthy straight person. And I find the flow in a straight person to be more "natural" in a way, this is the best word that I can come up with at the moment, but I'm really at a loss for words here.

That's how I personally perceive it. Because I don't know why I perceive it that way, because I don't know if my direct perception is entirely accurate or maybe tainted, I don't really wanna make a judgement other than based on the reference point that you find quite senseless. :)

With homosexuality as it stands now, I don't see it as a danger for the human race. :wink:

For that it just doesn't have enough momentum, it's just a queer thing.


so what are you saying exactly? that Little Richard sat in front of a mirror, chanting "i want to be flamboyantly gay" over n over till it finally happened?

running Hitler jokes aside, i know Christian is one of the good guys, Ulli, and i know you are too, but i expect a little more out of my galactic souls:wink:

I've been a Nirvana fan, guitar player, and pot smoker in my teens. I picked up all of that from people in my environment, I saw that, I was curious, I got into it. That happened with a lot of things in my life that I saw in my environment, I got into things to try it out when I figured it might be interesting, and so I made various experiences and went through various phases.

I still play the guitar! :cool:

The upbringing is of course also important, past lives, and last but not least the personal choice. The way I see it, a lot of things play a role, the genes do. But also what energies you allow to flow through you, how you attune yourself, what you decide to channel. Whether from your environment our out of the cosmic matrix. I find this "it's all in the genes" thing very disempowering actually... I expect a little more there von meinem galaktischen Bruder. :alien:


And my guess is that have not yet experienced the power of mind over matter, or mind over genes...
which is higher and overrides the gene theory.
This is the angle I hear Christian proposing, in my view.
There is no dogma in his statements, nor did he say that governments should interfere in people's choices....
he only stated his beliefs about genes and choice, coming from his experience as an enlightened being.
Which is fair.
Also I believe that Christian is a galactic soul, who only visited Germany briefly to get a decent academic and brain-sharpening education, but he is not one of "them" Nazis.

You're too kind, I don't know if I deserve that much. :yo:

Yeah, I mean search for "meditation can change dna" (https://www.google.com/search?q=meditation+can+change+dna) and there you got it, scientifically proven. It's a funny discussion anyways when 99% of the DNA hasn't even been deciphered...

You may be quite right with your analysis at the end... I'm seriously looking to move from Ecuador to Greece in September, which would be fun as a German, I guess.

Someone's gotta do something for the Völkerverständigung. :)

[ulli]

The generations of Germans after the Nazi era was raised very carefully,
especially the high school kids, to not ever be too nationalistic, not even patriotic.
The Westerners became perfect capitalists and the easterners became perfect communists,
and then came unification with endless challenges for both sides to work out their differences.
So Germans who live overseas, play quite an important role in clarifying where there are misunderstandings.

O, I meant to mention earlier, but forgot. I believe I announced it once on the Here and Now thread: when I used to live downstairs from the shoe designer Manolo Blahnik, and we were quite close he told me that I was a male homosexual in a female body, and a lot of gays were jealous of me. Later another gay designer friend Antony Price, sorry about the name dropping....burst out one day OMG, you're one of us!!! Recognizing that I have a male mind, but female emotions.
My taste in men is gay taste.

[norman]

When I hear about such gays as those who told you those things, I want to tell them they are peering down the wrong end of the telescope.

I don't want to snatch it out of their hands, I want to know who put it in their hands that way around, and why.

[ulli]

Somehow I found their comments helpful then. It explained things...like why I was not a lesbian, although my bossy manner made people assume that I was. I knew always that I was not, and where my sexual orientation lay.
I loved being around men, but cherished mostly platonic relationships, and gays were good at that.

I'm over sixty now, live far from that world, and have reinvented myself more times than I can count.
I'm sure they would never say that to me now, if they met me again. They'd see a crone.

[Beren]

Somehow I found their comments helpful then. It explained things...like why I was not a lesbian, although my bossy manner made people assume that I was. I knew always that I was not, and where my sexual orientation lay.
I loved being around men, but cherished mostly platonic relationships, and gays were good at that.



You were simply too German...

:sarcastic:

[Ultima Thule]

About the gay gene, agenda to push same-sex marriage etc.:

I buy gay gene, I feel I can see the feminine in males and the masculine in females - opposite sex insides in opposite sex body. And this is where I hope that you don't get me wrong.. Beyond that I am worried that some of the ongoing increasing amount of gay people might be due for example the excess use of msg during adolescense which crosses blood-brain-barrier and can shift the sex hormone equilibrium out of balance. Also the fact that many youngsters are insuline-resistent even from birth or very early years makes a huge impact in their hormonal cascade, quite possibly having the effect that boys don't quite grow up a man and girls not a woman, but instead they are more in between - resulting in (I would think/speculate) more of bisexual tendencies as opposed to strictly gay.

Now this is all okay, but as nothing is black or white, not is this matter from biophysical point of view. What I have no idea about is, whether these hormonal mix-ups have been deliberate (via skewing of our nutrition, msg and others, not to speak contraception pill residues and plastics containing hormone analogues)or accidental and then piggybacked on?

So, some are born gay, some develope so, I would say quite few make a conscious choice. All this is okay if seen from a good point of view, and I feel that even Dougs pov had some validity, I feel he had some valid concerns, that didn't come out quite nicely though. If I understood correctly he had concerns of the piggyback-issue.

Being should be enough, although we are bombarded with views of what is the right way to be. Straight, gay, bi, okay.
Be the best person you can and find a way to let your soul come through, that should cut it.

UT

[norman]

.....Being should be enough.....



Being has always been enough.

That's the respect bit, and I respect all outcomes as persons I meet.

In the background, I'm fuddled about what the hell is going on.

[Gekko]

So it grinds me a bit to have to see this kind of rhetoric still popping up in 2013. Will it ever end?

Right. Now imagine half a thread dedicated to explaining how a German's energetics are unnatural, how their heritage is spotty; admonishing you that being German is a choice, showing that you can change your unfortunate situation with enough hard work.

What people are advocating here is tantamount to Gay Conversion Therapy. "Pray the gay away". It doesn't work. All it causes is more trauma and shame.

It isn't enough for one's sexuality to be a 'merely tolerable deviation'. It's not second-class love. The hierarchy is what justifies violence and discrimination, as happens when people are viewed lesser than.

[Beren]

So it grinds me a bit to have to see this kind of rhetoric still popping up in 2013. Will it ever end?

Right. Now imagine half a thread dedicated to explaining how a German's energetics are unnatural, how their heritage is spotty, that; admonishing you that being German is a choice, showing that you can change your unfortunate situation with enough hard work.

What people are advocating here is tantamount to Gay Conversion Therapy. "Pray the gay away". It doesn't work. All it causes is more trauma and shame.

It isn't enough for one's sexuality to be a 'merely tolerable deviation'. It's not second-class love. The hierarchy is what justifies violence and discrimination, as always happens when people are viewed lesser than.


You have to observe better and see that no one here is looking at homosexual people as lesser than other people.
By the very association that someone calls themselves hetero or homo sexual is a lowering action. They make themselves victims of their sexual desire and drive.

Elevating yourself above sexual drive of any kind is what makes us who we really are.

What good will it bring if a person constantly define their whole life through prism of either having hetero or homosexual sex?
Do not be slave to sex and define yourself by higher standards.

People will see this and take care of this and then no one would really care what kind of sex you like and what kind of people you are attracted with.

But if we want to be totally honest homosexual behavior is a sexual deviation from the physical point of view. Since only + and - are attracting itself by natural forces. You can attract + and + or - and - but it takes a lot more energy to do that. And if you observe closely many people suffer from this later in life- they spent too much energy against nature.

But again never forget of choices souls had before they came in this world. I am not a judge to this. Hence I will never judge people who behave different than me but I may like it or not. But what I will always do is respect them as a manifestation of God. Heavenly instrument who decided to follow its own path. Respect.

[Ernie Nemeth]

For a few months I hung around with a gay man. Since people will judge and I don't want that biased trip on my personal life, I will not tell you why this man was extremely important to me, at the highest of levels. I can honestly say this man was my better, far outperforming me in spiritual matters. He was in fact a mentor of mine.

He told me about the average lifestyle of a gay man in Toronto. It is very promiscuous. The details would curl the hairs of the most staunch homophobes, so I'll save you that shock.

There is nothing wrong with this man. I'd call him friend before I'd say the same of many heteros. His spirituality is something most of us can only aspire to. As is his principles. And his love for his fellow man/woman. And he cares dearly for this world of ours.

By the way, I also have some bad genes we might want to take a look at. I'm skinny, maybe we can start a thread about the evils of that. And I was given a set of character traits that make it impossible for me to conform or play the clique game and do the name calling thing. Maybe we can find the spiritual gene and the nice person gene - and abort every other fetus. Then we'd have the world we all wish we lived in. voila!

[Nat_Lee]

Hi !

I have almost read all this post ....
And I had an urge to send a positive message ...

I really don't know why those words came up ?
I just did it and now i'm posting it !

I didn't think about it, I just did what my inspiration was telling me !

so I hope this can help both sides !

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1014098_603493699683320_627718598_n.jpg

[christian]

What people are advocating here is tantamount to Gay Conversion Therapy. "Pray the gay away". It doesn't work. All it causes is more trauma and shame.

It isn't enough for one's sexuality to be a 'merely tolerable deviation'. It's not second-class love. The hierarchy is what justifies violence and discrimination, as happens when people are viewed lesser than.

I'm not saying that anyone has to pray anything away. I just personally think that it's worth trying.

If anyone told me I should resort to gay relationships, I'd indeed say "no, that's not the real deal." But still, I'm neither violent nor do I discriminate. I merely express how I see things, how I deal with them in my life, but everyone should do their thing.

Just me saying what I say about being gay shouldn't take away anything from someone else's experience. If you told me that heterosexual relationships are second class love, I just wouldn't care. I know it for me to be different, and I'd think you're entitled to your opinion.

But you're right, there's no "second class love." I just love, period. Everything and everybody absolutely. There's not second class. I'm just saying that I perceive heterosexual relationships as more healthy than gay ones.

Now here's the caveat. Gays may not be able to enjoy the benefits of a heterosexual relationship. There's some kind of block. And that's why they stick to gay relationships, better than nothing. That's why I say, working on oneself might be worth it. What's so abhorrent in suggesting to really embrace one's physical gender?

-------

Take homosexual sex as a particular form of energy work, cause it is, heterosexual sex as another. I think homosexual sex can be good and beneficial and enriching, I just think heterosexual sex can help you develop even more. Of course I'm hypocritical, having no first hand experience in gay sex. It's just my intuition. But that opinion of mine shouldn't make any gay person feel bad. When a gay person would say the same thing to me the other way round, I'd just say, "nah, I've made up my mind about that, but thanks." I guess that's what most dyed in the wool gays will have to say to my point of view, too.

-------


Now imagine half a thread dedicated to explaining how a German's energetics are unnatural, how their heritage is spotty; admonishing you that being German is a choice, showing that you can change your unfortunate situation with enough hard work.

I'd have a good laugh. :)

[Nickolai]

Christian,

Please tell me how do you know that gay people do not embrace their own gender?
Curious.
I think here one should understand that being gay is not denying gender. Actually quite the opposite.


Nickolai

[christian]

I knew that question would come. :)

I think when you really embrace your gender, your polarity, you will naturally seek the other polarity. Hence, if you don't seek the other polarity, you have not really embraced your own gender.

Maybe I'm really stoneage conservative here... Heard that higher beings of light are getting more and more androgynous... :wink:

[TODD & NORA]

..........

[The Truth Is In There]

i agree that censorship should have no place here (or anywhere, for that matter). that many people can't deal with certain posts/opinions doesn't justify banning these opinions or deleting these posts.

that doesn't go for pointless personal attacks and bickering that lead nowhere, but it should be allowed to criticise people if the person has the knowledge to back up his/her claims or can explain why a different opinion is being attacked.

that said, i found the article in question insightful and to the point, even though the author did not mention who exactly is behind the moral degeneration agenda as well as communism/marxism and the takeover of the world (the "j"-word. they dare not speak their name...).

as is often the case with certain topics, people are blinded by the love & light agenda and don't see the big picture. it would be interesting to discuss things like the gay agenda or other controversial topics although i don't believe that people would change their mind even if they're shown how all these "freedoms" have already lead to more and more moral denegeration and the corrosion of all values that previously held nations/people together. (divide & conquer)

i'm not against gay people, but i'm against the promotion of homosexuality as something to be proud of or striven for, and against portraying an abnormal biological condition as "normal" when it clearly is not. like many other things this is part of the agenda of the wanna-be rulers of the world. why most people don't realize that is beyond me.

[SilentFeathers]

Personally I feel that if someone wants to be gay that is there right.....but they and or the government has NO RIGHT to force ME to accept it as a public spectacle and for me to step aside to give them the "right of way".

I don't quite understand what you wanna achieve. What does "accept something as a public spectacle" mean? Do you want to forbid Christopher Street Day parades? If someone is a football fanatic and has a party about it, it's his or her thing. Let them celebrate, same goes for gay people. You don't have to participate. Do you mean that gays should only be allowed to be gay in secret?


being forced upon everyone to accept as normal behavior regardless of their beliefs and or moral values

Accepting something as normal means to accept it as the norm, i.e. being taught that this is how you should be. I don't think that this is happening, it's more about tolerating gays and not discriminating them, which is fair enough, in my opinion.

Christian, I feel my initial response was perhaps a bit rude by not explaining myself more, I don't always use the right words in my posts, which leave many guessing to what I intentionally try to get across.

I think the gay movement has become a very public spectacle, it's front and center in many ways right now, sort of like the gun control debate after Sandy Hook or how the abortion topic or a few other hot topics are right now. You mentioned that we or I don't need to participate, that is not true IMO. This and several other issues are forcing all people to some extent to participate, whether it be to tolerate it and or step aside.....either way it is becoming something that is now being put on law books and will affect everyone in one way or another. Even TV is causing it to affect everyone with the way they are saturating the gay concept in many TV shows now.

I've had a few friends over the years who are gay, they remain my friends and I have always voiced my feelings about their choice and way of being. I've always told them I felt being gay wasn't natural, unbalanced, and is a personal choice, I didn't love them any less but it was their business how they wanted to live just as it was my business to choose how I wanted to live.

It is becoming a "normal" way of life now in our society....forced participation either to accept it or to reject it. Before it just was not a major issue IMO.

Personally I feel if the public should accept and tolerate gays unconditionally the same goes for polygamy....it's the same thing but with a different twist IMO.....a behavior and a choice.

If two men or two women can legally get married to each other and have all the legal benefits as a traditionally defined man/woman marriage, then why can't a multiple sex group of people get married too and have the same rights of a traditionally man/woman marriage?

Those that don't believe abortion is right must now tolerate it because of laws since Roe vs Wade, etc.....the same goes for gay marriage, the more laws being passed, the more the public will be force to accept and tolerate it, regardless of how they feel about it.

I think all gays are making a HUGE MISTAKE going full steam ahead legalizing their way of being......they are setting themselves up to be taxed and charged fees beyond belief and the government will make millions if not billions off them. Gay marriage laws will also better secure banker loans such as mortgages, credit card debts. etc etc etc.....and then there's the "divorce" aspect which courts and states etc will make tons of money, not to mention Title IV-D and the whole child support mafia like pyramid scheme hammering them when children are adopted into these marriages and involved in divorces.

The government wouldn't be supporting and pushing this whole gay agenda if there wasn't tons of money in it for them to be made.

Sure my original post/response may seem a bit biased, but it's not because I am against a persons right to be gay and live how they want to live.....it's more about how it's become a "public spectacle".....

[Kraut]

Ulli & other German friends , hold on , there will be always Heil Hitlers upon you...
Don`t allow this to quench your open spirit...

For others , be them German or not (I`m not German and Serbians and my Slavic brothers Russians & Polish heavily suffered under Hitler`s boot, but that`s long gone now) it is history now.
Hitler is dead and his deeds with him.
Maybe there are Hitler wannabees today but they know no nation, they are in every nation.

In case of Raf`s thread here , I believe there was a lot of (if not all) comments which are extremely well said.
Kudos to all!!!
What I will never understand is why there are Neo-Nazis everywhere, even in Russia and Poland who wear swastikas and scream "heil Hitler". Why are they not scolded by their own people who should show them to know better?

Sad fact about Germany is that the Nazis never really left, many of them kept a low profile and were still beneficial to the Allies and in different offices. I have witnessed more than once that the spirit of the Nazis has been kept alive and well in all these decades since WWII. An acquaintance of mine is a good example, his Grandfather was a hardcore to the bone Nazi, a true believer. Even after the war, he passed that on to his son, who passed it own to his own son (my acquaintance). Many of the sentiments that led to the rise of the Nazis are becoming trendy and common once again. But that is not limited to Germany.

[Kraut]

You may be quite right with your analysis at the end... I'm seriously looking to move from Ecuador to Greece in September, which would be fun as a German, I guess.

Someone's gotta do something for the Völkerverständigung. :)
Wow, you're brave, sometimes I think Germans won't be very welcome in Southern Europe if things continue the way they're going now. Couldn't blame them either. From what I've heard the anti-German sentiments in Greece are getting stronger.

[naste.de.lumina]

The human psyche is so complex.
Understanding what is happening with us now is a giant task, perhaps with each individual complexity.
In a work project I met a guy who was involved with a group of neo-Nazi 'bald' as a teenager.
The last news I had about it was that had taken their transgender condition.
Walking life, life that follows.

[ulli]

You may be quite right with your analysis at the end... I'm seriously looking to move from Ecuador to Greece in September, which would be fun as a German, I guess.

Someone's gotta do something for the Völkerverständigung. :)
Wow, you're brave, sometimes I think Germans won't be very welcome in Southern Europe if things continue the way they're going now. Couldn't blame them either. From what I've heard the anti-German sentiments in Greece are getting stronger.

All the more reason to immerse in that culture and work side by side with the people,
as compensation for the harsh restrictions the Merkel admin and her banker buddies have imposed.
Government policies are failing to punish the real culprits and so the masses are taking the brunt.
The job will be a tough one, but also help Christian on the path he has chosen, which is humble and selfless service.

[sdv]

I think the gay movement has become a very public spectacle, it's front and center in many ways right now, sort of like the gun control debate after Sandy Hook or how the abortion topic or a few other hot topics are right now. You mentioned that we or I don't need to participate, that is not true IMO. This and several other issues are forcing all people to some extent to participate, whether it be to tolerate it and or step aside.....either way it is becoming something that is now being put on law books and will affect everyone in one way or another. Even TV is causing it to affect everyone with the way they are saturating the gay concept in many TV shows now.

I've had a few friends over the years who are gay, they remain my friends and I have always voiced my feelings about their choice and way of being. I've always told them I felt being gay wasn't natural, unbalanced, and is a personal choice, I didn't love them any less but it was their business how they wanted to live just as it was my business to choose how I wanted to live.

It is becoming a "normal" way of life now in our society....forced participation either to accept it or to reject it. Before it just was not a major issue IMO.

Personally I feel if the public should accept and tolerate gays unconditionally the same goes for polygamy....it's the same thing but with a different twist IMO.....a behavior and a choice.

If two men or two women can legally get married to each other and have all the legal benefits as a traditionally defined man/woman marriage, then why can't a multiple sex group of people get married too and have the same rights of a traditionally man/woman marriage?

Those that don't believe abortion is right must now tolerate it because of laws since Roe vs Wade, etc.....the same goes for gay marriage, the more laws being passed, the more the public will be force to accept and tolerate it, regardless of how they feel about it.

I think all gays are making a HUGE MISTAKE going full steam ahead legalizing their way of being......they are setting themselves up to be taxed and charged fees beyond belief and the government will make millions if not billions off them. Gay marriage laws will also better secure banker loans such as mortgages, credit card debts. etc etc etc.....and then there's the "divorce" aspect which courts and states etc will make tons of money, not to mention Title IV-D and the whole child support mafia like pyramid scheme hammering them when children are adopted into these marriages and involved in divorces.

The government wouldn't be supporting and pushing this whole gay agenda if there wasn't tons of money in it for them to be made.

Sure my original post/response may seem a bit biased, but it's not because I am against a persons right to be gay and live how they want to live.....it's more about how it's become a "public spectacle".....

The reason why it is a 'public spectacle' is because gay people are discriminated against and the law supports that discrimination and the people who are being discriminated against are trying to change the law (and, of course, because some people just like dressing up and parading through the streets and having fun!).

It always amuses me when people start with something like ''I personally have lots of gay friends" and then proceed to share their bigoted beliefs about gay people. There seems to be a contradiction within these people.

I really do not want to condemn, ridicule or hurt anyone who shares their beliefs and opinions, even though I regard them as bigoted and false. Everyone has the right to be accepted, as long as they do not hurt others.

Homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality are all part of the human experience. In fact, any kind of expression of sexual desires is part of the human experience. As human beings, we get to decide what is permissible and what is not because we have the ability to make informed choices and the power to act on those choices. Homosexuality and bisexuality are increasingly being accepted as a normal part of the human experience and those who oppose this are going to be left behind in bigoted enclaves (just like those who once proclaimed that sex in anything other than the missionary position was deviant). What I am trying to say is that it is not about what is natural or unnatural (although I am willing to argue those points with bigots), what is morally right or wrong, and so on, but what human beings choose.

(I keep using the word bigot, which is obviously an expression of my beliefs, but if anyone is truly offended and you would like to suggest another term I could use, then I will edit this post accordingly.)

Now, just a few personal responses about just a few statements on this thread with which I disagree:

Homosexual relationships are unhealthy. I personally know a lot of heterosexual relationships that are so toxic that they negatively affect a significant number of people around them. I personally know homosexual relationships that are healthy and positively affect a significant number of people around them. There are perverts and toxic people among homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals. We all basically have the same needs, experience the same emotions and are challenged in the same ways in life.

Anatomically sex is supposed to between a man and a woman. I heard that one from my neighbour, who, charmingly, used some cringe-worthy metaphor of a bolt and a screw! All I can do is shake my head and say, well, at least we have, mostly, moved beyond the belief that anything other than the missionary position is deviant!

Sex is for procreation. Maybe sex was invented for joy and pleasure, and is used as a delicious carrot to ensure procreation. Then humans, because we are complicated, invented birth control, which took us back to the place of making a conscious and informed choice.

[SilentFeathers]

What amuses me is how fast one is labeled a bigot or racists now a days when ones opinions or comments do not 100% agree or favor an issue or topic of discussion.....

[ulli]

What amuses me is how fast one is labeled a bigot or racists now a days when ones opinions or comments do not 100% agree or favor an issue or topic of discussion.....


Although I consider myself rather liberal, and most who know me think of me as extremely liberal,
yet I'm beginning to wonder how far the push of permissiveness is to go.
It has become a bit of a cacophony in the last ten years.

In fashion magazines like French Vogue, younger models are chosen deliberately, to push against the censorship agenda, more now than ever before, unaware that they are feeding the pedophile agenda.
There are demands for the rights to ignore those people in our society
who wish to protect their kids from extreme tastelessness, or predators.
As I said before, I'm against excess, not against private matter choices.
This is not just about homosexuals, but heterosexuals, too.
And sexuality, being practiced behind closed doors, is in my view a private matter.

All sexual exploitation is just one side of the coin, of which the other side is shame, as advocated by 'celibate' church leaders.
These two poles create bewilderment and confusion instead of offering real insights into sexual mysteries.

Part of the duality agenda to keep everyone in the dark.

[Carmody]

And..in that grey area ...we flounder. Every now and then we spot something definable in that grey..and we label it. A point, an anchor, a rock, a thing, a differential. Yet it lies in the grey for some, still floating, definable, yet undefinable. Both meaningful and meaningless. Again, begging the question of what exactly is a what.

Most of us aren't actually in control of our bodies (whatever a body is defined as), which is what creates the moment of the environment for the very idea of definition - which kinda complicates the matter.

"I think," Descartes said, a self declaration and reflection speaking to it's self. All academic, it is.

His statement that followed, was just as ridiculous: "Therefore, I am".

The most categorically false of statements that can be, at the same time the most true.

What to do?

[Kraut]

Admittedly, I am still new to many spiritual concepts, but here's a thought: there seems to be a female and a male principle to things. A cosmic principle. How does that relate to the topic of homosexuality? Does it relate at all? I'm curious what you think.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I think we have all been programmed to have an opinion about everything. Even things that are not our concern. I still sometimes think back to this first time I was asked what is my favorite color. "Favorite"? It still confuses me why I should have a favorite color, car, food, dessert, etc. I like many things equally, like colors, cars, food, desserts. As a child this confused me and made me wonder what kind of entities I was going to have to live with. There have been many such cognitive paradoxes while growing up. And I have not been immune to the inclination to judge that was inculcated into my pysche in my formative years.

More recently it has been the stop/ban smoking campaign. It is commendable that certain activist groups targetted smoking as the single most preventable health issue around. They wanted to save the health of future generations, and that's good. But, it was done unilaterally and targetted the smokers themselves with financial hardship to encourage them to quit. This is like taking a heroin addict's drugs away without a methadone clinic to fall back on. A pack a day smoker's costs skyrocketed from about $30/mth to more than $300. That is a big chunk of change for the lower economic stratas of our society, where most smokers reside. Good idea - bad implementation. All because a few had an opinion and judged all smokers as fair game...

We need to stop judging things that are none of our business and that infringes on the rights of others to freely express themselves as they see fit - without recrimination by those on the sidelines.

[Mike]

Anyways, in my personal perception, there's something off with the energetics of gay guys. I mean, they may be OK and quite healthy overall, maybe even more so than a lot of straight people, but the way I perceive their energy, the energy of a healthy gay person is simply not flowing as it does in a healthy straight person. And I find the flow in a straight person to be more "natural" in a way, this is the best word that I can come up with at the moment, but I'm really at a loss for words here.

well I know why you perceive it that way, Chris: it's because you're a straight guy!:) because look, when I see 2 men sharing affection it seems unnatural to me too...the key words being *to me*. but I also recognize they may view my sexual orientation with perplexity as well. it's just preference. i'm equally confused as to why people like squash. it's like that, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it unnatural or unhealthy. the connotations suggest intolerance.

p.s. let me guess, you likely feel the "energetics" of 2 smoking hot lesbians in a naked embrace are perfectly natural? how did I know?!?:)

[Mike]

So it grinds me a bit to have to see this kind of rhetoric still popping up in 2013. Will it ever end?

Right. Now imagine half a thread dedicated to explaining how a German's energetics are unnatural, how their heritage is spotty; admonishing you that being German is a choice, showing that you can change your unfortunate situation with enough hard work.

What people are advocating here is tantamount to Gay Conversion Therapy. "Pray the gay away". It doesn't work. All it causes is more trauma and shame.

It isn't enough for one's sexuality to be a 'merely tolerable deviation'. It's not second-class love. The hierarchy is what justifies violence and discrimination, as happens when people are viewed lesser than.


if I were half as intelligent as you Gekko, this would have been my first and last post in this thread.

well said!:)

[Sierra]

When I belonged to a small home church (no church building, just in people's homes) decades ago, some people joined from back east, a mother of two of the boys, and two of their friends, five in all. After a few years of friendship, one of the guys asked me to be his girlfriend. Well he was gay, we all knew he was gay, he knew he was gay, but he didn't want to be.

I knew, rock solid knew, this wasn't going to work, but for the sake of his processing his way through confusion I said yes, and we proceeded to date. Very shortly after we broke up a few months later, still friends though, at the mother's house (we were all present, those from back east, a few others) my ex-boyfriend and the man he was falling in love with were there. I tell you, the issue is not sexuality, it is intimacy, who are we comfortable being intimate with. My ex-boyfriend's face was open, reactive, intensely aware, laser focused... more so than we who knew him, had ever seen before. My ex-boyfriend, and his future boyfriend left, and the rest of us, just ... heh, looked at each other. Nothing needed to be said, it was as clear and explicit as could be, he was gay. I knew that, it just took him awhile to get it, to disagree with the programming of the church (he was raised Catholic). I was so grateful for his friends. When he told them, it was ah, no biggie, and we're still your friends.

Por favor, instead of calling being gay, deviant, could we instead refer to the bell curve of human behavior? This would make more sense, given that gays have been known and recognized since recorded human history began (consider the poetry of Sappho, the instruction of Plato). This is not something that suddenly occurred as part of the Illuminati divide and destroy program, though they have taken full advantage of the programming they installed in the monotheistic religions. It is divide and conquer as usual.

[christian]

I think we have all been programmed to have an opinion about everything. Even things that are not our concern. I still sometimes think back to this first time I was asked what is my favorite color. "Favorite"? It still confuses me why I should have a favorite color, car, food, dessert, etc. I like many things equally, like colors, cars, food, desserts. As a child this confused me and made me wonder what kind of entities I was going to have to live with. There have been many such cognitive paradoxes while growing up. And I have not been immune to the inclination to judge that was inculcated into my pysche in my formative years.

Beautifully said, big thanks for that! :)


More recently it has been the stop/ban smoking campaign. It is commendable that certain activist groups targetted smoking as the single most preventable health issue around. They wanted to save the health of future generations, and that's good. But, it was done unilaterally and targetted the smokers themselves with financial hardship to encourage them to quit. This is like taking a heroin addict's drugs away without a methadone clinic to fall back on. A pack a day smoker's costs skyrocketed from about $30/mth to more than $300. That is a big chunk of change for the lower economic stratas of our society, where most smokers reside. Good idea - bad implementation. All because a few had an opinion and judged all smokers as fair game...

I don't commend smoking, but in a world where big pharma is making people sick on purpose, and where this big pharma entity is part of a giant conspiracy, I think smoking is not that much of an issue... neither is homosexuality. Whether smokers or gays, I can happily let them be, it's just that I wouldn't tell anybody "start smoking" or "try being homosexual".


We need to stop judging things that are none of our business and that infringes on the rights of others to freely express themselves as they see fit - without recrimination by those on the sidelines.

I really do my best not to judge. But I perceive. What I'm sharing about homosexuality are my personal perceptions. The only way I act on them is by not being homosexual myself and not suggesting it to others. Maybe I would even suggest it to some person though when I feel that he needs this experience right now. But I surely feel it would be inappropriate and a waste of time to try to actively do something against homosexuality.


when I see 2 men sharing affection it seems unnatural to me too...the key words being *to me*. but I also recognize they may view my sexual orientation with perplexity as well. it's just preference. i'm equally confused as to why people like squash. it's like that, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it unnatural or unhealthy. the connotations suggest intolerance.

Even if my own son would choose to be gay, I'd grant him that. Of course I'd explain my view on homosexuality, but at the end of the day it would be his choice. Because me interfering with his free will would surely be worse than him being gay.

I can tolerate squash (which I have no desire to play) or homosexuality all day long, that's not a problem. Still I perceive homosexuality as not as natural as heterosexuality. (Unnatural may be too harsh.) As for squash, it's just as natural as most other sports to me, still I personally prefer soccer, not saying that soccer is any more natural or healthy. :)


let me guess, you likely feel the "energetics" of 2 smoking hot lesbians in a naked embrace are perfectly natural? how did I know?!?:)

Actually, I find beautiful lesbian and gay couples equally arousing. Not as arousing as a beautiful heterosexual woman though. But I have no problem in seeing the beauty in a man or in a homosexual relationship.

See, I realize homosexual relationships can be a lot of fun, especially for those involved. And their enjoyment, their energy transmits, whether they are men or women. This touches me, I can feel it, and in a way this resonates with my sex drive as well to some degree. I do not feel disgusted at all, neither by gays nor by lesbians, I do see the beauty in their relationships. It's just that I perceive it as falling short compared to a mature heterosexual relationship. I reckon gay sex can be a good way to refine your bio-energy, just not as good as mature heterosexual sex, I think. The emphasis is on mature and balanced, of course there are many heterosexual relationships that are anything but balanced and that are much less helpful than a proper homosexual relationship.

[Anchor]

Admittedly, I am still new to many spiritual concepts, but here's a thought: there seems to be a female and a male principle to things. A cosmic principle. How does that relate to the topic of homosexuality? Does it relate at all? I'm curious what you think.

You contain both principles within you.

Your physical body is an expression that conditions your spiritual "interface" to the physical world, but does not need to condition the choices that you are free to make as you express those principles into the physical world.

[Ultima Thule]

Quote from Christian: I think when you really embrace your gender, your polarity, you will naturally seek the other polarity. Hence, if you don't seek the other polarity, you have not really embraced your own gender.

I don't disagree but I'll run an idea by you: can you entertain the idea that a body as a vessel can both have a polarity(gender) of its own and the consciousness occupying it can have the opposite polarity, which overrules the vessels polarity. Embracing your gender and seeking the other polarity is then exactly what is going on, even though two vessels of same polarity are together.

As I said earlier, I am still concerned of what I would label developmental sexual ambiguity, caused by nutrition, additives etc.

UT

[Beren]

Quote from Christian: I think when you really embrace your gender, your polarity, you will naturally seek the other polarity. Hence, if you don't seek the other polarity, you have not really embraced your own gender.

I don't disagree but I'll run an idea by you: can you entertain the idea that a body as a vessel can both have a polarity(gender) of its own and the consciousness occupying it can have the opposite polarity, which overrules the vessels polarity. Embracing your gender and seeking the other polarity is then exactly what is going on, even though two vessels of same polarity are together.

As I said earlier, I am still concerned of what I would label developmental sexual ambiguity, caused by nutrition, additives etc.

UT


I think it can be done since for last couple of decades food is radically changed and with insertion of various hormones some may develop physical changes in their body.
But overall it was a choice in the higher realms of the particular soul and its desire to experience whatever it desired here and now.

Our views are mostly filtered though current understanding which is almost always not as high on many things.
Reality is that majority (huge) is not homosexual in all forms of physical life.

Yet there is a small minority of about 3-5 % and not 10 % as some suggest.

But instead of identifying ourselves with sex drive we should strive for higher calling of the soul.
Then all will settle itself orderly for each person.

And this talk of sexual preference will be obsolete.

[4Talismans]

So, I leave for a couple of days and look what happens. A bunch of heterosexuals trying to figure out what makes gay people tick. There have been a lot of good points made in this thread. Let's start with: "The problem with gay people is that they identify too much as gay. (Or something like that)".
What happens, is that after having to do all the work of coming to terms with it, One day you wake up and you have. Wow it feels good! I wanted to run out into the yard yelling "I"m gay! I'm gay!". Because when your young, it's hard enough to come to terms with sexuality in this culture, much less trying to come to terms with something that EVERYONE tells you is wrong. Yet inside you know it's not wrong, it's just natural, FOR YOU. You may not even know any other gay people. Then you meet some. Wow! That feels so good! Your not alone anymore. Because the one thing that no one will ever tell you about being gay, is the terrible isolation you feel. Your isolated from every social system available to you. Church. School. Family. And then finally, you have some friends who accept you. But what is the one thing you have in common? Your all gay. You all need each other as protection from the isolation that threatens your very existence. So in an ironic twist, the identity that threatened to destroy you, has become a badge of honor and your entrance to a dazzling secret society.
The societies aren't so secret anymore, but you get the idea. What I'm saying here is that it's our cultures attitude towards homosexuals that helps reinforce an identity too strongly. It's our reaction to it. Many of us grow out of it. I don't even identify as lesbian or gay anymore. But there certainly was a time when I did. I remember my brother many years ago saying that the problem with gays was that they thought being gay was the most important thing about them. I don't disagree, I just think that it's not that simple. When you've had to do as much work as it takes to be comfortable and psychologically healthy with being gay it's easy to make it too important.

[4Talismans]

And I'm going to add one more reply to this thread tonight. I'm going to address the spiritual component of being gay. I can only speak for myself, so here goes. I am a woman, I have been around the block a few times. I have been in love with two women and one man. Being gay or lesbian doesn't happen in a vacuum. There are tremendous forces at work. They are cultural, societal, sexual, psycological, spiritual, you name it. I am aware that on some level my soul chose to live this lifetime this way. However, once I was born all choice was ended. I was born gay. The spiritual component of being gay is not less or more than being heterosexual. It's just not quite the same. It's apples and oranges, so to speak. Learning self-love in a culture where we are only shown hatred is challenging. Learning to love our enemies, who often prove to be beloved family members is challenging. Coming to grips with the fact that we are basically alone, was for me the most challenging of all.

The spiritual journey is always about divine union. It's about learning unconditional love. Accepting and giving.
The soul that chooses to be gay is choosing a short path. A treacherous path.
If I can transfigure all the hatred that has come my way over the years into love, that is my job.
If I can remember who I am, if I can smile in the face of bigotry and still help, and be good to the neighbor who said I was "evil and disgusting", that is my goal.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Thank you so much for your honesty 4tallisman. I would consider your brave statement in light of some of the talk here to underline an important point.

Labels are dangerous, they are demeaning and they hurt those to whom the labels apply. Or worse, they overinflate an already dangerously inflated ego. Labels alow us to remove the human element, to disect a human being into lifeless parts, dead and meaningless. Labels calcify a person's response, minimixes their input and maximizes their ostracization. Think of all the labels we use to distance ourselves from our fellow man. And then we wonder why we cannot agree? This is how we have been controlled through the eons.

First it was dividing us by language then by race, by religion by region by country by politics by vocation by temperment, etc. But we have been duped.

These are not divisions, they are diversifications. It is what makes us unique expressions of consciousness. They are to be celebrated, encouraged, supported.

But if your goal is to make money, to rule and subjugate, to experiment on indigenous species, to ship our resources off planet then labels are just another tool in that toolbox. It's time to understand that bigger picture and expand our definition of what being a good and happy human being can include. It certainly does not include judging and labelling others for behavoir they do not endorse.

Thanks again 4

[Sophocles]

Hi.

A friend just showed me this song. I think it is worth posting on this thread.

hlVBg7_08n0

[christian]

you really doubt the gay gene? you ever seen Richard Simmons? Little Richard? RuPaul? do you think they're all just faking it to piss off the right wing?

I just stumbled upon this: Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic (http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647)

[OnyxKnight]

First of all, I'd like to comment on the issue with Hagmann. I understand that he may have sources that are important to (at least) the moderation portion of this forum, and to some of the community, but I don't think its alright for the moderation team to cherrypick what articles of Hagmann should or shouldn't be discussed here. Which is, in my opinion, what happened in that other thread, that ended with its closure. There was no ad hominem attack on Hagmann himself, only on his views and comments (as well as the readership that commented afterward), and calling it ad hominem is actually twisting things for their own benefit. This benefit here being Hagmann's informant/source, deemed very important by some here. That's called bias, by definition. You can circle words all you like, it is what it is. And sadly, its not the first time it happened. I doubt it would be the last too.

If we have censorship, selection and biased decisions here, how can we still consider this place holding any integrity? (I remember a popular thread with that word in its title, I'm sure the rest of you remember it well too) I see blatant disregard for negative comments directed at Alex Jones, Sorcha Faal and many, many others, but when people like Hagmann, Dan Burisch and Charles, then it was unacceptable to question what they said and everything was taken at face value, even their views on other things (the way the moderation deals with comments about the latter two today have unsurprisingly changed since the whole nature of the relationship between Avalon/Bill and those individuals has changed as well). When something is obvious it serves no purpose to defend ourselves from such remarks (like that we are biased, subjective, partial). I don't defend myself that I for one would support one person more then another based on how alike we think. That's biased from my side and I'm perfectly fine. Its why I don't engage in roles like administrating a forum, because I know my traits (whether somebody sees them as flaws or virtues). I think its ripe time the administration admits this too (actually, some individuals more than others, as all did not act the same way), and if they continue to defend themselves as non-biased, their actions should reflect the same. I end that comment about that issue there.


On the topic of homosexuality. I'm very, very disappointed by some of the comments about it in this community for this topic. You may not directly or intentionally insult the LGBT individuals of the world (or those of them who are part of this community), but the things you say are still hurtful, and deliver insult. Comments like degenerative, deviants, unnatural etc. I don't wish to list them at all. Most disturbingly, some of those comments were from people I held high respect for.


There is no gay gene. It has as much science behind it as Al Gore's claims for man-made Global Warming. We are not that young of a species in evolutionary terms, we've been around for some time now. If there was a persistent gay gene being passed down through many generations, in all eventuality, it would have increased its population carrier (the LGBT people of the world), by more times that mythical 10% of the global human mass. The total LGBT (not only gay, but transsexual/transgender, bisexual and asexual individuals) equal barely 6-7% of the total human population. The largest non-heterosexual group being bisexual, not homosexual. The human race is not facing extinction, so the role of these individuals as procreators is not yet challenged. Nor it should, even if such a problem arises. And it may arise, considering there are depopulation plans being carried out, and massive sterilization agendas in store too.


Don't question the nature of my gender, or put to question my biological fertility factor with my inability to engage and form sexual and romantic relationships with the opposite sex. Those are not relevant factors, for two main reasons:

1) What defines me as a man is not the particular gender I sleep with. That's a biological expectation, a gender role, assigned to me at birth, and I have given up to fulfill those expectations long ago. I'm very, very sad to see that people who think of themselves as enlightened and spiritual, would still feel the need for themselves, and other members of their gender, to carry out some expected duties. That's what current society has instilled in us, not what defines us as a man or woman.

2) Just because somebody is gay, bi, straight, trans, or asex, doesn't mean they are not fertile and capable of producing offspring. They may not create new life in the traditional ways, but then again, we started this journey here called the 'Awakening Movement' to let go of old concepts of right and wrong, of old norms and traditions, of old ways of dealing with certain subjects and problems, and try a different, alternative, sometimes radical approach to things. I can't think of more radical or alternative ideas when it comes to reproduction than all the different procreative techniques devised that don't involve opposite sex intercourse.


I condemn all rhetoric used to criticize our lack of involvement in reproduction. For crying out loud, its exactly gay men and women who mostly help sterile, otherwise straight couples to conceive a child. And exactly gay men and women who are mostly used in sperm banks and fertility centers to donate sperm samples and to freeze eggs. So don't you even dare accuse us for not having a role in human reproduction, and thus, survival.


We can't call ourselves alternative community if we desperately hold on to old norms and concepts. The world was changing. The world is still changing, and will continue to change and evolve. Non-heterosexual people didn't chose to be the way they are. They did chose to accept themselves for who they are and move on with life, fight for their place in this world and try to teach others that differences and variety is what makes for a rich world, not to make those differences a matter or conflict. Gay people may not have the choice to choose their sexual and romantic interests, but you, all the rest of you, straight people, have the choice to choose on which tread of the staircase you stop walking upwards and keep up with the changes that are going on.


I also detest and resent the comments of unbalanced energies or behavioral traits. I'm a masculine, guy's guy. I'm attracted and gravitate towards other masculine men. Some are feminine, and want the same, sometimes there is a mix between masculine and feminine guys. There is no set standard of looks and behavior when it comes to our species. Why if something is different, people pretend to feel awkward, wary, unbalanced vibe about it? As if gay men or women are not comfortable enough in their own body, and not accepted themselves fully, that they are the way they are. Then I say back, using the same logic, if a straight man or woman was perfectly in tune with their body and sexuality, they wouldn't have to diminish and downgrade other individuals for their sexual nature as something less natural of perfect than themselves.


Unless you have a telepathic and true empathic abilities, only then would you know how a gay man or woman thinks like, feels like, and how their "energy" is. Until then, its just supposition, bias and unresolved issues at work. How the hell would another, straight person, know how a gay guy or girl feels like? Its absurd to the core.


I'm no more or less of a man than any of you. I just happen to be attracted to guys. Its not easy growing up that way in a former communist country. Communism doesn't let go that easily even when it has lost the battle. A lot of things stay the same, people just pretend they are moving forward.


And thus .. the final comment arrives. There was talk about social systems too in this thread.


The only system I see fit for a species such as ours, is a form of anarchy. "A form" being the key phrase here. I have to emphasize so I wouldn't be taken out of context.

No monetary system, no central power system or governing bodies, no control, no enforcement of law and order as somebody else envisioned them to be, absolute liberty, and equality above all else. You work to benefit the whole, not the other way around, like we see it these days (the whole, working to benefit the individuals on top). With no actual people in power, there's close to no chance of taking control and corruption.

Those people that are less sync with others (whether philosophies, views, behaviors), can start their own anarchopolis places in different areas of the world, and yet, the system is such, that allows minimum unity and unified effort, to maintain a global standard of living, and yet, diverse compartments of social nests that cater to different groups of people based on needs/wants/views etc.

[Anchor]

Onyxknight's post above should go in the Avalon hall of fame for great posts.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

First of all, I'd like to comment on the issue with Hagmann. I understand that he may have sources that are important to (at least) the moderation portion of this forum, and to some of the community, but I don't think its alright for the moderation team to cherrypick what articles of Hagmann should or shouldn't be discussed here. Which is, in my opinion, what happened in that other thread, that ended with its closure. There was no ad hominem attack on Hagmann himself, only on his views and comments (as well as the readership that commented afterward), and calling it ad hominem is actually twisting things for their own benefit. This benefit here being Hagmann's informant/source, deemed very important by some here. That's called bias, by definition. You can circle words all you like, it is what it is. And sadly, its not the first time it happened. I doubt it would be the last too.

If we have censorship, selection and biased decisions here, how can we still consider this place holding any integrity? (I remember a popular thread with that word in its title, I'm sure the rest of you remember it well too) I see blatant disregard for negative comments directed at Alex Jones, Sorcha Faal and many, many others, but when people like Hagmann, Dan Burisch and Charles, then it was unacceptable to question what they said and everything was taken at face value, even their views on other things (the way the moderation deals with comments about the latter two today have unsurprisingly changed since the whole nature of the relationship between Avalon/Bill and those individuals has changed as well). .

Great post. I only just read it. You are correct that I was calling out his views and comments ONLY.
I never called him any names.
I am glad you could see this.
I agree that it seems that certain people cannot be questioned on here.
However, I don't think this is intentional.
I think its a mixture of nobody reporting things, mods missing things (there is a lot here and its a big forum) and also if a mods own sacred cow is being attacked, its more likely they will take action than if it were some other figure.
We are ALL guilty of this type of bias.
People will ALWAYS react in the strongest manner to ideas they hold dear if they feel those ideas are under attack and will do their best to protect them and their own integrity. Its only natural. I am guilty of it just as some of the mods are. I have been trying to remember this rule lately as when I forget it, it lands me in trouble.
That all I have to say on that.

Anyway.....
The reason I revisited this thread today is because of these two articles over at Salon.


Esquire got duped by Alex Jones
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/14/esquire_got_duped_by_alex_jones/

Alex Jones: Gay marriage truther?
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/that_time_alex_jones_said_the_government_is_turning_people_gay/

Now, for the record, Salon is ALWAYS doing hit pieces on Jones but on this occasion, I think they are partially correct. Don't get wrong, Jones has done a great deal with regards to waking people up, me included, (I even shook his hand and had a chat with him at Bilderberg) but I think Jones is homophobic in his less guarded moments. He always seems to say he is not homophobic but then in the middle of a rant, something homophobic will pop out.

I wonder, is there such a thing as being homophobic but not realising it? What do people think? Is it a case of Jones just not realising what he is saying in the middle of a rant?

[ulli]

First of all, I'd like to comment on the issue with Hagmann. I understand that he may have sources that are important to (at least) the moderation portion of this forum, and to some of the community, but I don't think its alright for the moderation team to cherrypick what articles of Hagmann should or shouldn't be discussed here. Which is, in my opinion, what happened in that other thread, that ended with its closure. There was no ad hominem attack on Hagmann himself, only on his views and comments (as well as the readership that commented afterward), and calling it ad hominem is actually twisting things for their own benefit. This benefit here being Hagmann's informant/source, deemed very important by some here. That's called bias, by definition. You can circle words all you like, it is what it is. And sadly, its not the first time it happened. I doubt it would be the last too.

If we have censorship, selection and biased decisions here, how can we still consider this place holding any integrity? (I remember a popular thread with that word in its title, I'm sure the rest of you remember it well too) I see blatant disregard for negative comments directed at Alex Jones, Sorcha Faal and many, many others, but when people like Hagmann, Dan Burisch and Charles, then it was unacceptable to question what they said and everything was taken at face value, even their views on other things (the way the moderation deals with comments about the latter two today have unsurprisingly changed since the whole nature of the relationship between Avalon/Bill and those individuals has changed as well). .

Great post. I only just read it. You are correct that I was calling out his views and comments ONLY.
I never called him any names.
I am glad you could see this.
I agree that it seems that certain people cannot be questioned on here.
However, I don't think this is intentional.
I think its a mixture of nobody reporting things, mods missing things (there is a lot here and its a big forum) and also if a mods own sacred cow is being attacked, its more likely they will take action than if it were some other figure.
We are ALL guilty of this type of bias.
People will ALWAYS react in the strongest manner to ideas they hold dear if they feel those ideas are under attack and will do their best to protect them and their own integrity. Its only natural. I am guilty of it just as some of the mods are. I have been trying to remember this rule lately as when I forget it, it lands me in trouble.
That all I have to say on that.

Anyway.....
The reason I revisited this thread today is because of these two articles over at Salon.


Esquire got duped by Alex Jones
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/14/esquire_got_duped_by_alex_jones/

Alex Jones: Gay marriage truther?
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/that_time_alex_jones_said_the_government_is_turning_people_gay/

Now, for the record, Salon is ALWAYS doing hit pieces on Jones but on this occasion, I think they are partially correct. Don't get wrong, Jones has done a great deal with regards to waking people up, me included, (I even shook his hand and had a chat with him at Bilderberg) but I think Jones is homophobic in his less guarded moments. He always seems to say he is not homophobic but then in the middle of a rant, something homophobic will pop out.

I wonder, is there such a thing as being homophobic but not realising it? What do people think? Is it a case of Jones just not realising what he is saying in the middle of a rant?

If someone is on the path towards self realization, they know that this path is about getting rid of all their automatic behavior, behavior which is the result of a lifetime of conditioning. Being on this path has taught me to be patient with others, as well as myself.
Here is an example of what I mean by automatic behavior....learning to drive a car during the first few weeks means each and every move of hand and foot is conscious and deliberate, so as to avoid mistakes. Then with practice, driving becomes smoother, hence automatic behavior takes care of it, leaving one"s eyes and mind on traffic, (hopefully) rather than wheel and pedals and gear shift.
Same goes for everything else...how to drive with our learned behavior in a society that is picky in contradictory ways...
In any given day one might find oneself in different places where either pro gay stance or anti gay stance is valued, and even though I can't stand bigots, it is not always a good idea to take them on about their homophobia, if one is in the middle of a discussion about GMOs, for example. There are many issues pressing on all of us.
Now, a rant is possibly the most likely activity where one might leak out some of our old automatic behavior patterns, due to the emotional fuel being high grade. I suggest to focus on what the rant is about, in it's essence, rather than what might slip out in the process.
There are ranters on all sides of this issue. We need to be patient with them all, not only the Alan Jones types, but also those militant gays who are following the orders of their organizers, to go out and transform homophobic society, at all cost, even if it cost you your life...those organizers being the ones who will later benefit from the martyrdom of their foot soldiers.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

[OnyxKnight]

I find all these gay conspiracies laughable at the very least. The whole "gays gonna take over the world" thing is also getting very old. The only reason they are building a support blanket for gay men because we have lobby groups that invest a lot of money in pushing things around to make ease on our lives globally. I doubt any government has anything to do with it. They do on the other hand, if you pay close attention, seem to be fueling radical Islamism (since Christianity is very passive in its aggression in comparison), and neonazism/extreme nationalism. They both are a big rise across the globe, and gaining momentum to catch up with the sexual liberation (promiscuity, women rights, gay rights, disinterest in marriage etc.), and act as a counter-force. They are big in Asia, Africa, and gaining force in Europe too. We also saw what Russia did recently as well. When it comes to this topic, it seems the world is polarizing slowly, and if not both, then one side is definitely being pushed in a certain direction and given fuel to increase its fire.

There is a depopulation agenda, but the LGBT people are not a part of it, as they are portrayed to be. Mainly because we can/do contribute to population growth, so we can't be part of the plan. Artificially produced disasters, designer viruses, health impairing food and water (chemicals and genetic engineering), pollution, wars, crime, violence, and also, sterilization, is the courses of action being taken to depopulate the world. Its slow, and its why they have shock injections (diverted asteroids/comets, artificial production of sun flares, etc.). I'm waiting for the first shock factor to come by (if it does at all). In their initial calculations, my contacts have said it would do more damage to them rather than us, since they don't know how to use this technology properly.

[DeDukshyn]

Anyone seen a diminishing sine wave before?

Suppression, pushback, suppression, pushback, suppression, pushback, normalcy ....


Things are merely on their way to normalcy in this regard, regardless of where we are on that sine wave.

Can't believe this thread still has life ;)

[donk]

Hopefully emotional attachment to issues that don't really direct effect "you" will follow the diminishing wave toward common loving sense...I find it amazing the discussion is however many pages long. At some point, straight people need to step back and wonder why they would ever engage so emotionally into the topic of other's sexuality.

My understanding is that it (the attraction to this kind of discussion) is a mix of fear (from people that should be asking themselves why they have this reaction, whether it be a personal issue or wrong conclusions from bad information) & compassion (from the ones that empathize with the victims of the fearful ones).

I'm hoping for the day where all the people damaged by the (false) emotional charge of this issue heal themselves and are able to stand proud in their light, whether it be their attraction to the same sex or a solid comfort and equal loving of those who are