[quote='smc' pid='229765' dateline='1499786789']
[size=medium]hey - after re-read - to make it clear - I don't mean that Ra as an SMC is ignorant about human sexuality - or gives wrong information - I mean that to conclude conforming to 'heterosexuality' is the one and correct way - a supposed truth - is actually shown to be a questionable idea when you remember that the whole context it's being discussed in
- is one of 'otherness' 'alien-ness' etc
and the very existence of 'Ra' is the actual PROOF !
if we can acknowledge an SMC - we can acknowledge same sex alchemy/energy transfer !! right???
and btw: straights DON'T get to say if it's possible or not - because they ain't qualified to determine that !!
I'm not questioning the validity of whether the homosexual union can achieve the same level of fusion as I'm sure it's possible but what piques my interest when this topic comes up is that everyone is so quick to condemn Ra or make excuses as to the invalid nature of the response which i find odd considering there isn't another topic that I know of that's outright labelled as wrong.
It has a hint of internal biases or struggles and even catalyst involved for those affected by the comments.
The entire material could be considered socially unacceptable and so out there, that many of the comments by Ra could have had huge social implications so to single out this particular subject is a bit odd.
You also stated that Ra is beyond the idea of genders which is true. They look from a viewpoint beyond ours yet still made concise points regarding this. Why would they outright lie to appease a potential bias by Don?
If it was due to some sort of bias stemming from don, why wouldn't Ra simply state the law of confusion or ot potentially violating their free will as they did in so many other questions? They refused to answer many questions so why not this one?
Why is this one subject considered questionable yet the rest of the material not?
[size=medium]hey - after re-read - to make it clear - I don't mean that Ra as an SMC is ignorant about human sexuality - or gives wrong information - I mean that to conclude conforming to 'heterosexuality' is the one and correct way - a supposed truth - is actually shown to be a questionable idea when you remember that the whole context it's being discussed in
- is one of 'otherness' 'alien-ness' etc
and the very existence of 'Ra' is the actual PROOF !
if we can acknowledge an SMC - we can acknowledge same sex alchemy/energy transfer !! right???
and btw: straights DON'T get to say if it's possible or not - because they ain't qualified to determine that !!
I'm not questioning the validity of whether the homosexual union can achieve the same level of fusion as I'm sure it's possible but what piques my interest when this topic comes up is that everyone is so quick to condemn Ra or make excuses as to the invalid nature of the response which i find odd considering there isn't another topic that I know of that's outright labelled as wrong.
It has a hint of internal biases or struggles and even catalyst involved for those affected by the comments.
The entire material could be considered socially unacceptable and so out there, that many of the comments by Ra could have had huge social implications so to single out this particular subject is a bit odd.
You also stated that Ra is beyond the idea of genders which is true. They look from a viewpoint beyond ours yet still made concise points regarding this. Why would they outright lie to appease a potential bias by Don?
If it was due to some sort of bias stemming from don, why wouldn't Ra simply state the law of confusion or ot potentially violating their free will as they did in so many other questions? They refused to answer many questions so why not this one?
Why is this one subject considered questionable yet the rest of the material not?
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)