The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[whitecoast]

Looking at some reporting done on prison populations, I think there's evidence to suggest that homosexuality is not the result of an infection.

In theory, the whole notion of a gay germ is predicated on the idea that it has a life cycle in which it alters a persons perceptions and behavior to engage in sexual acts with others in such a manner that allows it to inoculate others and spread. In theory the best place for such a germ to spread would be a prison, due to the close quarters and lack of alternative sexual outlets and the fact that such an infection is evidently cryptic (there's no talk of a "homo flu" the way there is talk of a seroconversion flu in the acquisition of HIV) and so would not be opposed by whatever healthcare apparatus is already in place. Gay and trans people are disproportionately more likely to be the target of rape (either by prisoners or guards), so if this germ were real and around, one would expect it to gradually increase the rates of same-sex attraction in prison populations.

Male-male sexuality in prison, from Wikipedia:

Prison sexuality for males has been studied since the 1930s. Research is lacking on consensual sex because most research done has focused on coercion.[3] Sexual abuse is more common among male inmates. Men sexually abuse others to establish dominance, power and to maintain their masculinity.[6] Men who are physically weaker will offer consensual sex in exchange for protection, security, goods or support.[3]
Heterosexual men in prison view their homosexual acts as being "situation specific" and may not consider themselves bisexual. These men often describe how they imagine being with a woman while taking part in sexual activity with a male inmate. During masturbation, they picture past sexual experiences with women.[9] They take part in homosexual activity due to having no “heterosexual outlets”.[6]

Male-male prison rape, from Wikipedia:

Prison is a community sexologically characterized by overt masturbation and by homosexual couplings that may be consensual, coercive or assaultive (rape).[18] Prison rape is defined differently from state to state but is understood to be non-consensual or unwanted sexual contact between individuals.[19] Prison rape can be between inmates or inmates and staff of the prison. This is a form of sexuality because these individuals use their capacity for sexual feelings to intimidate or control their victims which causes sociological properties of the prison to change.[20]

Prisoners have two overarching reasons to rape a victim, one is to satisfy their overt sexual and need based desires that self pleasure can not. The second is to use the assault as a sort of intimidation factor to grant the rapist power in a place where these actions generally go unpunished. In prison, the phrase "booty bandit" is used to describe such an inmate that would rape another (in the male case). There seems to be no shown correlation that men who are abusive to their partners outside of prison are more likely to be rapist in prisons. Such men are not known to have history of sexual assault before prison.[18]

In 2003, for the first time ever, the United States government moved to protect prisoners from sexual violence. With pressure for human rights groups, the US House of Representatives and Senate unanimously passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) to protect prisoners from sexual violence.[20]
...
Prospective slaveholders will sometimes use intimidating innuendo, as opposed to overt threats of violence, which the prospective slave unwillingly accepts, thereby disguising the coercive nature of the sexual activity from even the enslaver.[23] Victims might not even see themselves as being coerced, if the abuse is negotiated as repayment for a debt. The trauma of the sexual violations often affects men as it threatens their sense of masculinity, gender identify and sexual orientation.[24] The HRW report contains an account in which an inmate is feeling this way.[25] It is argued that in prison, consent is inherently illusory.

This sounds like paradise for the kind of infection described above. But as noted, the majority who participate in that do so as self-identified heterosexuals, who visualize women, etc. Those who do end up questioning their sexuality or gender identity seem much more likely to be suffering from PTSD and, well, ignorance about how some of those things work. I think there may be the odd person who may have a latent gay or bisexual orientation they lack awareness of until they encounter more direct same-sex experiences, but this is conjecture.

Another indicator of whether a gay germ exists would be to see if the amount of same-sex behavior increases outside of prison. The most I could find on that idea was here:

Elevated Sexual Risk Behaviors among Post-Incarcerated Young African American Males in the South - PMC

The dramatic racial disparities in the rates of HIV/STIs among African Americans make understanding broader structural factors that increase the risk for HIV/STIs crucial. The current study of young 564 African American men attending sexually ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

From the Abstract:

The dramatic racial disparities in the rates of HIV/STIs among African Americans make understanding broader structural factors that increase the risk for HIV/STIs crucial. The current study of young 564 African American men attending sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics investigated whether those who had ever been incarcerated reported recent sexual behaviors relatively more risky than their counterparts who had never been incarcerated. Participants were recruited from clinics treating STIs in three southern U.S. cities. Males 15–23 years of age who identified as Black/African American and reported recent (past two months) sexual activity were eligible. Linear mixed-effects models and Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models were used to assess associations between baseline incarceration history and sexual risk behavior over a 6-month follow-up period. Mean age was 19.6 years (SD=1.87). At baseline, 240 (42.6%) men reported history of incarceration. Incarceration history predicted several risk behaviors over a 6-month follow-up period. Compared to those with no incarceration history, men previously incarcerated reported a desire to conceive a pregnancy (β=.40, p=.02), were less likely to have used a condom at last sex act (OR=.91, p=.02) and were more likely to have used drugs and alcohol before sex in the past two months (β=.69, p<.001; β=.41, p<.001). A history of incarceration may influence the sexual risk behavior of young African American males. Prevention programs and interventions should intensify support for post-incarceration African American males to help mitigate this behavior.

From the Discussion:

There were no significant associations for STI outcomes, sex with a male partner, number of sex partners, or having sex in exchange for money.

So, they examined the incarceration history of 564 young black men as a predictor of higher risk sexual behaviors, one of which under examination was the amount of same-sex partners. The results returned a p value of 0.23, which for all intents and purposes means that a history of incarceration did not influence the rate at which the men had sex with other men (at least not outside prison). If there was a gay germ, one would at least expect a history of incarceration to alter their perceptions and behavior post-exposure (even if such an exposure was not sexually transmitted but through other means in close quarters); in reality we don't see anything of the sort. So as far as I can tell the hypothesis is invalidated. One may have an objection to how I've construed and modeled a theoretical homosexuality-inducing pathogen, but if life is designed then the designer of a gay germ would have to have been a goofball not to exploit the types of dynamics indicated above.

 

[hlat]

Did some note behavioural and psychological changes after homosexual activity and then introduce circumcision with the whole 'cleanliness' idea in mind with the view of preventing the spread of behavioural and psychological changes that would be a threat to increasing population of certain bloodlines?

No freaking way. Circumcision is an abomination and maximum child abuse.

 

[Jones]

No freaking way. Circumcision is an abomination and maximum child abuse.

Total agreement with that here - just wondering if there is another angle on why it was introduced.

 

[Jones]

Looking at some reporting done on prison populations, I think there's evidence to suggest that homosexuality is not the result of an infection.

A prison population mightn't be the best sample to use either way because it seems that medical screening and treatment for infectious diseases are carried out before being released into the general population, along with regular medical screens.

Treatment of Prisoners

The mission of the Criminal Justice Section is to improve the criminal justice system and to serve its members, the profession and the public.

www.americanbar.org

That doesn't mean that the testing is comprehensive enough to pick up everything though and the studies in my last post indicate that some of the bugs are not considered to be sexually transmitted so it's probable that they aren't tested for or treated unless symptoms of infestation significantly impact health.

 

[Ant22]

So, they examined the incarceration history of 564 young black men as a predictor of higher risk sexual behaviors, one of which under examination was the amount of same-sex partners. The results returned a p value of 0.23, which for all intents and purposes means that a history of incarceration did not influence the rate at which the men had sex with other men (at least not outside prison). If there was a gay germ, one would at least expect a history of incarceration to alter their perceptions and behavior post-exposure (even if such an exposure was not sexually transmitted but through other means in close quarters); in reality we don't see anything of the sort. So as far as I can tell the hypothesis is invalidated. One may have an objection to how I've construed and modeled a theoretical homosexuality-inducing pathogen, but if life is designed then the designer of a gay germ would have to have been a goofball not to exploit the types of dynamics indicated above.

I agree that heterosexual people may resort to homosexual acts in such conditions as prison, and that act is more of a means of masturbating using another person's body, or a means of showing superiority or inferiority, rather than an actual homosexual act.

But your above analysis doesn't take into account that the theorised pathogen doesn't have to be transmitted sexually. If this was the case, every single gay person out there would be a victim of sexual abuse, which isn't true. And given the rates of sexual abuse, the number of homosexuals would be way higher than it is now, while it has remained steady for ages.

Also, note that bacteria and pathogens are linked to such issues as depression, cancer or schizophrenia and those are non-contagious conditions that aren't sexually transmitted. Not to mention that the pathogen theory is just a theory at this stage.

 

[luc]

@JGeropoulas, thank you for these elaborations, I think most of what you wrote is very sensible. However, it seems to me that your own suffering and your own experience somewhat cloud your vision here and there. For example:

And as for the universal, heterosexual disgust for what gay people may do in their own bedrooms, 30% of heterosexual American women have engaged in what's routinely referred to as "gay sex" with motivations that include curiosity, pleasure and a desire to bring pleasure to their heterosexual male partners (see https://www(dot)ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30833227).

First, the paper has nothing to do with heterosexual disgust for homosexuality, it's about heterosexual anal sex.

Second, why do you even want to argue away the disgust reaction by heterosexuals? That doesn't help in the least. Knowledge protects!

Third, the authors confuse science with advancing the progressive agenda when they write that we should "remove the stigma of anal sex"; they could have just said "we should encourage women to confess to their doctors for health reasons". By their logic, you could also say "we should remove the stigma of cheating your husband" instead of saying women should be encouraged to confess to their doctors for health reasons.

Fourth, although you didn't say it, this line of reasoning seems to be related to one of the talking points of the gay movement: making it seem as if more people were gay (or engage in gay-type sexual acts) than there actually are, or even that "there's a gay in everyone". Why? How is this helpful? Does it make gay people feel better to think that they are not a tiny minority? It then seems to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more the gay movement ramps up its propaganda, the more people are tempted to give in to "curiosity" or even think that it's "cool" to experiment. But what's good about that? It only breaks marriages and confuses people.

Fifth, related to that, you can desensitize people to make them less disgusted. But this doesn't mean it's good, quite the opposite in many cases actually. For example, most people are disgusted by group sex and sexual orgies. But if you expose them to such perversion all the time, they get desensitized to the point they may give in to their base instincts, they can lose their disgust and engage in the grossest acts. This is racing downhill spiritually and worshiping phsyiscality.

Are the pleasurable sensations created by our genitals necessary to ensure reproduction, given the power of animal instincts which ensure mindless, mechanical copulation? Perhaps genital capacity for pleasure is a separate function of sex beyond simply combining DNA. What other function is there for a man's nipples if not for pleasure alone?

I don't see any point in this kind of hairsplitting. Ask any sane person "what is more natural: vaginal sex or anal sex?" and the answer is obvious.

What seems to have happened here is that homophobes have (unjustly) used the "natural" argument to discredit and discriminate against homosexuals. So now the counter-reaction by the gay movement is an obsession with the definition of "natural" and a desperate attempt to redefine it.

BTW, this fallacy isn't exclusive to the gay movement: tell a woman who takes the pill that this is "unnatural" and you will likely hear similar hairsplitting, for the same reason: Christian fundies have abused the "natural" argument for so long that the woman in question reacts allergic to it. But what could be more obvious than the pill being unnatural? It's a human invention to fight nature!

And what's the point of making these arguments? Wearing glasses is unnatural, coloring your hair is unnatural, not having children is unnatural. That doesn't make it a sin. I have compassion for the suffering of the gay community, but I refuse to have the gay movement redefine language because of it, because that only sows confusion.

At the end of the day, calling something "natural" or "unnatural" cannot be a moral argument, it can only be descriptive. It's the natural, biological, "mechanical" state of affairs. Humans have the ability to go against it - both downhill and uphill. You can engage in all kinds of "unnatural" perversions that go far beyond anything natural. But you can also engage in the most noble acts unheard of in the biological world.

I will concede though that at this point calling something "unnatural" or "natural" may be unhelpful, because these terms are so morally loaded these days, no doubt in part because of homophobes past and present, but also because of the obsession of the gay movement (and feminism) with these terms.

It just occurs to me: maybe another reason for this confusion about what's natural and not is that there are two main senses in which this can be understood:

1) Descriptive of biology, as I used the term in this post.
2) An expression of natural law, i.e. the Cosmic Order.

If something is unnatural in sense 1), it doesn't follow that it's unnatural in sense 2). For example, the fact that not having children is unnatural biologically doesn't mean it's "against the Cosmic Order". Something similar applies to homosexual expression of sex.

On the other hand, considering all we know about spiritual progression, STO/STS and so on, I'd argue taking pleasure in and seeking out group sex etc. IS against the Cosmic Order/natural law. It's orienting yourself downwards towards worship of physicality.

So maybe this distinction is helpful when talking about such things.

 

[nature]

Here is my understanding about germ theory:
We are machines (physical 3D body) who have a link to higher dimension (soul) though very restraint ( conciousness). We are like computer machines (brain), like the machines enginered by robot tech (humanoides).

The Cs said that our machines will get consciousness as artificial intelligence will develop more and more.
3D ingineers put programs on computers to increase their performance and get new functions.
In the same vein, 4D engineers put programs (various viruses) in our program (the DNA). We know that a virus is a tiny bit of DNA (ie a code) maintained in a sphere (a membrane, like the membrane of our nucleus in our cells).

Reminder: a virus is like a nucleus: DNA in a sphere / bacteria is like a cell: a sphere (or oval) with mitochondrias (product energy thus independance) and other organels in it and a nucleus in it, with DNA in its nucleus.
A virus is not independant, it must live in a host in order to multiply. It has got nearly only a very short bit of DNA, thus it appears as a code, a program that will be integrated in the huge DNA of a bacteria or of a plant or of an animal.

When they talk of the homo germ theory it's about infection by a virus not by a bacteria i.e. not a STDs. It's a program sent by 4D engineers, like many other programs in many other body functions. 4D engineers created our body and play, modify, improve, test, sometines with side effects (worsens - like 3D mad scientists playing with CRISPR on embryos). In a near futur, our advanced technology will destruct us, like the Atlantes. Cs said that our civilisation is on the way to its end because of the tech advancing, at least one of the reasons.

We are here to experiment physicallity, its beauty, its good aspects and its bad ones. We are here to experiment and live the Creation deep inside ourselves.
Like many other programs, viruses "infect" some people and not others, depending on many parameters (diet, health, other DNA codes in us, etc). So, a few people became, born homosexual. That's why I disagree with those who say that " homo is not a natural thing because homo people are unable to procreate". Well, procreation is not the unique aim of our life on this planet. Some heteros are able to procreate but choose to not have children. Some heteros are unable to procreate but can you say they are not natural beings, that they must be ostracised? Maybe some of them (the sterile men or women) have a program (put via virus) that makes them sterile, to make life lessons for them or to push medical research to do researches; who knows.

I think that homosexuality is a program for some (probably those who choose to experiment it, a choice during 5D contemplation). During our past lifes, we have been woman, man. Maybe we once have been homophobic and became homosexual now, in order to understand homosexuality, or to see other bodily sensations? I don't know, but the Universe doesn't do something without reason. Anyways, there is a big lesson for everyone of us, homo or not: not identifying to our group, not following the magician like a herd, making work on us (homo or hetero).
Disgusted hetero have their lessons to do, too: realize that their own sexual behavior is questionable (mouth kissing in front of children, or even of adults in public, etc).

STD"s have another goal, they don't do good things in us. These are infections by bacterias or protozoas or fungus. (HIV is a virus but not a natural one, it's a bio-weapon from 3D not 4D).
STDs can be very dangerous, leading to severe ilnesses and sometimes to sequels. I think they are like an alarm, a sign to make us realize that there is something wrong in nowadays' sexual practices (not only among homo, but also in heteros who do ugly sexual practicies, and it goes worse and worse, and among more and more hetero people, as people are easily conditionned by magazines, books that make the apologia, glorification of indecent pratices - exchangeism, infidelity, violent sexual acts - etc) . I read a stuy saying that there a more STDs in homo population than in hetero. Probably because majority of homos have facilitating practice, exchange more easily. At one point STDs will be as frequent in hetero population than in homo one. Probably it is still at same ratio.
I'd like to say it again: a minority of homo people lives a decent live, with respectful sexual practice in the couple, without identifying to a community; they are more advanced in their mind. Exactly the same as hetero population. We mustn't stigmatize on sexual orientation but on individual behaviours.

Finally, let's not be scared about micro-organisms. If there is something disturbing in us, let's do a work on us; if we are ill (artritis, diabete, handicap, etc), let's do efforts to search and heal ourselves (all diseases, I don't speak only about these infections). Let's use that oppotunity to developp our empathy, etc. And if we are not ill, enjoy it, be grateful!
All there is is lesson, for the whole humanity. It would be sad to die without getting knowledge and awareness. Thank you very much to you Laura.

 

[dugdeep]

If there was a gay germ, one would at least expect a history of incarceration to alter their perceptions and behavior post-exposure (even if such an exposure was not sexually transmitted but through other means in close quarters); in reality we don't see anything of the sort. So as far as I can tell the hypothesis is invalidated. One may have an objection to how I've construed and modeled a theoretical homosexuality-inducing pathogen, but if life is designed then the designer of a gay germ would have to have been a goofball not to exploit the types of dynamics indicated above.

There is the possibility that the nature of the "gay germ" might be to affect children at the imprinting stage in their development, not affecting adults. It could be something passed from parent to children, for example. I had also considered the possibility that the germ wasn't necessarily created to 'turn people gay' but that this may simply be a side effect of its biological effect on the body. This is just speculation, of course, but it would make adult exposure to homosexual acts (ie. prison) irrelevant.

 

[nature]

I find the 'germ theory' of homosexuality interesting, but not as interesting as a combination of any of the following:

1. lack of exposure, or too much exposure to various hormones in utero
2. exposure to toxins in utero and/or in childhood.
3. psychological environment in childhood. Trauma and difficulty with either parent can cause people to make decisions that they otherwise wouldn't regarding their sexuality. i.e lack of good gender role models in parents. Hostility or lack of support from one or the other parent (probably not both).
4. genetic susceptibility (not sure about this one, but it plays a part in susceptibility to other medical issues)
5. and last but not least - past lives! I don't think we can assume that we've always been the one sex in our past lives. I also think that too much 'chopping and changing' in terms of what sex we are would be confusing an draining especially on this planet which places so much importance on sex. So... there might be a period of 'adjustment' where a person chooses homosexuality prior to going into their next life as the opposite sex that they were in previous lives, or they may subconsciously look back on a past life and wish to 're-live' that life because they are too attached to it. There's also the possibility that a person chooses homosexuality because it challenges them more on a soul level. It would be quite a difficult thing to be in the minority. So, they might chose a situation that causes it.

Just my 2, 5 bits worth.

It's multi-factorial. Germ therory doesn't exclude the factors you mentionned. It can even be included in your 4th point (genetic susceptibility). As explained in my previous post, a virus is a bit of DNA. Many portions of our DNA is from viral origin; viruses do good things too (see the book virolution, that Laura recomended).
The same virus doesn't get same effect (or any effetc at all) in everybody it infects, it depends on many factors, like those you listed, it's multifactorial.
So as to how we catch a virus, it's not within the scope of STDs; viruses can spread in various ways, mostly by the air, it can also be sprayed by cosmic dust.

 

[Laura]

At the end of the day, calling something "natural" or "unnatural" cannot be a moral argument, it can only be descriptive. It's the natural, biological, "mechanical" state of affairs. Humans have the ability to go against it - both downhill and uphill. You can engage in all kinds of "unnatural" perversions that go far beyond anything natural. But you can also engage in the most noble acts unheard of in the biological world.

I will concede though that at this point calling something "unnatural" or "natural" may be unhelpful, because these terms are so morally loaded these days, no doubt in part because of homophobes past and present, but also because of the obsession of the gay movement (and feminism) with these terms.

It just occurs to me: maybe another reason for this confusion about what's natural and not is that there are two main senses in which this can be understood:

1) Descriptive of biology, as I used the term in this post.
2) An expression of natural law, i.e. the Cosmic Order.

If something is unnatural in sense 1), it doesn't follow that it's unnatural in sense 2). For example, the fact that not having children is unnatural biologically doesn't mean it's "against the Cosmic Order". Something similar applies to homosexual expression of sex.

On the other hand, considering all we know about spiritual progression, STO/STS and so on, I'd argue taking pleasure in and seeking out group sex etc. IS against the Cosmic Order/natural law. It's orienting yourself downwards towards worship of physicality.

So maybe this distinction is helpful when talking about such things.

You beat me to it. I was going to write something along the same lines.

The problem seems to be that the language we have been using is "triggering", so to say. Gays seem to perceive that saying something is "unnatural" as though a moral judgment is being made, when that is NOT at all what I have meant in any of the things I have written on this thread using that and similar language.

To me, the whole thing boils down to NATURE, i.e. "as above, so below", and INFORMATION. And that is to say, based on various excellent models, information appears to have a very fundamental nature: yes/no, on/off, positive/negative, zeros/ones, etc. It is the many permutations of the interactions of groups of those zeros/ones etc that bring the Cosmos into being. The must fundamental thing about Nature is that it seems to be binary, and this is richly expressed in "the things that have been made". And it is most definitely expressed in sexual reproduction: male, female. There really are only two genders when you see things this way; that's just basic biology. And when you consider Nature dispassionately, it's really all about winding up the top and letting it run and the winding consists in the information input based on zeros/ones, yes/no, positive/negative, i.e. CHARGE.

If you consider electric charge in terms of manifestations of life, again, there is only positive and negative. What happens when a physical body that is based on a positive charge information load, functions as though it were a negative charge load? (And here, "negative" does not mean bad, in case I have to say that.)

In that respect, how does spirit/conscousness interface with the genetic body affect and effect charge? What does a negative charge soul do to a positive charge body? Does it hinder development? Does it effect some sort of karmic degaussing?

There are way more questions than answers and I don't think it is helpful to engage in facile evasions of the crux of the matter by bringing in emotional rationalizations based on bad science or anti-science. I think all of us here know how deeply science has been corrupted so it is always a good idea to take "studies" of various sorts with a bit of salt. Most especially studies that have been done under the influence of the post-modernist Marxian/Satanic aegis.

 

[Aeneas]

In 2008, he run for the position of Mayor and got between 4 - 5,000 votes from a population of about 37,500 IIRC. So while his campaign wasn't successful, somewhere around 10 -13% of the population of the area agreed with him.

Dear Lord! That's a perfect example of how bad things can get when you mix a probable hard-wired aversion with a crazy mind. There is also a possibility that he was victimized as a child by a sexual predator and his "macho" image won't allow him to admit it, and so everything gets channeled into his personal vendetta.

Yes, it is scary and reminds me of another crazy mind and the book, "The psychopathic god: Adolf Hitler".

There is insufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that Hitler was an overt homosexual. But it seems clear that he had latent homosexual tendencies, and it is certain that he worried a great deal about them.
He was terribly concerned, for example, lest he give the impression of showing feminine traits -which indeed, he did.
[...]
In his study of paranoids, Dr. Knight found specific consistent characteristics, all of which fit Adolf Hitler. There is a "terrifically strong" need to deny homosexuality; the very thought of homosexual contact with another man is "completely intolerable". Moreover, the need felt by a paranoid for approval is especially acute; his megalomania is in itself an expression of his need for proof that he is important. There is a high incidence of constipation in paranoid individuals. All paranoids have strong anal components, problems with order and cleanliness, and obsessions with purity and vice and with the impurity or infections of others.
[...]
As Knight has pointed out, while homosexual feelings and paranoid delusions may be in bitter conflict, both are, in a sense, dependent on each other and are defenses against one another. Thus, it seems quite possible that Hitler developed paranoid delusions, in part, to fight his homosexual feeling. As long as he prosecuted and attacked homosexuals, he felt he was successfully combatting his own inadmissible inclinations towards homosexuality.

Hitler wanted to hide his feminine ways by creating an image of being tough and hard and by being especially hard in prosecutions against homosexuality.

So one should not think the above nutcase who ran for mayor is an isolated case. If and when the pendulum swings the other way as history shows, then people with a personality like Hitler will likely present themselves as the saviors with simple solutions. And such a person will find many willing people who will nod in the affirmative. The book by Milton Mayer, They thought they were free", shows how many ordinary Germans were in favour of Hitler and some parts of the program with which they familiar such as creating jobs and fixing the economy. They were for the most not familiar with the extermination camps or of friends who had reaped the wrath of the system. They did not stand up to injustices against jews, communists, homosexuals etc. due to a plethora of things, but mainly as Niemüller" said, because "I am not one of them".

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation1 :

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The whole victimhood gaypride LGBT parade has not been helpful with the rubbing in people's faces what ought to remain private. The PC culture with sentencing people for hate speech, third toilets, gender neutral uniforms, sex education at primary school only serve to polarise people against each other instead of against the warmongering elite. So conditions have been prepared and can be used when the elite finds it expedient and the specter of such a scenario where scapegoats are hunted down scares me. Gustave Le Bon wrote a long time ago about crowd mentality and how that goes to the lowest primitive denominator and how reasoning with such a crowd is pointless once it reaches a certain point.

I hope that the gay members of the forum reflect on what a number of people have warned about and what Pierre also pointed to in his article(s) about the subject.

 

[Jones]

So one should not think the above nutcase who ran for mayor is an isolated case.

Yup. I should also mention that this nutcase has a gun dealers licence and shop. He and his mates will have heaps of fire power if it comes down to it. I guess that kind of fits in with the Hitler profile too.

 

[Joe]

That's a cute metaphor, but like most, it falls short. So is that "hunting rifle" designed strictly for shooting, or might it also be designed to satisfy other needs?....

I think you're expanding on my use of an analogy beyond what I intended. I used it strictly in terms of what is biologically 'natural' and what is not. The standard for what is natural or unnatural cannot be 'whatever two or more human beings like to do', since that includes a potentially infinite list of things, and will undoubtedly include things that are assessed to be 'unnatural' by a majority of people.

So if we're going to use the word 'natural', we're forced to look to biology (while accepting that human beings are more than their biology) and, beyond that, what a significant majority of people deem to be 'natural' or not (although this is obviously a less robust standard). From that perspective, homosexual sex is unnatural since it seeks to mimic a biological function while not serving that biological (in this case reproductive) function and cannot even be said (unlike non-reproductive heterosexual sex) to be motivated by biology. That's the only, admittedly 'nitpicky' point, and I'm only making it again to explain it as such.

Ultimately, the motivation for everything that people do serves learning and, as such, that motivation, however 'crass', cannot be purely biological (this can even be applied to animals if we allow for the slow progress in evolution of consciousness). I suppose the goal for those who realize this is to reduce the extent to which biology drives our actions and change the focus towards more abstract, non-materialistic or 'spiritual' motivations. That seems to be what is 'natural' from a 'cosmic' perspective and anything that deviates from that is, from that perspective, 'unnatural'. So if want to talk in more real terms about 'natural and unnatural', then we'd have to weigh every human proclivity against that higher standard to see if it is inline or out of sync with it.

 

[Joe]

Total agreement with that here - just wondering if there is another angle on why it was introduced.

The only 'angle' I can see is sadism inspired by a sadistic 'god' or 'thought center', with which certain human beings with a lot of brainpower aligned and carried on as a 'tradition' (along with other ideas) for waaaay too long.

 

[Chu]

FWIW I thought your comment was helpful and relevant to the discussion, I didn't get the impression that you were trying to distinguish yourself from other gay people, rather sharing your experience as a gay forum member. Just my perspective.

I had the same impression as Luc, more or less. But I also think I understand, Phoenix, that at least you try to come out of your "bubble". Without trying to "psychoanalyze you", I think it is a pretty fair observation to say that you do tend (like in the past) to defend yourself a bit too much, while managing to portray others (other homosexuals, but often Cyre) in a worse light. Maybe that's never your intention, but it IS how you come across quite often.

Also, notice that you wrote:

Finally, if I’m being completely honest, some of you got what you seem to want: An environment where I don’t really feel comfortable sharing anything about this part of my life, my own journey and struggles with “gayness” - at least not on this forum anymore, which is why I deleted my original post (it was way more personal and perhaps too off-topic than the thread has already gotten) and wrote this one instead, to try and be more detached, make my points, say what's on my mind.

Self-centeredness much? I'm sure you understand by now that that is not what anybody wanted.

I hope you don't take this badly. I understand that it took a lot to write what you did, and appreciate your perspective. But part of the issue we were discussing was this "exclusivity, "spechulness", and victim mentality. I think it affects a lot of people across the board, gay or not, and whether you are part of the "active boisterous minority" or not. It is, IMO, one of the best tools used by hyperdimensional beings to manipulate people. We ought to remember that freedom (to the extent that it can be gained in this reality) is INSIDE us, in who we are as people, the choices we make and what we give to others genuinely.

In that respect, how does spirit/conscousness interface with the genetic body affect and effect charge? What does a negative charge soul do to a positive charge body? Does it hinder development? Does it effect some sort of karmic degaussing?

There are way more questions than answers and I don't think it is helpful to engage in facile evasions of the crux of the matter by bringing in emotional rationalizations based on bad science or anti-science.

I too regret that the definition of "natural" wasn't further clarified earlier. The implications of what Laura wrote above seem quite vast, and I would hope that it gives some people pause, and curiosity to find out more. When there is a mismatch or an "unnatural" factor of any sort, it doesn't mean that all is lost or even "bad", but I think it's useful to consider the limitations or challenges that may accompany it, so that one still does one's best, without identifying with the "I'm different/special" schtick, but rather feeling that "regardless of where I'm at in terms of growth, I'm committed to doing my darn best, limitations/challenges and all." That applies to everyone to a greater or lesser degree, so there is no reason to feel "singled out".