homosexual coupling

[theonenyl]

Greetings Group,

i had asked this question to the moderators before being accepted. i
was fortunate to have a reply from Mr. Wilcock himself.

when i originally read the material i had thought that we should seek
to love all. i had thought a little too far on this and wondered if
it means we should seek love beyond one exclusive individual (as in
boyfriend/girlfriend husbad/wife). i was unsure about this thinking
and i got the following response from Mr. Wilcock.

"No. Part of the wisdom in the idea of Oneness is realizing that you
are in a reality where we DO have physical bodies, and that those
closest to you are stronger mirrors than anyone out in the street.
The monogamous heterosexual coupling is a very efficient modality for
consciousness evolution. Indiscriminate couplings can hurt others'
feelings and that ends up creating karma"

obviously my thinking was wrong. a further question i have is, would
a homosexual coupling be an efficient modality for consciousness
evolution?

the question may be obvious if i understood the material a bit more.
i am still lacking knowledge in the material as i do not fully
understand polarity in the body complex. as stated in the study
material...

XII. HOMOSEXUALITY

RA: If an entity has had roughly 65% of its incarnations in the
sexual/biological body complex of the opposite polarity to its
present body complex, this entity is vulnerable to infringement in
your urban areas and may become what you call homosexual

good journey to all,
-Ben

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 8/5/2004 3:08:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
theonenyl@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=JX1o8yqDFUZP7Nbs82_yuX7ptTC7aNdHszOFXp t6kj_fOWlHKKWTiWPqkVMmy1_kl5moOXVs_RSv_rEC) writes:
obviously my thinking was wrong. a further question i have is, would
a homosexual coupling be an efficient modality for consciousness
evolution?


I don't think your thinking was 'wrong'. In fact I don't think there's any
such thing as 'wrong' save for illusions of such. Anyways, I think that if you
have such desires as to want a same-sex partner, then a heterosexual coupling
would obviously be a 'inefficient modality for consciousness evolution'. Those
words sound cold and hard however. I think that love is the answer. And those
who can receive and understand your love to the fullest are the ones that will
help you understand the nature of love better. although not necessarily.
There are no sweeping labels that can be attached across the board to the nature
of love/reality. Its ALL up to INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS when you are considering
the variables within an INDIVIDUAL. Does anyone agree with me on this? Any
questions of what i have said, or further questions of your own, Ben? I would
love
to answer them! Love, Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Peter Duggan]

Greetings Ben

I find Ra's explanation for homosexuality perplexing and somewhat
depressing. The quote below contains terms such as "confusion",
"infringement" - once again homosexuality is seen as a pathology. Ra seem
to say that homosexuality is caused by living in over-crowded cities.
This strikes me as strange - there are many many gay people who grew up in
rural areas and moved to the city where they met other gay people. It wasnt
the urban environment that "caused" their sexual orientation; the city with
its high population provided the social opportunity to express it. Ra also
say that if there werent this opportunity to find other gay mates then they
would seek out heterosexual relationships to relieve their solitude. Many
gay people marry or have heterosexual relationships but when this does
happen their homosexuality is not "normalised". Instead such people often
lead unhappy and unfulfilled lives, where their sexual needs are not met.

Recent animal behaviour research (well not that recent apparently it has
been observed for many decades but disregarded, or not talked about by 19th
& 20th cent animal behaviourists) has shown that homosexuality (both male
and female) occurs in many animal species, - dolphins, whales, elephants,
birds to name just a few. Maybe animals are also suffering from the same
infringement and confusion, but as far as I am aware there isnt no whale or
elephant San Francisco or Amsterdam. but maybe that's yet to be discovered.
These animal couplings often lead to life long relationships. They arent
one-off aberrations or confusions.

The other thing that is depressing is Ra's assertion (if I understand this
correctly) is that homosexuality is a STS orientation and that only a chaste
homosexual can truly offer a STO expression. This is the course of action
that many fundamentalist religions offer to the man or woman born gay if
they are to be "redeemed".

Sexuality follows the bell-curve normal distribution - with one end being
exclusively heterosexual and the other end exclusively homosexual, with the
majority of the population falling somewhere in between. Because behaviour
at one end of the curve is pathologised and marginalised most people
falling in the bell part of the curve won't act on their gay feelings, but
lead exclusively heterosexual lives. Our 2d comapnions dont seem to face
this same sort of stigma.

Earlier on in the same reading Ra talks about sexual energy transfer and
magnetic attraction. I think that these energies and transfers occur
whether the exchange is hetero- or homosexual. Maybe Ra for some reason
"veiled" their discussion on homosexuality, but also gave the reader an
opportunity to read between the lines

Back to lurking


in light

Peter



The Law of One, Book II, Session 31

February 25, 1981

Questioner: We have what seems to be an increasing number of entities
incarnate here now who have what is called a homosexual orientation. Could
you explain and expand upon that concept?

Ra: I am Ra. Entities of this condition experience a great deal of
distortion due to the fact that they have experienced many incarnations as
biological male and as biological female. This would not suggest what you
call homosexuality in an active phase were it not for the difficult
vibratory condition of your planetary sphere. There is what you may call
great aura infringement among your crowded urban areas in your more populous
countries, as you call portions of your planetary surface. Under these
conditions the confusions will occur.

Questioner: Why does density of population create these confusions?

Ra: I am Ra. The bisexual reproductive urge has as its goal, not only the
simple reproductive function, but more especially the desire to serve others
being awakened by this activity.

In an over-crowded situation where each mind/body/spirit complex is under
constant bombardment from other-selves it is understandable that those who
are especially sensitive would not feel the desire to be of service to
otherselves. This would also increase the probability of a lack of desire or
a blockage of the red ray reproductive energy.

In an uncrowded atmosphere this same entity would, through the stimulus of
feeling the solitude about it, then have much more desire to seek out
someone to whom it may be of service thus regularizing the sexual
reproductive function.

Questioner: Roughly how many previous incarnations would a male entity in
this incarnation have had to have had in the past as a female to have a
highly homosexual orientation in this incarnation?

Ra: I am Ra. If an entity has had roughly 65% of its incarnations in the
sexual/biological body complex, the opposite polarity to its present body
complex, this entity is vulnerable to infringement of your urban areas and
may perhaps become of what you call an homosexual nature.

It is to be noted at this juncture that although it is much more difficult,
it is possible in this type of association for an entity to be of great
service to another in fidelity and sincere green ray love of a nonsexual
nature thus adjusting or lessening the distortions of its sexual impairment.

[lealdragon]

where does Ra say this? I do not recall that part and it sounds a
little out of character for Ra to say something like 'only a certain
type of person can be STO'. This sounds strange to me since I have
known very loving people who were gay.

Also, even if Ra did assert that homosexuality is an imbalance, how is
that any worse than any other imbalance? No one is perfectly
'balanced' - everyone has some sort of personality flaws, whether it
be emotional issues like anger or depression, or physical problems
like cancer or obesity. I think the possibility of homosexualtiy being
labeled as an imbalance tends to bring up alot of defensiveness
because of the unfortunate prejudices that gays have faced. Obese
people, handicapped people, even short people have faced prejudices.
We do not get defensive about obesity being labeled as an imbalance,
since it is so obvious that it is, but even the most fundamentalist
religions would never dream of calling an obese person 'evil' just
because they have an imbalance towards obesity. Yet they do that with
homosexuality, which has caused a rebound effect and alot of torment
and defensiveness. Maybe if gays were not labeled 'evil' then it would
not sound so awful for it to be thought of as an imbalance, like any
other imbalance, but loved and accepted the same way we would love an
obese person. I do not know whether homeosexuality is an imbalance,
but if Ra indicates that it is, that is no cause for defensiveness. We
ALL have imbalances! And if we do, then surely our younger siblings,
the 2d animals, do too. I have always thought it strange to justify
human behavior based on what animals do, since we are supposed to be a
little 'older' in our evolutionary path. So just because animals do
something does not necessarily mean it is appropriate for us.

I read something once in the Gnostic Christian (an esoteric religion
that believes in reincarnation and mysticism, tho still having their
own dogma) that correlates closely with Ra's explanation of
homosexuality. They said that we have all had lifetimes in which we
were gay - that it happens when we have just had alot of lifetimes in
1 sex and then switch over to the other sex - that the transition
lifetime often results in being gay since we were so accustomed to the
being that other sex and have not yet made the switch. They say it
should not ever be thought of as 'evil' but that since we did make the
switch to a body of the other sex, it is more efficient to accept the
switch and be that new sex than to try to hold on to the old sex by
being gay. Easier said than done, of course, which gets into the 'are
they born that way or is it a choice' debate. They assert that it is
possible, thru strength of will, to completely make the switch, and
the hormones will balance out accordingly, whereas if the person
chooses to stay gay, it will only prolong the transition and carry
over into the next lifetime.

I am only sharing what I read. I thought it sounded pretty logical -
maybe the best, and least judgemental, explanation that I'd heard. And
it is saying basically the same thing that Ra said. A good reason to
not ever judge people who are struggling with this situation, since we
have all been there!


> The other thing that is depressing is Ra's assertion (if I
understand this
> correctly) is that homosexuality is a STS orientation and that only
a chaste
> homosexual can truly offer a STO expression. This is the course of
action
> that many fundamentalist religions offer to the man or woman born gay if
> they are to be "redeemed".
>

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 8/5/2004 8:11:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pdd2004@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=1q1Rjr6SPUYlVREj3ueysNR6jEcDgVt6E4flc6 Otiwgr4Zv5JLSpBNbP1oAonMmcTBGjyF4bQx_eWMOh3ZgSTg) writes:
Earlier on in the same reading Ra talks about sexual energy transfer and
magnetic attraction. I think that these energies and transfers occur
whether the exchange is hetero- or homosexual.


I think you are right about this. And I also think that the energy wouldn't
be there for a gay person 'trying' to be straight. Love, Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[darktemplarssj]

> The other thing that is depressing is Ra's assertion (if I
understand this
> correctly) is that homosexuality is a STS orientation and that
only a chaste
> homosexual can truly offer a STO expression.

I just wanted to make a brief comment on this part. I've studied
tantra from many sources in the past year and what seems to be the
gnosis is that if you have a "magnetic desire" you won't be
expressing the fullness of the love. The "magnetic desire" is STS
and is blocking the higher ray transfers. Once you get over
this "craving" for another person's body you begin to respect the
act and be more in the moment, this generates higher ray transfers
and greater bliss. So I think many people may be suffering from an
STS blockage in this area, I just wanted to put that out there for
thought. This post doesn't just apply to homosexuality, but hetro
or bi also.
Good Journey
-Dave

[pugg1979]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=z83MCDGCgSvDt32iONEjyh5iqvEYuOk79jQL5Q Eod0kXmShVAoFe-MjsrNAt-lgLk_JposHLlZKHYn4GpehR), Peter Duggan <pdd2004@i...> wrote:

> It is to be noted at this juncture that although it is much more
difficult,
> it is possible in this type of association for an entity to be of
great
> service to another in fidelity and sincere green ray love of a
nonsexual
> nature thus adjusting or lessening the distortions of its sexual
impairment.

I think this is the most important line. In the reading, it seems
to me that most of what Ra states can apply to heterosexuals as
well. It also seems Ra wasn't taking into full account TV and
advertising and now that it has become so widespread, the internet.
We are constantly bombarded by images that seek only to arouse us in
the most primitive ways. Being a male, still a teenager (19), I can
admit that I was constantly (it seems) distracted at school by the
miniskirts and low cut shirts, etc. In an isolated environment I
wouldn't be forced to focus on these images, which seem to evoke
self-serving sexual fantasies/thoughts; instead I would feel the
desire to enter into a giving relationship, not one to satisfy
sexual drives. Sex is an act from love, love is not the result of
sex, in my view.

Therefore, homosexuals in our culture are bombarded by the same
images, perhaps bringing out promiscuous relationships, a vice for
either sexuality. Ra isn't saying that homosexuality is a pathology
with judgement, because a simple view of anatomy shows what our
bodies were designed to do. Just because we were designed a certain
way, it doesn't rule out the innovation. While it seems
homosexuality CAN be compared to a disease, who really is the
template of perfection? Who doesn't have some genetic quirk
designed for catalyst? Ra is stating that it IS a distortion of the
purpose/majority of male/female polarity, but won't it always serve
a purpose? an opportunity for catalyst? They state that loving,
reen-ray relationships ARE possible, therefore an energy transfer
must take place, but perhaps there isn't the same potential as a
male/female sexual transfer.

What it seems to come down to is that as a result of experiencing
one polarity 65+% of the time, the purpose and possibilites of
incarnating as, say, male can become confused, and even distorted.
Maybe the people at the homosexual end of the bell curve have
experienced an even more biased number of incarnations as one
polarity. Let's take, for example, a soul that has incarnated 70%
of it's lifetimes as male. In another male incaration, would he not
have STRONG heterosexual tendencies, at the other end of the bell
curve?

I had a few more thoughts, but they got lost in the rambling.
Perhaps they'll come up with more discussion.

Harrison

[ben leung]

Greetings all,

thanks for the responses. a little off topic. where can i locate the Ra
material. not the study guide but the actual book. i will check my public
library archives and amazon tommorow.

back on topic now...

my situation is rather complex and unique. supposedly it involved beings of a
greater dimension than this world. when this happened to me i was still
skeptical as i had not read the Ra material yet. i was going on complete blind
faith. supposedly i am not supposed to say anything about it either, i hope
these were not the Orion entities.

about myself. i am actually heterosexual at heart. though i find the love
being projected to me so immensely strong that i do not want to reject it. my
partner loves me this strongly than i cannot begin to comprehend what life is
like in the 4th dimension. my heart/soul is so overjoyed by the experience that
sexual pleasures feel minor compared to the love projected to me. i also feel
an amazing amount of love from this group. i have never felt so loved by so
many in my life. i have never seen or felt a group with so much love for
eachother. i am amazed and i want to say to everyone on this group that i love
each of you greatly. loving others becomes so much easier now.

if karma is tied to loving a monagamous soul then does it matter whether the
relation is homo/hetero? if two souls have reincarnated and loved eachother
time after time, should the two souls not find greater love if they are with
eachother?


good journey and love to you all,

-Ben


Peter Duggan <pdd2004@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=_w3y_BwlRQiHZWIQseaxtO3s0hY6VAI5DT0lRe 7I3jWVgWw2Bi4ttwDDKGBhBE_UB4nyJgw6uXq-7GlH6QK5Mfak)> wrote:
Greetings Ben

I find Ra's explanation for homosexuality perplexing and somewhat
depressing. The quote below contains terms such as "confusion",
"infringement" - once again homosexuality is seen as a pathology. Ra seem
to say that homosexuality is caused by living in over-crowded cities.

Ra: I am Ra. The bisexual reproductive urge has as its goal, not only the
simple reproductive function, but more especially the desire to serve others
being awakened by this activity.

In an over-crowded situation where each mind/body/spirit complex is under
constant bombardment from other-selves it is understandable that those who
are especially sensitive would not feel the desire to be of service to
otherselves. This would also increase the probability of a lack of desire or
a blockage of the red ray reproductive energy.

In an uncrowded atmosphere this same entity would, through the stimulus of
feeling the solitude about it, then have much more desire to seek out
someone to whom it may be of service thus regularizing the sexual
reproductive function.

Questioner: Roughly how many previous incarnations would a male entity in
this incarnation have had to have had in the past as a female to have a
highly homosexual orientation in this incarnation?

Ra: I am Ra. If an entity has had roughly 65% of its incarnations in the
sexual/biological body complex, the opposite polarity to its present body
complex, this entity is vulnerable to infringement of your urban areas and
may perhaps become of what you call an homosexual nature.

It is to be noted at this juncture that although it is much more difficult,
it is possible in this type of association for an entity to be of great
service to another in fidelity and sincere green ray love of a nonsexual
nature thus adjusting or lessening the distortions of its sexual impairment.

[Jason Wharton]

I view Ra's outlook on it as perfectly logical as well as compassionate. He
doesn't say they are bad, evil, etc. just in a state of confusion and
disorientation.

What Ra says about large cities is they are where it is fostered and
maintained.

Homosexuality is indeed an illness that can be lifelong. It is best we
approach it just as Ra does with compassion, yet with accuracy least its
confusion engulf more and more people until all partake of the misery and
suffering instead of just those few who are unable to transition as they
should.

Your argument that because the animals are doing it means we should do it
too is pretty nonsensical.

The reason homosexuality is STS orientation is due to the bias of the logos
being heterosexual pairings and the manner in which reproduction is to be
performed. There is a specific result desired from this bias at this given
time.

Homosexuality, whether you have contrived social studies to try and support
it or not, is totally unhealthy spiritually and opposed to the family
structured basis for society.

The facts are, there is nothing to support homosexuality as anything other
than what it is, a deviation and confusion that we all do well to have
compassion for those afflicted while maintaining a corrective posture
towards the illness.

Jason Wharton

[Mary]

Harrison,

I have to come forward and say that I very impressed! You have such a mature
attitude about sex at such a young age! What you wrote here is exactly what I
am trying to teach my 12 year old son. I want him to understand that even if
this stuff is in his face all the time, it's a bunch of baloney, and doesn't
have anything to do with what sex is really about. So, your post gives me hope
that my son can understand things my (your) way, even in this crazy world we
live in! :-) Thanks!!!!

Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: pugg1979
To: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=H9EGX48kXbHty5UJqskLBzE22Eq_uAXXqTpkR-UBCNHw0OkIWVVC7n7VZYdXCivBCCRA4L5YG-bbDAs)
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 10:24 PM
Subject: [asc2k] Re: homosexual coupling

I think this is the most important line. In the reading, it seems
to me that most of what Ra states can apply to heterosexuals as
well. It also seems Ra wasn't taking into full account TV and
advertising and now that it has become so widespread, the internet.
We are constantly bombarded by images that seek only to arouse us in
the most primitive ways. Being a male, still a teenager (19), I can
admit that I was constantly (it seems) distracted at school by the
miniskirts and low cut shirts, etc. In an isolated environment I
wouldn't be forced to focus on these images, which seem to evoke
self-serving sexual fantasies/thoughts; instead I would feel the
desire to enter into a giving relationship, not one to satisfy
sexual drives. Sex is an act from love, love is not the result of
sex, in my view.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mary]

Peter,

I didn't get that from the reading at all. To me it was more to the point that
having a monogamous relationship is the important thing. It's not about the
sex, it's about the LOVE! If sex is an expression of physical desire with no
love, that is STS. If sex is an expression of love for another person, it's
STO. So it doesn't matter if you are heterosexual or homosexual, as long as you
have sex for the right reason. I'm finding more and more that it's not about
what you DO, but about what you mean . . . AKA intent.

Mary

From: Peter Duggan
I find Ra's explanation for homosexuality perplexing and somewhat
depressing. The quote below contains terms such as "confusion",
"infringement" - once again homosexuality is seen as a pathology. Ra seem
to say that homosexuality is caused by living in over-crowded cities.
This strikes me as strange - there are many many gay people who grew up in
rural areas and moved to the city where they met other gay people.

[Mary]

Jason,

Homosexuality is an illness? I'm just going to say that I am so sorry you see
it that way. And I don't think that anyone is saying that because animals can
be homosexual we SHOULD do it, just that there is a case for it not actually
some perversion, but something that occurs in nature, other than humans. I used
to know some homosexual parakeets! My neighbor bred parakeets, she had a huge
cage with several "couples" and nesting boxes and such. Well, one of the
couples was 2 males! One she had bred herself and hatched without 1 leg so she
decided to keep him. Well, one of the other males abandonded his female mate
and took up with the male with 1 leg and took care of him just like if they were
a couple. She used to call them her little gay boys. LOL I don't know if they
were "physical" with each other, but that's not the point. It's about the love,
and the intention. If you are a man (or woman) who truly loves another man (or
woman) I don't think there is anything wrong with that. The problem comes up if
you are going around having sex with anyone just cause you want to . . . THAT is
what falls under STS polarity. Heteros certainly do that too! :-(

Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Wharton
To: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=QYLEF4rAs9iYFdoeyn4DEfAxK49FwUZMU0F27s fmZ4wNqVrDzkCYo-do4H-Kz2QdIS3nTyzlbuQmstw)
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:36 PM
Subject: RE: [asc2k] homosexual coupling


Homosexuality is indeed an illness that can be lifelong. It is best we
approach it just as Ra does with compassion, yet with accuracy least its
confusion engulf more and more people until all partake of the misery and
suffering instead of just those few who are unable to transition as they
should.

Your argument that because the animals are doing it means we should do it
too is pretty nonsensical.

The reason homosexuality is STS orientation is due to the bias of the logos
being heterosexual pairings and the manner in which reproduction is to be
performed. There is a specific result desired from this bias at this given
time.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Lesley Schultz]

Dear Jason, L/L & Peace:

--- Jason Wharton <jwharton@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=HGVna6yX9gQKCRXnI20IUFqI31m-AmJQGs-Ue_ZixF36H60mpkZWBvVZ-WmVJ9u4R4F4v3-VfVfd_G5j)> wrote:

> I view Ra's outlook on it as perfectly logical as
> well as compassionate. He
> doesn't say they are bad, evil, etc. just in a state
> of confusion and
> disorientation.

LS: Actually, the way I read it, those of Ra didn't
say that at all. The comment I remember reading is
that the homosexual pairing makes it harder for the
fostering of an environment where the lessons of love
can be learned more efficiently.
>
> What Ra says about large cities is they are where it
> is fostered and
> maintained.

LS: No, what Ra says is that if an entity had 65% or
better of its previous incarnations favoring those of
one sex, and finds itself incarnated in the opposite
body, that the entity would find it easier to be
infringed upon by the energies of many others within
the urban environment, and it may revert to the
patterns more familiar to it. This may drive an
entity into a homosexual love expression. What I
think this means is partly spiritual and partly
physical. There are some sociological studies that
show that when you put too many mice in the same
space, you will get aggression and other undesirable
behaviors-- and you will see a rise in homosexuality.
It was speculated that this was because adding to the
population would create greater misery, so the sexual
expression was changed to a non-reproductive avenue.
>
> Homosexuality is indeed an illness that can be
> lifelong. It is best we
> approach it just as Ra does with compassion, yet
> with accuracy least its
> confusion engulf more and more people until all
> partake of the misery and
> suffering instead of just those few who are unable
> to transition as they
> should.
>
LS: Jason, are you really saying that homosexuality
is contagious, like a biological illness?

> Your argument that because the animals are doing it
> means we should do it
> too is pretty nonsensical.

LS: That isn't what the argument said. What was said
is that homosexual behavior exists in the animal
world. Therefore, it is deviant behavior, but not
unnatural.
>
> The reason homosexuality is STS orientation is due
> to the bias of the logos
> being heterosexual pairings and the manner in which
> reproduction is to be
> performed. There is a specific result desired from
> this bias at this given
> time.

LS: Those of Ra did not say that homosexuality, in
every case and every time, is a manifestation of STS.

They just said it was harder to use to learn/teach the
lessons of love. The rest of your statement is
correct.
>
> Homosexuality, whether you have contrived social
> studies to try and support
> it or not, is totally unhealthy spiritually and
> opposed to the family
> structured basis for society.

LS: This is not logical. How is it that homosexual
behavior threatens a society more than birth control,
divorce, abortion and the degradation of the status
women?

I am aware that you are a faithful, believing Morman,
Jason, and you think that the last three things on my
above list are great evils, and you see the last thing
as a natural outcome of the evils of birth control,
divorce and abortion. I would like to ask you to
consider that the model where women are honored for
their ability to create homes and families, and that
above else, does not allow room for women that choose
another path towards self-expression and
self-understanding/acceptance. I think it's true that
society is pretty much built on the backs of women, as
the very lifeblood and soul of the family. Take the
women away from this role, and many things become
chaotic. However, equlibrium can be restablished
quickly, and more equitably, if the old model of the
mother as the backbone of civilization is set aside.
Men are fully able to be as nuturing, as careful, as
loving and as sensitive as women [or very near it], if
they are permitted to explore this part of their human
nature. But men that are either biologically or
sexually orientated towards those things are seen as
being 'queer' and this is very limiting towards the
development of the fullest aspects of the male role
and gender experience as it is for the female.

>
> The facts are, there is nothing to support
> homosexuality as anything other
> than what it is, a deviation and confusion that we
> all do well to have
> compassion for those afflicted while maintaining a
> corrective posture
> towards the illness.

LS: Jason, homosexuality is not a cold or the flu, or
schizophrenia or psychosis. Those of Ra have said that
it is a choice, often made in early childhood. There
might be a certain biological bias towards it also, in
the case of those that do not have a clear gender
assignment chemically or physically, but these are
pretty few. Choices are what they are, which are
avenues towards catalyst that helps the ONE experience
itself to the full. No choice is 'good' or 'bad', and
the freedom of will to exercise the freedom of choice
is honorable, and the best method we know to
experience our ONEness.

I appreciate your point of view, Jason, and thank you
for expressing it.

Blessings and Peace,
~lesley




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 8/6/2004 5:55:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jwharton@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=KbEe1PzDKEhOXEcwGL8UByQUx7J5AC-ezyMqZfWWMKROVOtUpUKyah1WXLUpu-fDQmkkdEIE4mIMSt2tJr8) writes:

Homosexuality is indeed an illness that can be lifelong.

Homosexuality, whether you have contrived social studies to try and support
it or not, is totally unhealthy spiritually and opposed to the family
structured basis for society.

The facts are, there is nothing to support homosexuality as anything other
than what it is, a deviation and confusion that we all do well to have
compassion for those afflicted while maintaining a corrective posture
towards the illness.


Oh my god.
How utterly unconditionally accepting of you, your a saint my friend a saint.
"An illness."
YOU create all separation that you experience in your life...blaming it on
ANY outside source is delusional and much closer to an ILNESS than any LOVING
relationship. Love, ME/YOU!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 8/6/2004 6:37:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
marybearce@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=um1-jMIBi-MTswFVWuJDv37a_xHrmQHNru8G6wvtPrwIuW_dHj-MXnzmpbEDmjcll78MlQzlXaschmVz52fQa80) writes:
I have to come forward and say that I very impressed! You have such a mature
attitude about sex at such a young age! What you wrote here is exactly what
I am trying to teach my 12 year old son. I want him to understand that even
if this stuff is in his face all the time, it's a bunch of baloney, and doesn't
have anything to do with what sex is really about. So, your post gives me
hope that my son can understand things my (your) way, even in this crazy world
we live in! :-) Thanks!!!!

Mary


I'm 19 too in case that gives you any hope! I dont know if you remember any
of my postings or anything but I have faith in you and your son! heheheh Love,
Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jason Wharton]

Mary:
Homosexuality is an illness? I'm just going to say that I am so sorry you
see it that way.

Jason:
I mean illness as a condition that brings discomfort and disorientation. I
also mean to acknowledge it is possible for some to be afflicted with the
discomfort and disorientation their entire life rather than have the idea
anyone of them could fix in if they wanted to at anytime but simply refuse
to. My intent was to acknowledge the severity of the condition not insult or
degrade.

Mary:
And I don't think that anyone is saying that because animals can be
homosexual we SHOULD do it, just that there is a case for it not actually
some perversion, but something that occurs in nature, other than humans.

Jason:
Using animal behaviors as a basis to justify any human conduct is a step in
the wrong direction.

Mary:
I used to know some homosexual parakeets! My neighbor bred parakeets, she
had a huge cage with several "couples" and nesting boxes and such. Well,
one of the couples was 2 males! One she had bred herself and hatched
without 1 leg so she decided to keep him. Well, one of the other males
abandoned his female mate and took up with the male with 1 leg and took care
of him just like if they were a couple. She used to call them her little
gay boys. LOL I don't know if they were "physical" with each other, but
that's not the point. It's about the love, and the intention. If you are a
man (or woman) who truly loves another man (or woman) I don't think there is
anything wrong with that. The problem comes up if you are going around
having sex with anyone just cause you want to . . . THAT is what falls under
STS polarity. Heteros certainly do that too! :-(

Jason:
Well, in my mind we are to deeply love and care for others regardless of
their gender. I have some guy friends that I am very close to. We even will
embrace with a hug and pat on the back when we see one another sometimes.
Based on your definition I am a homosexual but this isn't what I am
referring to in the slightest. Nor is this what the issue in the public is
over.

There is a complete distinction between love and affinity and the act of
having sexual relations. This is where I draw the line and is exactly what I
am referring to. It appears you and I agree much more than you think;
however, I highly recommend you refrain from blurring this distinction and
creating more confusion surrounding the issue.

Regards,
Jason Wharton

[Jason Wharton]

First of all, I must qualify that I haven't read the Ra material in over a
year so not everything is fresh in my mind. I also am only sharing my own
biased interpretation so I welcome others to challenge my viewpoints and
help provide me with a fuller understanding of it.

My comments are inserted into the text below to preserve context.

Kind regards,
Jason Wharton

-----Original Message-----
From: Lesley Schultz [mailto:msthoth@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=s8KawbPdtNNaI4uW5rxor9qQiWnmgUqCAOGzOJ j1FnJhsVsyRAvjdsu8Y5RlXTPYpF1zrZVJVLoK)]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 6:40 AM
To: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=eG_oGz77JX7mHpnqklgeVDT76qNCF0ucQeaRph Nse-pMML15uBfykjefbXGPD-AJx7w9szD_FTUa7DMwWQ)
Subject: RE: [asc2k] homosexual coupling


Dear Jason, L/L & Peace:

--- Jason Wharton <jwharton@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=yIAQEiM13s27r_OBDaM_RPPA4X7rpfCFQVqGco GhEuk-WCPk_9RUL_Ro5CZUvCB9UkkfJVGepJ6UniXNBYk)> wrote:

> I view Ra's outlook on it as perfectly logical as well
> as compassionate. He doesn't say they are bad, evil, etc.
> just in a state of confusion and disorientation.

LS: Actually, the way I read it, those of Ra didn't
say that at all. The comment I remember reading is
that the homosexual pairing makes it harder for the
fostering of an environment where the lessons of love
can be learned more efficiently.

Jason:
I see additional value in looking at it this way. Thanks for the
clarification.

> What Ra says about large cities is they are where
> it is fostered and maintained.

LS: No, what Ra says is that if an entity had 65% or
better of its previous incarnations favoring those of
one sex, and finds itself incarnated in the opposite
body, that the entity would find it easier to be
infringed upon by the energies of many others within
the urban environment, and it may revert to the
patterns more familiar to it. This may drive an
entity into a homosexual love expression. What I
think this means is partly spiritual and partly
physical. There are some sociological studies that
show that when you put too many mice in the same
space, you will get aggression and other undesirable
behaviors-- and you will see a rise in homosexuality.
It was speculated that this was because adding to the
population would create greater misery, so the sexual
expression was changed to a non-reproductive avenue.

Jason:
I believe there is truth in what you are saying here to.
In studies I have read, homosexuality can also be implanted via trauma based
conditioning. This is the part that really causes me shivers. There are many
innocent young people abused and impacted very heavily that are unable to
cope with the trauma and end up becoming what they hate and passing it on
just like they received it.

I highly recommend a look at Roy Master's teachings in regard to
homosexuality. His website is www.fhu.com and he has some very raw
information that makes you think. I receive his newsletters and they are
excellent. Not sure if he has anything on his site regarding it. I could
mail you copies of the newsletter where it was the main subject if you like.
Very enlightening information.

It is also a point of interest to me that Roy has written a book called
"Finding God in Physics" that almost perfectly upholds the thesis of David's
scientific work. There is a strong thread between these two men's work,
though I have to admit, I find Roy to be much more mature and stoic whereas
David is in the stage of youth and exploration. It's fun to synthesize both
their wisdom. Anyway, that's a tangent....

I believe your statements above contribute to the whole picture too.

> Homosexuality is indeed an illness that can be
> lifelong. It is best we
> approach it just as Ra does with compassion, yet
> with accuracy least its
> confusion engulf more and more people until all
> partake of the misery and
> suffering instead of just those few who are unable
> to transition as they
> should.

LS: Jason, are you really saying that homosexuality
is contagious, like a biological illness?

Jason:
I believe the confusion that comes with it can definitely have an impact on
the choices and behavior patterns people develop. Most especially young
people. I've heard some gays say "after 8 its too late".

Granted one's expression of it isn't going to be based on the same
motivating factors as another, but I definitely am of the opinion it exacts
a profound influence on people. Not in a purely biological sense, but in an
energetic and spiritual sense it can spread. Especially if trauma based
conditioning is employed. Our young children are being confronted with too
much already...

> Your argument that because the animals are doing it
> means we should do it
> too is pretty nonsensical.

LS: That isn't what the argument said. What was said
is that homosexual behavior exists in the animal
world. Therefore, it is deviant behavior, but not
unnatural.

Jason:
I'm merely saying animal behavior should not be used as a means to *justify*
human behavior.

> The reason homosexuality is STS orientation is due
> to the bias of the logos
> being heterosexual pairings and the manner in which
> reproduction is to be
> performed. There is a specific result desired from
> this bias at this given
> time.

LS: Those of Ra did not say that homosexuality, in
every case and every time, is a manifestation of STS.

They just said it was harder to use to learn/teach the
lessons of love. The rest of your statement is
correct.

Jason:
I accept this totally. I don't look to Ra as a moral authority anyway, nor
do I think Ra really wanted to be taken as a moral authority.

> Homosexuality, whether you have contrived social
> studies to try and support
> it or not, is totally unhealthy spiritually and
> opposed to the family
> structured basis for society.

LS: This is not logical. How is it that homosexual
behavior threatens a society more than birth control,
divorce, abortion and the degradation of the status
women?

Jason:
Let me clarify that it threatens the kind of society that I idealize. If it
doesn't threaten the society you value then I don't expect you to agree with
me or believe what I am saying. I just hope you will accept that to me
there is something tangible and deeply spiritually confirmed to uphold it
that I cannot necessarily put words to.

The society that I idealize has as its central core the celestial family
model. Probably the closest way I can illustrate why it is logical to me is
to provide an analogy. If our solar system consisted of two suns and no
planets could there be life as we presently know it? Not likely. I'm open
to exploring this analogy further if you like.

LS:
I am aware that you are a faithful, believing Mormon,
Jason, and you think that the last three things on my
above list are great evils, and you see the last thing
as a natural outcome of the evils of birth control,
divorce and abortion. I would like to ask you to
consider that the model where women are honored for
their ability to create homes and families, and that
above else, does not allow room for women that choose
another path towards self-expression and
self-understanding/acceptance. I think it's true that
society is pretty much built on the backs of women, as
the very lifeblood and soul of the family. Take the
women away from this role, and many things become
chaotic. However, equlibrium can be restablished
quickly, and more equitably, if the old model of the
mother as the backbone of civilization is set aside.
Men are fully able to be as nuturing, as careful, as
loving and as sensitive as women [or very near it], if
they are permitted to explore this part of their human
nature. But men that are either biologically or
sexually orientated towards those things are seen as
being 'queer' and this is very limiting towards the
development of the fullest aspects of the male role
and gender experience as it is for the female.

Jason:
I believe you have some misconceptions on my beliefs and that I suppose can
be expected. I don't think there are any direct ties between the issue of
homosexuality, birth control, women's suffrage, divorce, etc. They are all
distinct in their own way and all contribute to the challenges we face.

All of these problems are due to our own failings to adjust, etc. and on
that level homosexuality is obviously yet another manifestation of those
having difficulty making adjustments properly. It is something that we have
to deal with because we are imperfect and something that needs a firm and
corrective posture maintained in a compassionate and loving way.

Just as we ought to maintain a firm and corrective attitude towards keeping
marriages healthy and functional as much as possible, being wise in our use
of procreative powers, honoring women in society, etc.

Why should the very few afflicted with homosexual inclination resent or
resist a loving yet corrective posture toward it?

Men could have just insisted women accept they are inferior to and property
of the men and that they would be happy if they just accepted that role. Of
course this turns your stomach as it does mine too. But what is the
difference between homosexuals foisting their dysfunction in the faces of
the greater societal body and demanding special privileges rather than just
request the compassion and patience of others while admitting to their
dysfunction?

> The facts are, there is nothing to support
> homosexuality as anything other
> than what it is, a deviation and confusion that we
> all do well to have
> compassion for those afflicted while maintaining a
> corrective posture
> towards the illness.

LS: Jason, homosexuality is not a cold or the flu, or
schizophrenia or psychosis. Those of Ra have said that
it is a choice, often made in early childhood. There
might be a certain biological bias towards it also, in
the case of those that do not have a clear gender
assignment chemically or physically, but these are
pretty few. Choices are what they are, which are
avenues towards catalyst that helps the ONE experience
itself to the full. No choice is 'good' or 'bad', and
the freedom of will to exercise the freedom of choice
is honorable, and the best method we know to
experience our ONEness.

Jason:
Choices are "good" and "bad" depending on what you goal in life and eternity
is. There are many choices which lead to a limiting of future range of
choices. To make the choice to be homosexual has massive implications for
our life here on earth and in the eternity to follow. There isn't
necessarily some wrathful God waiting to punish those who made certain
choices, but there very well may be sore regrets when they see how their
choices here on earth prohibited receiving blessings and privileges in the
life to follow.

LS: I appreciate your point of view, Jason, and thank you
for expressing it.

Jason:
Same back at you. See how fun it can be to disagree openly with others!
I really mean it when I say I appreciate your perspective.

Blessings and Peace,
~lesley

[Jason Wharton]

GenoNess1 said:
Oh my god.
How utterly unconditionally accepting of you, your a saint my friend a
saint.
"An illness."
YOU create all separation that you experience in your life...blaming it on
ANY outside source is delusional and much closer to an ILNESS than any
LOVING
relationship. Love, ME/YOU!

My reply:
I'm unconditionally accepting of the person and believe compassion is
necessary in these circumstances. I really truly mean that and I live that.

I merely maintain a firm and patient posture of correction towards the
behavior. If you have your identity mixed into homosexuality then you will
for sure take issue with what I am saying due to my posture towards it.

My choosing this posture doesn't separate me from the person's pure essence
and I know in my own heart with a pure and clean conscience that I have not
separated myself from them.

Regards,
Jason Wharton

[Mary]

Mary:
Homosexuality is an illness? I'm just going to say that I am so sorry you
see it that way.

Jason:
I mean illness as a condition that brings discomfort and disorientation. I
also mean to acknowledge it is possible for some to be afflicted with the
discomfort and disorientation their entire life rather than have the idea
anyone of them could fix in if they wanted to at anytime but simply refuse
to. My intent was to acknowledge the severity of the condition not insult or
degrade.
Mary Again . . I don't see that it brings discomfort and disorientation to
everyone who is gay. I don't see it as an affliction. Why should they fix it?
It ain't broken!


Mary:
And I don't think that anyone is saying that because animals can be
homosexual we SHOULD do it, just that there is a case for it not actually
some perversion, but something that occurs in nature, other than humans.

Jason:
Using animal behaviors as a basis to justify any human conduct is a step in
the wrong direction.

Mary Again . . . I didn't justify human conduct by animal behavior. I am
saying that this occurs in nature. This isn't something that humans came up
with. If 2 adult people love each other and are committed to helping each other
in this lifetime, who am I to say it's wrong? And if they want to express that
love in a sexual way, who am I to say that's wrong?


Mary:
I used to know some homosexual parakeets! My neighbor bred parakeets, she
had a huge cage with several "couples" and nesting boxes and such. Well,
one of the couples was 2 males! One she had bred herself and hatched
without 1 leg so she decided to keep him. Well, one of the other males
abandoned his female mate and took up with the male with 1 leg and took care
of him just like if they were a couple. She used to call them her little
gay boys. LOL I don't know if they were "physical" with each other, but
that's not the point. It's about the love, and the intention. If you are a
man (or woman) who truly loves another man (or woman) I don't think there is
anything wrong with that. The problem comes up if you are going around
having sex with anyone just cause you want to . . . THAT is what falls under
STS polarity. Heteros certainly do that too! :-(

Jason:
Well, in my mind we are to deeply love and care for others regardless of
their gender. I have some guy friends that I am very close to. We even will
embrace with a hug and pat on the back when we see one another sometimes.
Based on your definition I am a homosexual but this isn't what I am
referring to in the slightest. Nor is this what the issue in the public is
over.

Mary Again . . . The parakeet dumped his female mate for the deformed male.
Would you do that to take care of your male friends? I think not. The male
parakeets behaved as mates, not as male buddies. I just stated that I don't
know if they had sexual relations because I don't know if they did. According
to the woman who owned them, they did NOT have sexual relations with the females
in the cage (parakeets tend to pair off and have relationships). They were a
pair, a couple, mates.

Jason:
There is a complete distinction between love and affinity and the act of
having sexual relations. This is where I draw the line and is exactly what I
am referring to. It appears you and I agree much more than you think;
however, I highly recommend you refrain from blurring this distinction and
creating more confusion surrounding the issue.

Mary Again . . . We do not agree. How am I creating confusion surrounding
the issue? I am saying that I don't think there's anything wrong with being
homosexual. That's not confusing, is it? There is not a complete distinction
between love and affinity and the act of having sexual relations in a committed
and loving sexual relationship. Then it does become one and the same. Why do
you need to "draw the line"?



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mary]

Kyle,

I have read your posts, and I didn't realize you are 19. You have very mature
attitudes too. It does give me hope! Too many people buy into this
super-charged sexuality that is everywhere in our society. It's glittery and
shiny, and pops like a bubble. I don't want my kids buying into that! But of
course I particularly worry with my 12 year old, he's just starting to really
notice the advertising and such that is around him. I've talked to him about it
some, that this isn't really what sex is about. I'm sure that in the next few
years I'm going to need to reinforce that message a lot! :-o

Mary


I'm 19 too in case that gives you any hope! I dont know if you remember any
of my postings or anything but I have faith in you and your son! heheheh Love,
Kyle!




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[McNulty, Michael]

It would seem to follow that if you see your brother as different than you,
you have separated yourself from him.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Wharton [mailto:jwharton@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=fJNNCUb5EoG43mvyyL23usKplOTbZjhz0Z3McZ WYYpNYKe5gu3t-ARAXDWLDpesq-G1VMPy_qBjnJp83MUk)]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 6:27 PM
To: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=_CTnzBefK73N0zTt0lS2wOQS4ZBV59FqT05SzQ zr-scIBu9aXbaBi3OL7fwIehBYJh_bKAM3YcLRX_UpQONz5g)
Subject: RE: [asc2k] homosexual coupling


GenoNess1 said:
Oh my god.
How utterly unconditionally accepting of you, your a saint my friend a
saint.
"An illness."
YOU create all separation that you experience in your life...blaming it on
ANY outside source is delusional and much closer to an ILNESS than any
LOVING
relationship. Love, ME/YOU!

My reply:
I'm unconditionally accepting of the person and believe compassion is
necessary in these circumstances. I really truly mean that and I live that.

I merely maintain a firm and patient posture of correction towards the
behavior. If you have your identity mixed into homosexuality then you will
for sure take issue with what I am saying due to my posture towards it.

My choosing this posture doesn't separate me from the person's pure essence
and I know in my own heart with a pure and clean conscience that I have not
separated myself from them.

Regards,
Jason Wharton

[Lesley Schultz]

My very dear Jason, L/L & Peace to All:

--- Jason Wharton <jwharton@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=xvhrVjmI0z5CAmtvt4NtbFr7xA6Qi9S-qo6O_VDAql7fl1y94Y3Ty4xWGAXaRZzPJPAa8-4Ps-I1ZEbZCglqWQ)> wrote:

>snip>> > I believe there is truth in what you are
saying here to. In studies I have read, homosexuality
can also be implanted via trauma based conditioning.
This is the part that really causes me shivers. There
are many innocent young people abused and impacted
very heavily that are unable to cope with the trauma
and end up becoming what they hate and passing it on
just like they received it.

LS: Indeed you are right, Jason, and this is a good
point. It is also possible for an adult to 'go over
to the other side' as the result of traumatic
experiences as young adults. This is most
unfortunate, and one symphathizes with these folks
that have suffered greatly from attempting intimacy
with the opposite sex. I don't think there is a
person alive that hasn't been hurt in a love
relationship, sometimes very, very badly. Yet, one
wonders if pursuing this other path is ultimately as
satisfactory as the path they left behind, if they had
stuck with it. Still, everyone has a limit to how
much pain they can stand.

Here again comes the element of choice. One can chose
to have a sexual relationship with the sex one
understands the best and experience some contentment
and stability, and possibly emotional intimacy, but if
one 'overwrites the original program' by embracing
love from a gender different than the one you were
born to accept, does this have a consequence
somewhere? Maybe.

Again, there is the element of choice as catalyst.
Those of Ra said that each of us embodies, in
miniature, the entirety of the ONE, which means each
thing and their opposite. Each of us are both male
and female at the soul-level, just as the ONE
transcends gender considerations.

<<snip>> I highly recommend a look at Roy Master's
teachings in regard to homosexuality. His website is
www.fhu.com and he has some very raw information that
makes you think. I receive his newsletters and they
are excellent. Not sure if he has anything on his site
regarding it. I could mail you copies of the
newsletter where it was the main subject if you like.
> Very enlightening information.

LS: I'd be interested to see what he has to say. I'll
check the physics stuff also.
>
>>snip> I believe the confusion that comes with it can
definitely have an impact on the choices and behavior
patterns people develop. Most especially young people.
I've heard some gays say "after 8 its too
late".
>
LS: I have not heard this expression, although I have
read that the choice of sexual orientation is done in
early childhood [or at least, the sense of what the
sexual orientation will be is known at that time.] I
don't know that there is any evidence that having two
gay parents results in a child that is also gay
[granted, the child is not the biological offspriing
of both parents, but you're arguing that environment
is a powerful influence.] There is some talk about
how homosexual people 'recruit' young pre-teens and
teenagers into their lifestyle, but I think that this
is pretty much baseless. If you've read Masters and
Johnson at all, you know that very many children
exploring the concept of sexual intimacy for the first
time do so in the presence of another child of the
same sex. Not all do, of course, but a lot of them do
and it has nothing to do with future sexual activity.
If there is an original'program' or 'script' for
orientation written into a person's biology, this will
be preferentially followed.

>>>snip>>> I accept this totally. I don't look to Ra
as a moral authority anyway, nor do I think Ra really
wanted to be taken as a moral authority.

LS: You are correct, those of Ra don't wish to be
taken as a moral authority, for their job is to teach
us the Law of One. The Law of One says that all
things are ONE, that each of us are unique and
priceless expressions of the ONE, exploring Itself
down every possible path both horrible and beautiful.
The ONE is beyond all moral judgements, and indeed
past 5th density there is no 'positive' or 'negative',
'good' or 'evil', for all the polarities, connundrums
and contradictions have been resolved at that level.
>
<<snip>> [Homosexuality] threatens the kind of society
that I idealize. If it doesn't threaten the society
you value then I don't expect you to agree with me or
believe what I am saying. I just hope you will accept
that to me there is something tangible and deeply
spiritually confirmed to uphold it
that I cannot necessarily put words to.

The society that I idealize has as its central core
the celestial family model. Probably the closest way
I can illustrate why it is logical to me is to provide
an analogy. If our solar system consisted of two suns
and no planets could there be life as we presently
know it? Not likely. I'm open
to exploring this analogy further if you like.

LS: I guess I find that I can't feel terribly
threatened by any expression of the ONE, for I know
that each person is living out a small part of the
life experience that will ultimate evolve into what we
know as the ONE Infinite Creator, the sum total of all
wisdom, love, light, knowledge and compassion. It is
an article of faith for me, I guess, that this is
where it's all going and we shall all be united
together. I don't find that thinking of the ONE as a
heirarchical organization is very useful to me, with
the viewpoint I have, even one as exalted as the
celestial model. I wish I could convey to you how I
see the glory of the ONEness. The apparent vacuum of
space is not a vacuum at all but is full of the
love/light of the ONE, just untapped-- like zero point
energy, which I see as a sort of byproduct of the
existence of the ONE. We love and are loved, the
eternal embrace what is the energy that creates
worlds, suns and galaxies.

<<snip>> All of these problems are due to our own
failings to adjust, etc. and on that level
homosexuality is obviously yet another manifestation
of those having difficulty making adjustments
properly. It is something that we have to deal with
because we are imperfect and something that needs a
firm and corrective posture maintained in a
compassionate and loving way.

LS: I think that we are learning a lot from people
that are born metrasexual, which means without a clear
gender assignment. Back in the 50's and 60's these
infants were more or less assigned a gender and then
surgically altered to conform with this gender
assignment. Sometimes this worked. Sometimes it did
not. The misery it caused when it did not work can
hardly be imagined. Also the transgendered folks have
helped us out a lot in understanding sexuality; we've
learned that [as we always knew anyway from a
sexual-practice aspect] the majority of what
gender/sex is exists in the brain, not in the
anatomical equipment. There is so much we have yet to
learn about sex and gender. Talking about corrective
action *right now* with our state of learning would be
like deciding that a child needs braces before it's
born.

<<snip>> Why should the very few afflicted with
homosexual inclination resent or resist a loving yet
corrective posture toward it?

LS: Probably because it doesn't come across as loving.
It comes across as unbelievably invasive and
controlling. If someone were to come to you and say,
Jason, I can appreciate that you were born with these
natural urges with regard to women, but you need to
control them and practise your sexuality with men--
for the greater good of society and for your own best
health and happiness, what would *you* think? I think
you'd be appalled. I think that, if you wanted to be
of service to these people, you might say to them: I
do not understand your sexuality. I would like to
learn from you, and gain an appreciation for the
uniqueness of your love relationship. Would you be
willing to assist me? And then you would need to make
every possible effort to understand, appreciate and
empathize with this person, truly not with a mindset
that you will change them, but to understand and
appreciate them. *And then if it works out that the
love relationship is a nuturing, caring, healthy one
you would agree to leave it alone and say "thank you
for sharing this aspect of your life with me."
Hopefully you would leave the experience a better
educated person.

<<<snip>>> What is the difference between homosexuals
foisting their dysfunction in the faces of the greater
societal body and demanding special privileges rather
than just request the compassion and patience of
others while admitting to their
dysfunction?

LS: Okay, you're asking someone you don't know to
admit that they are unreasonable, intrusive and
harmfully deviant. Who is going to be willing to do
that? Homosexuals don't want special priviledges.
They want the *same* priviledges as other people.

<<<snip>>> To make the choice to be homosexual has
massive implications for our life here on earth and in
the eternity to follow.

LS: Do you believe in hell? You are aware, are you
not, that there is no such thing as hell unless you
create one for yourself. You have no power to create
one for another person in the afterlife, although you
can certainly create one for a person in this life and
possibly so influence them that they create their own
to suffer in after they die. Rather dreadful karma,
if you ask me.

<<<snip>> There isn't necessarily some wrathful God
waiting to punish those who made certain choices, but
there very well may be sore regrets when they see how
their choices here on earth prohibited receiving
blessings and privileges in the life to follow.

LS: I am very glad for one thing, for your sake,
Jason. You have a very clear idea of what your heaven
will be like, and I think for you it will be a
wonderful experience. I wish you joy of it, and may
it be everything you wish it to be. But have you
considered what will happen during your eternal bliss?
What will you be doing? If I recall my Morman
doctrine correctly [and I probably don't] you will be
producing spirit children and populating worlds with
them throughout eternity. You will be one of the
Elohim, become the Creator. Well, I can definitely
understand becoming the Creator, as we are all doing
that, but if you examine the heirarchical structure of
the Morman heaven world, there is clearly inequality.
This concept of inequality or separation is not STO.

Just a thought. I appreciate the discussion, always a
priviledge, Jason.

~lesley


=====
************************************************
Lesley Schultz
865 York St. #3
Oakland, CA 94610

ERROR 406: file corrupt: config.earth-- reboot
universe? (Y/N)



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[David Wilcock]

Group,

Here's my 2 cents on this issue.

I am aware of what Ra said about homosexuality in the Law of One series.
I am also aware of the importance of the first distortion of the Law of
One - free will. We come to earth to "experience all things desired, to
then analyze, accept and understand these experiences, distilling the
love and wisdom contained within them." One of the acceptable
experiences is homosexual couplings. Judging people for any reason is
the beginning of separation, the beginning of the negative path.

I myself have had plenty of male come-ons, especially while attending an
art-school university, but never acted on them - I just never felt a
desire for men. Yet, I have also had at least 30 clients over the course
of my intuitive consultation practice who were openly gay or bisexual,
and in more than a few of those cases I have helped them talk out their
issues with trying to find the partner that is right for them, and offer
suggestions as to what spiritual factors may be at work in their
inability to make the connection they seek.

In any consultation, I never assume that when a person says "my partner"
or "this person" that they are talking about a heterosexual
relationship. I will always say, "Now is this person male or female?"
Some people are surprised when I ask this, but if you make assumptions
you can lose the person right away. I was taught this in my suicide
hotline internship and many times I would never have guessed who it
would be! There are no "typical guidelines" to go by.

One of the readings I did for a homosexual client is transcribed on the
website, in the article, "The Ascension - Is it Real, and If So, Am I
Gonna Make It?" I'm actually quite surprised that no one would have
brought this in yet:

http://ascension2000.com/09.28.03.htm

Carla comes from a Christian background. I come from intellectual hippie
parents. Undoubtedly, as Ra said in the Law of One, the channel's own
biases affect how the information comes out.

Personally I am thrilled by heterosexuality. However, there is an angle
in which you could look at this where a Wanderer, or a soul awakening to
fourth-density, is already reaching that level where "gender quickly
becomes irrelevant." Hence there are people being born in greater and
greater numbers who are androgynous, and the doctors have to make a
decision at the time of birth as to which gender the child will be,
since usually one is surgically chosen. So how do you "make the call" in
that case?

I do think there are at least two types of homosexuality.

There is one type that clearly seems to be linked to a very stressful
pregnancy for the mother, followed by other experiences during life that
make the person deeply distrust ANYONE of the opposite sex. In such
cases, Ra's words in the Law of One seem to apply. I have personally met
people where I could read this as clear as day - subconsciously they
came to the conclusion, at some point, that they could never trust
anyone of the opposite sex, but they also didn't want to live the rest
of their lives without companionship and sexual pleasure.

There is another type that I don't think the Law of One ever mentioned,
perhaps because the question was never focused on. These are people who
are more likely to be bisexual, who really don't have issues with either
sex. It seems, again, that they remember well a life in the higher
realms where gender was irrelevant. Let's not forget, folks, that EVERY
TIME YOU GREET SOMEONE in the higher densities, THERE IS A TRANSFER OF
ENERGY *AT LEAST* AS POWERFUL AS A SEXUAL EXPERIENCE IN A HUMAN BODY.
This goes way beyond shaking hands and saying "Hello."

Hence, these people are basically untethered to the human experience.
Perhaps some might think of this as a personality distortion - there is
a possibility that they chose the human form, and chose a particular
gender, because coupling with the opposite gender would be the most
effective modality for consciousness expansion. However, given the
increasingly blurred distinction between genders, such a coupling might
work out just fine.

Was Jesus speaking only in parables when he said, in the Gnostic gospel
of Thomas, "If thou art to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and thou art
female, thou must become male, and if thou art male, thou must become
female." I think this can be pursued heterosexually, homosexually or
even celibately. The point is that gender DOES become less and less
relevant as you balance yourself out. You will, again, become One.

Peace be with you -

- David

[Brent Goodwin]

David thank you for confirming my understanding of the reading you
linked to and the Ra interpretations on this subject, as Ra likes to
state there are no mistakes just experiences.
Another angle that this brings up is the increase of femininity into
the Earth's balance. As the Earth becomes more and more a 4th density
planet it would follow that the influences toward a balance of the
male/female polarities or energies would come into equilibrium. Take
into account that each of us have a feminine and male side and are
seeking balance. Formal religions have let the male dominance rule (with
the feminine being persecuted as the Earth worshipers, witches, and
free-thinking women). There are still places where women are banished
from the temples of the world. It was foretold by ancient religious
sects that the feminine side would once again hold its equal role in the
spiritual growth as it once did in the hallowed act of Hieros Gamos-the
natural sexual union between man and woman through which each became
spiritually whole.
Who is right and who is wrong? Each one of us have a specific lesson
plan that was laid out before incarnation into this density. Our own
unique experiences that help us to learn the lesson at this time, free
will let's us take some interesting turns which may not be the most
direct way..but it is a way. There is no right or wrong just experiences.

Love and Light to all,

Brent


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[raistlinflux]

I don't know. The way I see it, if we factor in the Seth material,
where one of the major ideas is that belief creates reality, then the
debate about being born gay or choosing to be gay becomes irrelevant.
Think of it this way, if a person is gay it can only be because of
two reasons, first one because he has chosen a path predisposed to a
homosexual orientation in order for the soul to learn the necessary
lessons, or, he is born with a predisposition towards heterosexuality
but (because belief creates reality) eventualy comes to believe (even
if subconsciously) that a gay lifestyle apeals to him/her a lot
better. So if we put it in this light, that major debate about gay
people becomes pointless because both sides of the debate are true.
And besides thsose I'm sure there may be other answers.

But the only thing I tend not to agree with, is the tendency to put
an equal balance (50/50) of hetero and homo sexual predispositions of
souls before birth. Though I have absolutely nothing against
homosexuality I still tend to believe that there is a reason that
there are two types of people on this earth, man and woman, and the
fact that they're the only two that can reproduce only seems to agree
with RA saying that in our physical 3d world, a homosexual
orientation is in a way a "distortion". And again, I emphasize that
there's nothing wrong with that, everyone has a free will and lessons
they need to learn, and on a universal scale, no choice can be wrong!
So please don't get me wrong and start blaiming me that I said
homosexuality is wrong because gay people can't have children coz'
then you missed my whole point.

In any case, to sum it up, I tend to agree with RA on this issue
though there is very little information and conclusions (with our
limited understanding) are also little!

that's my 3 cents worth! (3 is a lucky number...:-)

love is all
Vlad

[ben leung]

Brent,

thank you for the reminder that we each have our own paths to follow. i
understand now that i had been given the choice to be with a male partner. it
tested out the deepest parts of myself, and in doing so i have become more
accepting and loving of others male/female. by the way i am only at a young but
not so age of 23. this whole thing started about a year ago (22 at the time).
i agree with a previous post that society literally tests us to think less
sexually. there are so many ads, commercials, tv shows that have so much sex
content in it. i'm glad to have started an interesting discussion for this
group. i look forward to reading and posting more of my opinions as soon as i
get a hold and study the Ra material (hopefully next week).


good journey and love to you all,

-Benjamin



---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]