Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think Ra's take on Homosexuality is idiotic

[YinYang]

There is no question that he holds a rather unfortunate disposition towards homosexuals. I'm a she by the way People may have different views about this, but if someone has set themselves up as a public entity, they are liable as public scrutiny. That's just how it works. No man is an island.

This is perhaps one of the greatest lessons I learned from Nelson Mandela, "insist on being respected". When he walked into prison they called him "46664" and he said "that's Mr. Mandela to you". That's actually what he fought for all his life; respect. He told a journalist in his last days "if you think I fought for black rights, you have not been paying attention. I have fought for the right of everyone to be respected."

And then I think Jade digged up the most applicable quote in the Ra material that applies to a situation like this, since I think it can only benefit us to mirror each other truthfully.

Questioner: Thank you. Could Ra give information on any way that we could give information to Greta Woodrew as to how to alleviate her present condition of swelling?

Ra: I am Ra. We may only suggest that the honor of propinquity to light carries with it the Law of Responsibility. The duty to refrain from contumely, discord, and all things which when unresolved within make way for workings, lies before the instrument of which you speak. This entity may, if it is desired by the scribe, share our comments upon the working of the latter entity.

The entity which is given constant and unremitting approval by those surrounding it suffers from the loss of the mirroring effect of those which reflect truthfully rather than unquestioningly. This is not a suggestion to reinstate judgment but merely a suggestion for all those supporting instruments; that is, support, be harmonious, share in love, joy, and thanksgiving, but find love within truth, for each instrument benefits from this support more than from the total admiration which overcomes discrimination.

So I think you need to let him know.

[Manjushri]

Regardless of what Scott thinks or says or the language he uses is out of date or insensitive ... At the end of it (literally) Ra still refers to what we are thinking of as "gay people" as having an "impairment" - for which I can only find definitions to imply a disability or a non-desirable status.

[BlatzAdict]

Well, I've just listened to the Youtube clip in question, and I have to concur with Chandlersdad, he is definitely condescending towards homosexuals. Then he confidently proclaims they don't have the need to make a family... wha?? Says who? So according to him a gay couple isn't a family, kids or no kids, it's irrelevant. Then he says a gay man thinks "I'm a girl" and a lesbian woman thinks "I'm a guy"! I have yet to meet a gay man who thinks of himself as a girl or a gay woman thinks of herself as a guy, quite the contrary, they are very happy with their own gender. They just happen to be attracted to their own gender. He's confusing transgenderism with homosexuality.

Then he goes on to say "according to Ra, this is by no means a moral or punishable sin"... as if anything according to Ra is a moral or punishable sin. There is no such thing as "punishable sin" in the material. There is no right or wrong.

Then he says "there are many angry gay people in the world, who identify with being gay, which is shallow"... saying "I'm not proud to be white..." ~chuckle-chuckle~ With such smugness... He carries on to say they are very angry, and have deep pain and self-hatred... and says "do you really like yourself? Do you really like yourself? Are you really well?"

Then he says "sooory, that's just what Ra says..."

I switched it off, I've heard enough.

Just to touch on the family thing, I know two gay couples who are awesome parents to their kids. In fact, they did a study a while back to see how kids raised by gay couples compare against their peers, and interestingly enough they do better than their peers.

Children Of Gay Parents Are Happier And Healthier Than Their Peers, New Study Finds

Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers

interesting, that might explain why he reincarnated. If you take a look at the life of George Hunt Williamson, not only do they look alike, but George's life was spent gathering different channelings and comparing which parts of the data matched, and through that was able to find a single unified story.






In his previous life he was very much a stickler for non distortion. That might be out of an earnest desire to promulgate the Law of One efficiently. In my years spent here in the forums, I felt a fundamental disconnect with strictly discussing the Law of One. Which is why I hardly ever go to strictly Law of One to post or comment. I feel personally that unity can only be learned by branching out seeing how other things match with Law of One as the foundation. It's not like the Law of One has a picture of this to show you.








With that said there is plenty of information that fills in intentional gaps Ra left out that reinforces and validates the Law of One to begin with. If anyone ever had doubts of a third eye, guess what everyone has one physically as well as energetically with the indigo ray. In my own personal opinion, trying to learn the Law of One and learn unity, strictly via the Law of One without other stuff to reinforce that learning, is what is in my opinion lacking in wisdom. I don't have any opinion of Scott, but it's been an interesting window into his actions. It's interesting to note that that he would be generally on the STO side of things, and there are plenty of people in the world actively working towards service to self, who need our discerning eyes to be... exposed. 


Like the bliss out side of the spiritual crowd, that refuses to face their shadow self.

[AnthroHeart]

I also try hard to reduce my distortions. But I am too reactionary. I let things get to me like right away. I don't usually stew in anger or anything like that. I'm over it pretty quickly.

[Chandlersdad]

There is no question that he holds a rather unfortunate disposition towards homosexuals. I'm a she by the way People may have different views about this, but if someone has set themselves up as a public entity, they are liable as public scrutiny. That's just how it works. No man is an island.

This is perhaps one of the greatest lessons I learned from Nelson Mandela, "insist on being respected". When he walked into prison they called him "46664" and he said "that's Mr. Mandela to you". That's actually what he fought for all his life; respect. He told a journalist in his last days "if you think I fought for black rights, you have not been paying attention. I have fought for the right of everyone to be respected."

And then I think Jade digged up the most applicable quote in the Ra material that applies to a situation like this, since I think it can only benefit us to mirror each other truthfully.

Questioner: Thank you. Could Ra give information on any way that we could give information to Greta Woodrew as to how to alleviate her present condition of swelling?

Ra: I am Ra. We may only suggest that the honor of propinquity to light carries with it the Law of Responsibility. The duty to refrain from contumely, discord, and all things which when unresolved within make way for workings, lies before the instrument of which you speak. This entity may, if it is desired by the scribe, share our comments upon the working of the latter entity.

The entity which is given constant and unremitting approval by those surrounding it suffers from the loss of the mirroring effect of those which reflect truthfully rather than unquestioningly. This is not a suggestion to reinstate judgment but merely a suggestion for all those supporting instruments; that is, support, be harmonious, share in love, joy, and thanksgiving, but find love within truth, for each instrument benefits from this support more than from the total admiration which overcomes discrimination.

So I think you need to let him know.

I did days ago. I first wrote him a couple weeks ago with some questions. There has been no response. I have run into a few others who have written to him in the past and received only silence in return. He may focus on paying clients who come to him for counseling.

[Chandlersdad]

I also try hard to reduce my distortions. But I am too reactionary. I let things get to me like right away. I don't usually stew in anger or anything like that. I'm over it pretty quickly.

Responding automatically happens so fast that we may not even see it. One idea is to take a piece of jewelry like a ring or something like that, and turn it into a reminder to PAUSE before reacting. Our minds seem to forget everything spiritual (the first reptilian response of the brain) when provoked. It takes something like a symbol to break the pattern before it happens. This isn't easy. There are still times when I respond to something with anger, only to immediately turn around, see what I just did, and then regret it. Breaking down that neural pathway (which can be really strong after a life time) takes work. That is why I use items to remind me.

[Chandlersdad]

Well, I've just listened to the Youtube clip in question, and I have to concur with Chandlersdad, he is definitely condescending towards homosexuals. Then he confidently proclaims they don't have the need to make a family... wha?? Says who? So according to him a gay couple isn't a family, kids or no kids, it's irrelevant. Then he says a gay man thinks "I'm a girl" and a lesbian woman thinks "I'm a guy"! I have yet to meet a gay man who thinks of himself as a girl or a gay woman thinks of herself as a guy, quite the contrary, they are very happy with their own gender. They just happen to be attracted to their own gender. He's confusing transgenderism with homosexuality.

Then he goes on to say "according to Ra, this is by no means a moral or punishable sin"... as if anything according to Ra is a moral or punishable sin. There is no such thing as "punishable sin" in the material. There is no right or wrong.

Then he says "there are many angry gay people in the world, who identify with being gay, which is shallow"... saying "I'm not proud to be white..." ~chuckle-chuckle~ With such smugness... He carries on to say they are very angry, and have deep pain and self-hatred... and says "do you really like yourself? Do you really like yourself? Are you really well?"

Then he says "sooory, that's just what Ra says..."

I switched it off, I've heard enough.

Just to touch on the family thing, I know two gay couples who are awesome parents to their kids. In fact, they did a study a while back to see how kids raised by gay couples compare against their peers, and interestingly enough they do better than their peers.

Children Of Gay Parents Are Happier And Healthier Than Their Peers, New Study Finds

Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers

interesting, that might explain why he reincarnated. If you take a look at the life of George Hunt Williamson, not only do they look alike, but George's life was spent gathering different channelings and comparing which parts of the data matched, and through that was able to find a single unified story.






In his previous life he was very much a stickler for non distortion. That might be out of an earnest desire to promulgate the Law of One efficiently. In my years spent here in the forums, I felt a fundamental disconnect with strictly discussing the Law of One. Which is why I hardly ever go to strictly Law of One to post or comment. I feel personally that unity can only be learned by branching out seeing how other things match with Law of One as the foundation. It's not like the Law of One has a picture of this to show you.








With that said there is plenty of information that fills in intentional gaps Ra left out that reinforces and validates the Law of One to begin with. If anyone ever had doubts of a third eye, guess what everyone has one physically as well as energetically with the indigo ray. In my own personal opinion, trying to learn the Law of One and learn unity, strictly via the Law of One without other stuff to reinforce that learning, is what is in my opinion lacking in wisdom. I don't have any opinion of Scott, but it's been an interesting window into his actions. It's interesting to note that that he would be generally on the STO side of things, and there are plenty of people in the world actively working towards service to self, who need our discerning eyes to be... exposed. 


Like the bliss out side of the spiritual crowd, that refuses to face their shadow self.

Very interesting information. I do appreciate it. I don't subscribe to the idea that we have the same face incarnation after incarnation. If so, I am going to be one of the world's ugliest women in my next female incarnation. Seriously, we supposedly change race (each having its own genetic facial qualities) and I think having the same face would be very counter-productive. I do not believe this is true. For the record, I do NOT think David Wilcock is Edgar Cayce, just because he looked like Cayce in ONE photo. I also do not automatically think Scott was this other man. To me it would take a type of vanity and ego to shop around for a set of parents and then somehow ensure that the exact right sperm impregnated the exact right egg simply to ensure you have the same face as your previous incarnation. That just seems like such a petty thing to do. Nonetheless, here is a photo of me in my last female life. Then there is a photo of me now. I admit the resemblance is striking! So I may be wrong.

[YinYang]

I did days ago.  I first wrote him a couple weeks ago with some questions. There has been no response. I have run into a few others who have written to him in the past and received only silence in return. He may focus on paying clients who come to him for counseling.  

Then your job's done. Scratch him off you list, and align yourself with those of like mind.

I will share one of my favourite quotes with you by C. Joybell C.

Previously, as I went through life, I was in full belief of the concept of "blending" (I was fully convinced that I as a person am completely capable of blending myself in the accordance of friendship, in order to give respect to the differences between people and in order for others to feel that I respect them). However, I have come to learn at this time in my life, that such an attitude is all good for a while, but then there does come a point where you must see and identify yourself; also see and identify others!

You have to be able to identify yourself as someone who is made happy by this and as someone who doesn't like that; then when you meet people, discern if those same things are the things that make them happy and if those same things are the things that they don't like, because at a point in time it becomes beneficial to you, to not waste time on blending in behalf of virtue but rather it becomes beneficial to you, to see yourself and go into the direction that makes you happy, taking people with you that are already going in that same direction and who also do not like the things that you do not like. At the end of the day, there are those paths in life, and you have to take one of them, you can't walk down all of them.

[Chandlersdad]

I did days ago.  I first wrote him a couple weeks ago with some questions. There has been no response. I have run into a few others who have written to him in the past and received only silence in return. He may focus on paying clients who come to him for counseling.  

Then your job's done. Scratch him off you list, and align yourself with those of like mind.

I will share one of my favourite quotes with you by C. Joybell C.

Previously, as I went through life, I was in full belief of the concept of "blending" (I was fully convinced that I as a person am completely capable of blending myself in the accordance of friendship, in order to give respect to the differences between people and in order for others to feel that I respect them). However, I have come to learn at this time in my life, that such an attitude is all good for a while, but then there does come a point where you must see and identify yourself; also see and identify others!

You have to be able to identify yourself as someone who is made happy by this and as someone who doesn't like that; then when you meet people, discern if those same things are the things that make them happy and if those same things are the things that they don't like, because at a point in time it becomes beneficial to you, to not waste time on blending in behalf of virtue but rather it becomes beneficial to you, to see yourself and go into the direction that makes you happy, taking people with you that are already going in that same direction and who also do not like the things that you do not like. At the end of the day, there are those paths in life, and you have to take one of them, you can't walk down all of them.

You are correct. Actually, I am not thinking about Scotty Boy at all except when I get new posts on this thread I created. Otherwise, I am enjoying my wild Los Angeles life style this Saturday.....washing clothes, clearing the dish washer, and taking a nap with my golden retriever. My husband is out on a contractor job. He is an electrician - very macho! LOL

[Jade]

I'm disappointed. On Scott's website, it says that he will offer his services regardless of ability to pay, so I assumed that he engaged seekers in his email. I'm sorry that I was wrong.

Regardless of what Scott thinks or says or the language he uses is out of date or insensitive ... At the end of it (literally) Ra still refers to what we are thinking of as "gay people" as having an "impairment" - for which I can only find definitions to imply a disability or a non-desirable status.

I think if we go to the previous session, session 30, we can see where Ra is first talking about the bisexual mechanism.

30.9 Questioner: Now, in second density the concept of bisexual reproduction first originates. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

30.10 Questioner: Can you tell me the philosophy behind this mechanism of propagation of the bodily complex?

Ra: I am Ra. The second density is one in which the groundwork is being laid for third-density work. In this way it may be seen that the basic mechanisms of reproduction capitulate into a vast potential in third density for service to other-self and to self; this being not only by the functions of energy transfer but also [by] the various services performed due to the close contact of those who are, shall we say, magnetically attracted, one to the other; these entities thus having the opportunities for many types of service which would be unavailable to the independent entity.

30.11 Questioner: Was the basic reason, the original reason for this then to increase opportunity for experience of the One Creator? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is not merely correct but is the key to that which occurs in all densities.

Basically, the Logos chose dual genders as a means of creating dynamic without any effort on the part of incarnated entities - and if one is not engaging in this "magnetic attraction" dynamic there is an impairment in their ability to offer service to another without the effort involved in finding another mate of similar orientation - homosexuals making up an estimated 2% of the population. A shallow example of this is how a man will go out of his way to open a door for a woman, as a means of service and potential courting. This simple dynamic is baffled if the entities involved aren't heterosexual. But, if unbaffled, it offers an "automatic" service to be performed, as I'm sure most men don't contemplate the movement to making an act of "chivalry" towards a woman - at least, from my experience, it's incredibly impulsive and without thought.

This is all meant to generate the most catalyst possible. In theory it's easier for two male entities to bridge the gap between their differences than a male and a female. The polarized genders creates a dynamic that can be used. Lacking involvement in polarized genders would, in this context, be an "impairment", because it is a missed "increase [in] opportunity for experience of the One Creator" that is offered by the dynamic of dual genders. 

[Chandlersdad]

I'm disappointed. On Scott's website, it says that he will offer his services regardless of ability to pay, so I assumed that he engaged seekers in his email. I'm sorry that I was wrong.

Regardless of what Scott thinks or says or the language he uses is out of date or insensitive ... At the end of it (literally) Ra still refers to what we are thinking of as "gay people" as having an "impairment" - for which I can only find definitions to imply a disability or a non-desirable status.

I think if we go to the previous session, session 30, we can see where Ra is first talking about the bisexual mechanism.

30.9 Questioner: Now, in second density the concept of bisexual reproduction first originates. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

30.10 Questioner: Can you tell me the philosophy behind this mechanism of propagation of the bodily complex?

Ra: I am Ra. The second density is one in which the groundwork is being laid for third-density work. In this way it may be seen that the basic mechanisms of reproduction capitulate into a vast potential in third density for service to other-self and to self; this being not only by the functions of energy transfer but also [by] the various services performed due to the close contact of those who are, shall we say, magnetically attracted, one to the other; these entities thus having the opportunities for many types of service which would be unavailable to the independent entity.

30.11 Questioner: Was the basic reason, the original reason for this then to increase opportunity for experience of the One Creator? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is not merely correct but is the key to that which occurs in all densities.

Basically, the Logos chose dual genders as a means of creating dynamic without any effort on the part of incarnated entities - and if one is not engaging in this "magnetic attraction" dynamic there is an impairment in their ability to offer service to another without the effort involved in finding another mate of similar orientation - homosexuals making up an estimated 2% of the population. A shallow example of this is how a man will go out of his way to open a door for a woman, as a means of service and potential courting. This simple dynamic is baffled if the entities involved aren't heterosexual. But, if unbaffled, it offers an "automatic" service to be performed, as I'm sure most men don't contemplate the movement to making an act of "chivalry" towards a woman - at least, from my experience, it's incredibly impulsive and without thought.

This is all meant to generate the most catalyst possible. In theory it's easier for two male entities to bridge the gap between their differences than a male and a female. The polarized genders creates a dynamic that can be used. Lacking involvement in polarized genders would, in this context, be an "impairment", because it is a missed "increase [in] opportunity for experience of the One Creator" that is offered by the dynamic of dual genders. 

This may come as a great shock, but gay men interact with women all the time. Gay men often share a feminine outlook on life versus the straight male. When I read that book about MEN ARE FROM MARS, WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS, I related perhaps 90% with the "VENUS" attitudes towards life. Also, gay men exist in a reality unmapped by Ra. This is a reality where they are often in a duality relationship to both women AND to straight men. Straight men are often a great mystery to gay men, especially the more brutish competition obsessed blood and guts loving male. Because Ra did not bother to map out alternative dynamics does not negate the catalysts for growth inherent within the interaction among diverse members of the human species. If you think there is little catalyst or dynamics being gay (and attempting a serious relationship in a hostile society), then you simply lack knowledge and empathy.

Can I be blunt? I am sick and tired of straight men proclaiming the truth about homosexuality. How about instead of proclaiming, you simply ASK GAY PEOPLE?!?!! Would that require too much humility?

Also, for the record, gay men are probably MORE gracious with women than straight men. I always open doors for women, for example. Were you saying that if there is no sexual interest, a man will not treat women with respect and good manners? Women are our mothers. Now THAT is an instinctive dynamic right there. Women are our sisters and friends. When I see a young woman struggling with 2 small children, I instinctively rush to open the door for her or help in any way I can. SHE is the mother of the human race. It doesn't take a fantasy about her vagina to force me to be a decent human being.

Finally, 2% of the population ADMITS to being gay. The real number is much higher. On a planet where gay men are being murdered simply for being gay, in a world where a gay man can be fired for admitting to be gay, in a world where the dominant Western religions curse gay men to damnation and ostracism, in a world where police still target gay men (entrapping them), are you really surprised that only 2% would admit to being gay? Half the gay men I have known in my life (including my husband) were married at one time to a woman. They did as society dictated. It took great courage to step away from that commitment and be themselves. Many gay men do not have that courage and would mark "heterosexual" on a census.

RA can shove his "impairment" up his collective ass. This is a classic example of dogma over reality. If Ra had said the Earth was flat, you would be finding clever ways to support that notion. :@

[Jade]

It seems that these words carry an emotional charge for you that they do not for me. I mean, "distortion" is as negative of a word as "impairment", and to Ra, everything that isn't unity is a distortion - love is a distortion. Free will is a distortion. Dual genders is a distortion, and arguably an impairment in the face of unity. Not to mention, everything that creates an emotional reaction is also a "blockage". Ra doesn't use these words in judgement, and the ability to be able to understand what these words mean in the context of evaluating the self without feeling negative judgement is important, I think.

I wasn't trying to imply that a gay man wouldn't serve a woman, or wouldn't interact with one - in fact, I believe quite the contrary. It was a shallow analogy, like I said, and again, was from the majority of my own experience - something I experience on a regular basis, in fact. I'm glad that you also feel empathy and love for women/mothers, but do you think that this might be because you have raised children yourself? (Something MOST gay men don't experience). Just a thought. But I was speaking of a specific interaction, and not saying that it is the only dynamic available for a man to open a door for a woman - just the most common one I've experienced, and again, seemingly automatic.

Anyway, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Later in the books, Ra begins to talk about the Logos and the archetypical patterns that it has designed. Maybe when you get to that part of the reading, what I said about the dynamic of dual genders will make more sense.

[rva_jeremy]

Hey Chandlersdad, thanks for posting.

I'm pretty much in your camp on all points, and I've studied this material for 16 years.  Unless there are major issues with the fidelity of the contact at these two junctures, Ra is just flat out wrong in my opinion--or at best, not usefully correct.  Full stop, end of story.  Ra's comments on homosexuals constitute the low point of the contact record for me; I won't pull punches.

In fact I have a close gay friend whom I'm introducing to this material, and I'm absolutely dreading the point when/if he stumbles on these passages in the Ra material.  I think you should do as you see fit with respect to whether or not you accept the totality of the Ra contact, but I would just point out that no Confederation contact I've ever read has ever claimed infallibility.  When you think about the gravity of the topics Ra discusses, this foray into near-homophobia is not simply disturbing but kind of bizarre!  The sad thing is that this is an area where students of the Law of One could clearly use some guidance when it comes to understanding sexual polarity in finer and more nuanced ways.

Now, all that said, I think we might look at the technical details of Ra's comments.  The auric infringement thing always struck me as more about sexual stimulation in general than narrowly homoerotic stimulation.  Ra was simply being asked to comment on homosexuals at the time, but IMHO their reasoning could apply to anybody.  I think close quarters has the ability to bring out confusion of all sorts, but let's always remember that this confusion is born of social norms and stigmas that baffle the free flow of love and energy.  It is not a problem with the individual himself who is still absolutely acceptable and the Creator in every way.  Let's keep in mind that catalyst is often borne of yellow ray issues with the society, but it is inherently subjective and knows no political correctness.

One more thing about auric infringement that I have mixed feelings on: if you look at the question it's actually not about why homosexuals have their orientation but instead about Don's perception of the increasing numbers at that time.  Who knows, maybe auric infringement plays some sort of role on the margins there, but the idea that anybody would accept this as a sufficient single explanation is laughable.  Maybe it activates something somebody remembers from a past life, I don't know.  But I also feel like Ra might have been scrambling to answer a bad question with (as often happened in the contact) an overly generalized answer.

I'm actually super impressed at those of you who think Ra's claim that having a majority of past lives of the opposite sex can cause homosexuality is not offensive.  It shows tremendous wisdom to be open-minded towards the grand mystery of our past lives.  Ra might be right, might be wrong… who here thinks it matters?  The important point is that our experience of sex seems to be a great generator of catalyst, and the thing we need to think about is not why we're gay, straight, trans, queer, etc. but how to find the love in any of those experiences.

The point on early imprinting strikes me as much more balanced, personally, precisely because it's so utterly subjective.  I don't think Ra's point is that if your first kiss was with a girl, you're stuck kissing girls for the rest of your life.  I think the point was more that one's personal significator plays a tremendous role in arranging our reactions to and feelings about things in mysterious ways.  Who knows why we're attracted to what we're attracted to, and how the mesh of social sexual norms, energetic blockages and overactivations, childhood experiences of vulnerability and novelty, etc. all come together?  This is why it's best to stay on non-transient, universally oriented topics when speaking with the sixth density.

I don't discount the possibility that Ra's comments are colored by 80's thinking and norms, but I think it's a poor excuse for the homophobia.  That said, 1981 is only 12 years after the Stonewall Riots and pretty early in gay liberation. But to describe sexual orientation as an impairment… I don't understand.

As for Mandelker, I think he is a bit of a literalist.  He's a good guy but there's something about going into this kind of stuff full time that really seems to make a big impact on people.  It's a pretty human trait to want to seize on material like this and make it an orthodoxy, but anytime you see that, remember that this is in 100% total contravention to the Confederation's stated intent.  I wouldn't put too much stock in his third density intepretations (nor mine, for that matter).  What's important to pay attention to is what you personally think and how you react to this side of the Creator.  Not to be preachy.

One last thing: I think your point about taking the Ra contact as dogma is 200% right. The Confederation has a simple message it repeats. That message is the start of the journey, not the end, and certainly does not constitute the boundaries of acceptability.

Thanks for bringing this up, and I hope you find a path here or elsewhere that serves you.

[ricdaw]

Basically, the Logos chose dual genders as a means of creating dynamic without any effort on the part of incarnated entities - and if one is not engaging in this "magnetic attraction" dynamic there is an impairment in their ability to offer service to another without the effort involved in finding another mate of similar orientation - homosexuals making up an estimated 2% of the population. A shallow example of this is how a man will go out of his way to open a door for a woman, as a means of service and potential courting. This simple dynamic is baffled if the entities involved aren't heterosexual. But, if unbaffled, it offers an "automatic" service to be performed, as I'm sure most men don't contemplate the movement to making an act of "chivalry" towards a woman - at least, from my experience, it's incredibly impulsive and without thought.

This is all meant to generate the most catalyst possible. In theory it's easier for two male entities to bridge the gap between their differences than a male and a female. The polarized genders creates a dynamic that can be used. Lacking involvement in polarized genders would, in this context, be an "impairment", because it is a missed "increase [in] opportunity for experience of the One Creator" that is offered by the dynamic of dual genders. 

Well, not to toot my own horn on this (disclaimer:  I am a gay man) but I don't see that the "impairment" of being gay necessarily equates to less "ability to offer service to another."  Carla had some significant physical "impairments" which were essential to her achieving her life's work which was, from all reports, mighty service oriented indeed. So perhaps one choses (pre-life) to be gay because that particular "impairment" is the way to achieve a kind of service that cannot be achieved otherwise?  I know for a fact that if I had had kids, and was as distracted and consumed by the effort of raising them as all my childhood friends and associates have been with their kids, I very much doubt I would have been in the right place/space/psychology to have experienced a transformational spiritual experience that led, ultimately, to discovering the Ra Material.  There but for the grace of gayness would I be too.

I also strongly suspect that there are multiple kinds of homosexuality, since two friends have seemingly "changed their minds" and their sexual orientations mid-life.  (This is unfathomable to me, yet I cannot deny the sincerity of their choices as actually demonstrated by their new relationships.) 

I do believe that proximity can cause "infringement" induced homosexuality (see e.g. prisons) or at least homosexual behaviors.  But I do not believe that my own homosexuality (known since age 4) was so caused.  Indeed, I believe I planned to be gay in this lifetime because it was necessary to fulfil some Life Contracts.  Forensic evaluation of one's early formative life is an interesting thing to do, once you have the "tools" for it (i.e. belief in the Beforelife and the Afterlife and a rejection of the Random Universe theory).  I know I would be a very different person, if I had been straight.

I consider my gayness to be an attribute of self akin to my being tall.  It serves a purpose (either an advantage or a challenge, depending upon events).  I personally believe my gayness gave me a certain "apartness" in my early life to limit karmic entanglements.  If I am a Wanderer, it would likely have been adopted as a defensive measure to avoid a major-cycle 25,000 year do-over.  If I am not a Wanderer, it would likely have been adopted to assure graduation potential (see above spiritual experience coupled with the lack of karmic-entangling children to pull me back).  This is all speculation, of course (see "veil") but informed speculation nonetheless. 

I suppose I could have been straight but picked a different "impairment" like ugliness, stutter, clumsiness, blindness, or some disease, that might also have given me the same "apartness" but I didn't.

All of a person's challenges are chosen pre-life. Being gay too. (This is true too for the "been a girl in too many past lives" Ra explanation as it is for Ra's other "choosing to be born in a metropolitan country with infringement-inducing homosexuality" explanation.) It doesn't matter that gayness doesn't have the same kind of design goal as straightness (Logos design theory) so much as that it is unquestionably useful and is often a powerful catalyst in and of itself, because it is part of the very fabric of my being-ness in the same way that heterosexuality is part of the very fabric of straight people's being-ness.

[kycahi]

This is my first post in a very long time because that's how long I went without looking in on these fora. This is the very first thread I read, too. Anyway, I knew the name Scott Mandelker but never saw any youtube Scott video.

To me, any interaction of one person with another is, by terms of the LOO, the Creator experiencing itself. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that gay relating is, and being part of a despised minority is more of the Creator experiencing itself too. Make that a part of you and forgiving becomes smooth and easy.

If anyone wants to accelerate your love of all, keep reminding self of that. It is the most significant factor in the improvement of myself over my awful former self. I began reading the LOO books as soon as they came from the presses, so my current self is now decades in the making.

The LOO material is not easy reading. Their first usage of the word distortion was a barrier that took awhile before going away. I guarantee, though, that it's worth putting in the effort. The faster you skim through the first time, slowing down when something resonates, the faster you can take a break and then start over. I did this a volume at a time because I only had Volume I to begin with. I read it maybe twice before Vol II showed up, and so on.

For a brief time, I thought of sitting down and reorganizing the LOO in order of simple to complex. Then I decided that I could no way improve on the material as is. I still haven't absorbed everything they said, and so I likely would inadvertently have left out something that I hadn't yet gotten. Instead of letting something frustrate you, just take delight that it is more for you to learn when the time is right, and read on.

[Billy]

Can I be blunt? I am sick and tired of straight men proclaiming the truth about homosexuality. How about instead of proclaiming, you simply ASK GAY PEOPLE?!?!!  Would that require too much humility?

What is the truth about homosexuality?  As a straight man, I am curious.  Is it how I feel the desires for love, affection, sex, companionship etc towards women, except towards men, or is it not that simplistic?

Also, for the record, gay men are probably MORE gracious with women than straight men. I always open doors for women, for example. Were you saying that if there is no sexual interest, a man will not treat women with respect and good manners?  Women are our mothers. Now THAT is an instinctive dynamic right there. Women are our sisters and friends. When I see a young woman struggling with 2 small children, I instinctively rush to open the door for her or help in any way I can. SHE is the mother of the human race. It doesn't take a fantasy about her vagina to force me to be a decent human being.

I don't think that Jade was saying that without sexual interest/attraction a man wouldn't treat a women with respect, but that it is a powerful and driving factor in the way in which he would interact her.  When I see a girl I am attracted to, that attraction can and often does act like 'tunnel vision' with all other stimuli being pushed aside for that moment.  It's like being taken over by something and can make you act in ways which feel almost out of your control.  I don't think it is really fair to compare straight men to gay men when it comes to treatment of women, as the dynamic is quite different.  Sexual attraction is a powerful influence.  Maybe you open doors and are kind to women, not because they are women, but because you have compassion and enjoy helping people in need.  Just a thought.

[Manjushri]

Can I be blunt? I am sick and tired of straight men proclaiming the truth about homosexuality. How about instead of proclaiming, you simply ASK GAY PEOPLE?!?!!  Would that require too much humility?

What is the truth about homosexuality?  As a straight man, I am curious.  Is it how I feel the desires for love, affection, sex, companionship etc towards women, except towards men, or is it not that simplistic?

Also, for the record, gay men are probably MORE gracious with women than straight men. I always open doors for women, for example. Were you saying that if there is no sexual interest, a man will not treat women with respect and good manners?  Women are our mothers. Now THAT is an instinctive dynamic right there. Women are our sisters and friends. When I see a young woman struggling with 2 small children, I instinctively rush to open the door for her or help in any way I can. SHE is the mother of the human race. It doesn't take a fantasy about her vagina to force me to be a decent human being.

I don't think that Jade was saying that without sexual interest/attraction a man wouldn't treat a women with respect, but that it is a powerful and driving factor in the way in which he would interact her.  When I see a girl I am attracted to, that attraction can and often does act like 'tunnel vision' with all other stimuli being pushed aside for that moment.  It's like being taken over by something and can make you act in ways which feel almost out of your control.  I don't think it is really fair to compare straight men to gay men when it comes to treatment of women, as the dynamic is quite different.  Sexual attraction is a powerful influence.  Maybe you open doors and are kind to women, not because they are women, but because you have compassion and enjoy helping people in need.  Just a thought.

Perhaps Jade was trying to liken the human experience to her interpretation of the archetypes? i.e. in a typical relationship a man is trying to "court the maiden" on his own personal Fool's Journey? Perhaps with gay people every card which is male is female and vice versa? Just a thought.

[Patrick]

...I was beginning to wonder if there was no common sense here at all. Are the people here so RAginated, RAginized, bowing to the RAjestic majesty that they have lost all common sense?...

LoL  

Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.

Well I for one perceives that what is common sense on this planet at this time is mostly non-sensical.  So being RAginized makes me seem crazy to most people, but I am glad to be a fool.  Thank you again Ra for RAginizing me !

 

[Jade]

Can I be blunt? I am sick and tired of straight men proclaiming the truth about homosexuality. How about instead of proclaiming, you simply ASK GAY PEOPLE?!?!!  Would that require too much humility?

What is the truth about homosexuality?  As a straight man, I am curious.  Is it how I feel the desires for love, affection, sex, companionship etc towards women, except towards men, or is it not that simplistic?

Also, for the record, gay men are probably MORE gracious with women than straight men. I always open doors for women, for example. Were you saying that if there is no sexual interest, a man will not treat women with respect and good manners?  Women are our mothers. Now THAT is an instinctive dynamic right there. Women are our sisters and friends. When I see a young woman struggling with 2 small children, I instinctively rush to open the door for her or help in any way I can. SHE is the mother of the human race. It doesn't take a fantasy about her vagina to force me to be a decent human being.

I don't think that Jade was saying that without sexual interest/attraction a man wouldn't treat a women with respect, but that it is a powerful and driving factor in the way in which he would interact her.  When I see a girl I am attracted to, that attraction can and often does act like 'tunnel vision' with all other stimuli being pushed aside for that moment.  It's like being taken over by something and can make you act in ways which feel almost out of your control.  I don't think it is really fair to compare straight men to gay men when it comes to treatment of women, as the dynamic is quite different.  Sexual attraction is a powerful influence.  Maybe you open doors and are kind to women, not because they are women, but because you have compassion and enjoy helping people in need.  Just a thought.

Perhaps Jade was trying to liken the human experience to her interpretation of the archetypes? i.e. in a typical relationship a man is trying to "court the maiden" on his own personal Fool's Journey? Perhaps with gay people every card which is male is female and vice versa? Just a thought.

"Courting the maiden" in the transformation card has nothing to do with gender, except archetypically, where the male pursues the female - the yang reaches for the yin, the will reaches for the subconscious resources. Billy is close to what I mean, speaking through the gendered lens. Apparently, according to Ra, as physical expressions of gender, we are predisposed to acting out upon those lines - the male reaching for the female. Two opposite poles seeking their balance. The yin and the yang form a perfect and complete circle. This "coupling"/transfer/whatever you want to call it, is available to any man and woman who come together and desire for this transfer. It just takes a little more effort to affect this transfer when the genders aren't automatically polarized.

[Billy]

We are all one, a crude example, but you get the picture

[BlatzAdict]

Can I be blunt? I am sick and tired of straight men proclaiming the truth about homosexuality. How about instead of proclaiming, you simply ASK GAY PEOPLE?!?!!  Would that require too much humility?

What is the truth about homosexuality?  As a straight man, I am curious.  Is it how I feel the desires for love, affection, sex, companionship etc towards women, except towards men, or is it not that simplistic?

Also, for the record, gay men are probably MORE gracious with women than straight men. I always open doors for women, for example. Were you saying that if there is no sexual interest, a man will not treat women with respect and good manners?  Women are our mothers. Now THAT is an instinctive dynamic right there. Women are our sisters and friends. When I see a young woman struggling with 2 small children, I instinctively rush to open the door for her or help in any way I can. SHE is the mother of the human race. It doesn't take a fantasy about her vagina to force me to be a decent human being.

I don't think that Jade was saying that without sexual interest/attraction a man wouldn't treat a women with respect, but that it is a powerful and driving factor in the way in which he would interact her.  When I see a girl I am attracted to, that attraction can and often does act like 'tunnel vision' with all other stimuli being pushed aside for that moment.  It's like being taken over by something and can make you act in ways which feel almost out of your control.  I don't think it is really fair to compare straight men to gay men when it comes to treatment of women, as the dynamic is quite different.  Sexual attraction is a powerful influence.  Maybe you open doors and are kind to women, not because they are women, but because you have compassion and enjoy helping people in need.  Just a thought.

Perhaps Jade was trying to liken the human experience to her interpretation of the archetypes? i.e. in a typical relationship a man is trying to "court the maiden" on his own personal Fool's Journey? Perhaps with gay people every card which is male is female and vice versa? Just a thought.

"Courting the maiden" in the transformation card has nothing to do with gender, except archetypically, where the male pursues the female - the yang reaches for the yin, the will reaches for the subconscious resources. Billy is close to what I mean, speaking through the gendered lens. Apparently, according to Ra, as physical expressions of gender, we are predisposed to acting out upon those lines - the male reaching for the female. Two opposite poles seeking their balance. The yin and the yang form a perfect and complete circle. This "coupling"/transfer/whatever you want to call it, is available to any man and woman who come together and desire for this transfer. It just takes a little more effort to affect this transfer when the genders aren't automatically polarized.

i think these concepts are easier to grasp as divine feminine and divine masculine as to complimentary sides within each person.

http://sunyatasatchitananda.com/divine-masculine/

http://sunyatasatchitananda.com/divine-feminine/

I think we need to stop identifying with the physical junk that we have, and start looking at everyone as having a feminine and masculine side to them that will always have a distortion to the teaching as long as we identify others by the physical junk that they have as opposed to the core personalities and archetypes. One of the goals all wanderer souls seem to gravitate towards is ambiguity and androgyny because the body manifests as a result of the soul flame. Otherwise as above so below , or everything is one would not be true. 

One of the things they talk about fasting is that it's like trying to entrain the spiritual and mental bodies by fasting on the physical level. Though it also says you can get the same result from fasting by doing the opposite, and healing the mental block.

With that said I think that the body manifests as androgynous in the wanderer because the soul is already starting to balance the feminine and masculine within them and not trying to fix other people. 

Trying to feel victimized over how others perceive you is like trying to over ride free will and complain that someone wasn't born all knowing. When we know the lesson of love is that it's only possible to love others when you love the self. We can't change anyone, or over ride free will for any reason, but the one person we do have a capacity to change is ourselves only.


I feel like it makes perfect sense to have a choice of what sex you incarnate in, and to look at things only from the perspective of this one life, misses the point of why you came in the first place. 



Also my first past life regression I was a different race but I had the same exact face, so I'm with the camp that you can pick and choose to incarnate in any kind of face that you want, but out of human genetics there are only a set number of different templates from which to choose that usually have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Most souls usually pick the same templates over and over unless there is a specific lesson in mind. (Information is from both personal past life regressions and also from Micheal Newton's Journey of Souls).

[Saiyan]

Dear brothers and sisters,

I have to apologize in advance to all of gay participants in this thread. I'm very aware how this post may look not really "friendly" towards gay people.

For the record, I'm not homophobic, I have gay friends, I have never said anything bad to anyone because he/she is gay, and of course, I have never beaten up anyone because of his/hers sexual orientation. But I must admit that I'm not really supportive of the whole "gay thing".

In this thread, many of you have said that you do not agree with Ra's statement about homosexuality being a distorsion/impairment.
In some responses, it can be felt that you are offended or even "angry at Ra" for what he/they said.
Do you know what people say, "the truth hurts the most". Think about it.

Now I must ask all of you, how can you be so subjective on this subject?

What is the "normal state" of human beings, animals, insects etc.? Is it heterosexuality or homosexuality?

Aren't males and females reproductive organs designed to be "compatible" with each other? (I couldn't thought of a more appropriate word, sorry)

Maybe I'm wrong, haven't tried it, but two penises or two vaginas are not "compatible" with each other.

And also, tell me, if "God right now snaps his/hers fingers and turn all of humans into gays", what would happen with human race in next 100 years?
Would we not be extinct?

I apologize once more to all who will find my post offending or hostile, but come on, let's be real, everything that isn't natural can absolutely be described as distorsion/impairment.

I respect free will of other selves, and If you want to/need to/have to be gay, that is perfectly fine with me.
It's your life, your mind and your body, do whatever you want with it, nobody can stop you.

But saying that it is normal, and not distorted state of humans beings, I'm sorry, is utter BS.

My personal opinion is that Ra's statement is completely "rational", and if you consider yourself objective person, you have nothing to disagree with,
whether you are gay or straight.

PS: sorry for spelling, grammatical and all other English related mistakes in this post

[ricdaw]

Dear brothers and sisters,

I have to apologize in advance to all of gay participants in this thread. I'm very aware how this post may look not really "friendly" towards gay people.

Well, I was willing to give your intentions the benefit of the doubt, until this:

But saying that it is normal, and not distorted state of humans beings, I'm sorry, is utter BS.

There is no charity of thought, or intention, when you insult with “BS.”  Which, of course, immediately reveals the lie of your next statement:

For the record, I'm not homophobic, I have gay friends, I have never said anything bad to anyone because he/she is gay.

You are, in fact, saying something bad to us gay “brothers and sisters” right now, on this very forum, because we are gay.

Now I must ask all of you, how can you be so subjective on this subject?

What is the "normal state" of human beings, animals, insects etc.? Is it heterosexuality or homosexuality?

*  *  *  *  *

I apologize once more to all who will find my post offending or hostile, but come on, let's be real, everything that isn't natural can absolutely be described as distorsion/impairment.

You speak from ignorance.  Variety in sexual orientation among humans and animals is widely accepted as “normal.”  Homosexuality appears in nature, therefore it is “natural.”  Homosexuality is not as common as heterosexuality, but it is “normal.”

I respect free will of other selves, and If you want to/need to/have to be gay, that is perfectly fine with me.
It's your life, your mind and your body, do whatever you want with it, nobody can stop you.

My personal opinion is that Ra's statement is completely "rational", and if you consider yourself objective person, you have nothing to disagree with, whether you are gay or straight.

I respect the free will of other selves too.  And if you want to hold an ignorant and biased view of sexual orientation, that’s perfectly sad.  It’s your opinion and you can have it if you want to.  Nobody can stop you.  However, we can challenge you and your opinions.  Especially when they are posted publicly for all to see.

My personal opinion is that your beliefs are completely biased and prejudiced.  If you were to examine your prejudices objectively, you would find that they are utterly disagreeable, whether you are gay or straight.

[Saiyan]

Dear Ricdaw,

I'm really sorry for offending you, honestly.

I've read some of your posts in other threads, and I respect your opinions greatly.

If I have insulted you that much with that "BS", I apologize for that as well. I'm not a native english speaker, and when you translate that "BS" in my native language, it is not something terribly insulting at all. It only states strong disagreement with what was said. Maybe I should simply refrain from using certain words, without realizing their exact meaning.

Maybe I am ignorant, and maybe I do have biases and prejudices, I will not argue with that. My humble opinion is stil that it is a distorsion.

I'm glad that you will, and you should, challenge me and my opinions. I always like to hear what the other side have to say on certain subject.
That is the only way to learn something, to listen to the other side.

Let me just say that I'm not a "normal" person either by todays standards, concerning some other things, I have whole bunch of distorsions too,
both physicall and mental.

But I do not get offended when someone says that to me, it is who I am, and it is normal for me, it doesn't have to be normal for everyone else.
Everything is in the eye of the beholder, you think something is normal, fine, I think it isn't, that is fine as well. At least I think it is.

I would like, if you do not mind, to hear your opinions on these few sentences of mine:

"Aren't males and females reproductive organs designed to be "compatible" with each other? (I couldn't thought of a more appropriate word, sorry)

Maybe I'm wrong, haven't tried it, but two penises or two vaginas are not "compatible" with each other.

And also, tell me, if "God right now snaps his/hers fingers and turn all of humans into gays", what would happen with human race in next 100 years?
Would we not be extinct?"

Do not get me wrong, I do not wish to fight or argue with you, I just sincerely want to hear your opinion.

[ricdaw]

I would like, if you do not mind, to hear your opinions on these few sentences of mine . . . .

LOL!  Saiyan, thank you for the ask, that I should describe the mechanics and compatibilities of gay sex for you, but I just don't think it would be appropriate for this forum.

[Saiyan]

[/quote]
LOL!  Saiyan, thank you for the ask, that I should describe the mechanics and compatibilities of gay sex for you, but I just don't think it would be appropriate for this forum.
[/quote]

Dear ricdaw,

I'm glad that I made you laugh, I like bringing joy to my brothers and sisters, hehehe ;-)

I think that you have intentionaly misunderstood me. It was kind of childish, but I guess it is ok.
And you are right, it isn't appropriate to talk about that, not just here, but anywhere else :-/

I do not wish to argue with you, nor do I want to spam this thread.

But I can only say that by avoiding to answer my questions, you have actually answered them. Silence is sighn of approval, so I thank you for your confirmation of my statements :-)

It was my pleasure talking with you brother.

I wish you all the best on your journey,
even if it is a little distorted :-P

[Reaper]

In response to the original post, I don't think it's wise to take any material as gospel. My belief system has been influenced by a great many books and the study of a variety of spiritual paths, but I have yet to encounter a single one that I completely 100% agree with in every way. I simply take the parts I find logical and useful and dump the parts I don't, and it's worked pretty well for me.

I agree with your perspective that Ra was flat out wrong in their description of homosexuality. However, Ra never claimed to be omnipotent, and you are perfectly entitled to disagree with them on certain points and still enjoy the rest of the material if you wish. In fact, I think they would encourage you to question their words and apply your own discernment. Heck, I find worth in reading the Bible and I'm a Luciferian. Fonts of spiritual information are rarely as black/white as we make them out to be.

[YinYang]

I also strongly suspect that there are multiple kinds of homosexuality, since two friends have seemingly "changed their minds" and their sexual orientations mid-life.  (This is unfathomable to me, yet I cannot deny the sincerity of their choices as actually demonstrated by their new relationships.)

We also have a gay friend who "switched" last year, and got married to a woman two weeks ago. That left us all scratching our heads, which really got me thinking about the sexual fluidity thing. I'm now entertaining the idea that it's possible for someone to fall in love with a soul, and gender takes a back seat, or at least sexual orientation is not as cut and dry as people make it out to be.

On on unrelated note, I sometimes have movie nights with my gay men friends, and there's usually a gay movie in there. One night they got A Single Man... goodness, that movie touched me deeply. I would highly recommend it, one of Colin Firth's best performances.

[Fastidious Emanations]

78.14 Questioner: But, in doing this, there was at the center of the galaxy, the lack of knowledge or the lack of concept of possibility of extending the first distortion, so as to allow for what we have experienced as polarity. Was there any concept of polarity carried through from the previous octave in the sense of service-to-others or service-to-self polarity?

Ra: I am Ra. There was polarity in the sense of the mover and the moved. There was no polarity in the sense of service to self and service to others.

[Jade]

As another anecdote about modern homosexuality, there was a very interesting thread on reddit about a month ago about an 18 year old high school boy who was constantly ridiculed for being gay - and he would even overhear his parents talking about it (not meanly, just that they would tell him constantly that they love and accept him no matter what). After reaching out to reddit for help with "bullying" someone suggested he ask a friend why they all thought he was gay. Turns out, that whenever an especially attractive boy would come talk to him, he would get flustered and weird, and everyone else noticed. He still wasn't convinced. A poster suggested that he spend some time imagining what it was like to kiss a boy, and what that felt like, and if it excited him. Apparently he had never done this before - and he came back and his conclusion was "I'm definitely not straight." But it was very interesting because he had to have people hold his hand to bring him to this self conclusion... he was very, very convinced that he was straight.