Oh really? I assume that there are no standard confessional questions dealing with it?
I address this in my recent thread:Oh really? Scientology is "not concerned" with sexual orientation?
I think you replied before I was done editing my post. Let me explain my own position, using my standard color-coded formatting.I address this in my recent thread:
The Church of Scientology says: "Sexual orientation is not a criteria for membership in the Church." We have questions.
https://exscn2.net/threads/the-church-of-scientology-says-sexual-orientation-is-not-a-criteria-for-membership-in-the-church-we-have-questions.3088/
Including the relevant background:
VIDEO: Why You Can't Be Gay In Scientology.
Scientology Homophobia
Scientology Homophobia
View attachment 10989
Scientology’s Homophobia: Even the Church’s Token Gay Guy Was Disgusted
Scientology's Homophobia: Even the Church's Token Gay Guy Was Disgusted - The Village Voice
UPDATE after the jump: Breaking news about Paul Haggis and the Vanity Fair bombshell about Tom Cruise. One of Scientology’s enduring mysteries is that it...www.villagevoice.com
View attachment 10990
/
I would like to add some observations.The Church of Scientology admits that it does not perform gay weddings.
View attachment 10985
This is true despite the fact that the Church of Scientology has repeatedly assured gay people that it does not discriminate against them.
View attachment 10986
View attachment 10987
View attachment 10988
/
Nah, this really is impossible. I'm not being ironic for once.Seriously? The Church of Scientology cannot create a new "service" for gay weddings, or adapt an existing "service?"
Exactly.Because Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard did not create a gay wedding service, the Church of Scientology is forever foreclosed from doing so?
If anything "moved on from what L.Ron Hubbard wrote" then it is no longer scientology.If the above is true, how can gay people trust that Scientology has in fact moved on from what L. Ron Hubbard wrote and taught about them?
Yes. Some satanist sects, as well as some neopagans who do not believe in marriage as a religious union.Have you ever imagined a church that would want their parishioners who are in compliance with church law and doctrine to get married in a civil ceremony, instead of getting married in the church?
That makes absolute sense, if looked at from within. Never modify what Hubbard did, but present it in as socially-acceptable way as possible.I find the response by the Church of Scientology to be truly bizarre. The Church of Scientology welcomes gay members, but doesn't have a wedding ceremony for them and refuses to create one? What?
But, as you said, they do not believe in marriage as a religious union. The Church of Scientology clearly does (or pretends to) since it performs marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples.Yes. Some satanist sects, as well as some neopagans who do not believe in marriage as a religious union.
Except the response of the Church of Scientology isn't socially acceptable at all. It is completely ridiculous. Risible.That makes absolute sense, if looked at from within. Never modify what Hubbard did, but present it in as socially-acceptable way as possible.
All fair points, I do not think we are in disagreement here.But, as you said, they do not believe in marriage as a religious union. The Church of Scientology clearly does (or pretends to) since it performs marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples.
None of the examples you cite offer marriage ceremonies to some members (e.g., heterosexuals) and deny marriage ceremonies to other members (e.g.,, homosexuals) while claiming both groups are equally welcome.
Well, the alternative would be saying: "We think gays are inherently damaged and their damage causes them to be malicious underhanded liars. But we can fix them with scientology so they won't be fags anymore after we process them".Except the response of the Church of Scientology isn't socially acceptable at all. It is completely ridiculous. Risible.
I largely agree. I don't know if the Church of Scientology was expressly asked about gay weddings because the tweet to which they replied has been deleted (otherwise I would have included it), but even if they were, it might have been better to apply Success Through Communication Course Drill Two-E: No-Answer --Well, the alternative would be saying: "We think gays are inherently damaged and their damage causes them to be malicious underhanded liars. But we can fix them with scientology so they won't be fags anymore after we process them".
I think the murky, "we kinda do but we kinda don't" answer they gave is still the less damaging one.
I agree it is very weird and isn't socially acceptable for the liberal crowd anymore. Its just that they think they had chosen the least out-PR way of saying that.
I myself am not sure what would be the better way to say that, without them ending up sounding like the Westboro Baptists.
Well, I do not want to give the impression that I'm defending scientology. Consider my posts here to be like a doctor talking about treatment for a patient she doesn't like.I largely agree. I don't know if the Church of Scientology was expressly asked about gay weddings because the tweet to which they replied has been deleted (otherwise I would have included it), but even if they were, it might have been better to apply Success Through Communication Course Drill Two-E: No-Answer --
View attachment 11002
You are right that their answer isn't socially acceptable for the liberal crowd. I suspect their answer isn't socially acceptable for the conservative crowd either because, as we agree, it is weird, and they appear to be trying to have it both ways.
/
Your mentioning Elizabeth Moss is a good point. She has been asked about Scientology and gay rights, and has made it clear that she strongly supports gay rights. I am sure that she would not like to be asked about it again.There's no "good" answer Scientology can provide to these sort of questions. Being blunt and brutal would end up with the liberal media quoting them all around the place. This in turn would end up drawing unnecessary media attention to scn celebrities. Betty Moss wouldn't be happy with zounds of journalists asking her about homosexuality.
I honestly thought of your Hubbard Law of Commotion when I posted the OP and, indeed, when I found the Scientology tweet screenshot in the OP. I really did. I thought, "This is the Hubbard Law of Commotion in action, in a single communication -- and it really does not turn out well."On one hand, the Church of Scientology has their inviolable policy and immutably sacred scripture that declares (in writing!) that all gays and lesbians are "1.1", which is defined as the most treacherously dangerous/destructive tone level.
On the other hand, the Church of Scientology has their inviolable policy and immutably sacred scripture that declares (in writing!) that "purpose is senior to policy".
Alas, the Hubbard Law of Commotion*. Normally about 99% of the time, Scientology's parishioners are too drunk on the koolaid to notice that their "religion" maintains and regularly issues 2 completely contradictory positions. But once in a great while the cult bumps directly into a socially sensitive landmine and is rendered clueless, clumsy and creepy about which lie to blinklessly assert.
Must lie, can't lie. Gays & Gay marriage is one such dilemma wherein the cult is stuck between a rock(slam) and a hard TR.
This is why Scientology and Scientologists are forbidden from speaking to the press or answering questions. This is why Scientology, after 71 years of perfecting their public relations technology, they finally surrendered to the fact that they should not even attempt to have a spokesperson. Because there is no spokesperson that ever lived who can survive journalists demanding to know which of the two (2) diametrically opposite lies they just told is the truthful one.
Even the universe's greatest OT, L. Ron Hubbard, found it impossible to answer impossible questions. Which is why things like this happened in his last filmed interview in 1968, a full 18 years before he died:
Interviewer: “How many times have you been married?”Hubbard: “How many times have I been married? I’ve been married twice, and I’m very happily married just now, I have a lovely wife and I have 4 children, my first wife is dead [smiles].”Interviewer: “What happened to your second wife?”Hubbard: “I never had a second wife.”Ergo, what would happen if Hubbard gave an interview today?
Interviewer: “How many policies do you have on gays??”Hubbard: “How many policies do I have on gays? I have just one policy on gays---that they are the most ethical and uptone beings one could ever hope to connect to! [smiles].”Interviewer: “What happened to your second policy on disconnecting from gays because they are all treacherous 1.1 SPs?”Hubbard: “I never had a second policy.”
* Hubbard Law of Commotion: In Scientology, for each and every code, creed, policy and/or piece of tech--there is an equal and opposite code, creed, policy and/or piece of tech.
.
Yeah right, tell that to Quentin!The Church of Scientology admits that it does not perform gay weddings.
View attachment 10985
This is true despite the fact that the Church of Scientology has repeatedly assured gay people that it does not discriminate against them.
View attachment 10986
View attachment 10987
View attachment 10988
/
I was going to say that Catherine Bell is a real life example of the type of thing you are talking about, but that is not technically correct. Bell is not married to her girlfriend, and indeed is not officially "out" to my knowledge.PART II: Hubbard & Gays
In Part I, above, it was noted that despite the anti-gay scripture threaded throughout Scientology sec checks, books, bulletins and policies---there is something that contradicts that. It's that little get-out-of-jail gimmick known as "Purpose is senior to Policy".
HOW IT WORKS: Being openly gay or performing gay marriages is strictly verboten. Gays must be "handled" before they are allowed to do their advanced levels or expose the contradiction of a "1.1" homosexual being on the cover of "UPTONE" magazine. Thus, the anti-gay matter and natter is kept "off-lines" so that the public doesn't notice it. It's ironic that the 1.1 "covert hostility" actually describes the supposedly uptone Scientologists' reaction to gays.
HUBBARD LAW OF COMMOTION: Just because there is written and unwritten scripture opposing openly gay behavior or church-sanctioned gay marriage ceremonies within Scientology--even that has its own "equal and opposite" policy. To wit, if two of the cult's biggest billionaire whales (Kerry Packer and Bob Duggan) hooked up and decided to "come out" and get married, it would become a gala celebration sponsored by the church and David Miscavige himself would perform the marriage ceremony. (Disclaimer: This above gay whale scenario is just hypothetical fiction to illustrate a point)
NOTE: Think this is an exaggeration? Think again. Just recall the Church of Scientology's 100% rabid rejection of electroshock and how there is inviolable policy that forbids anyone who has had electroshock from ever doing OT levels or even receiving auditing. But what happened when a well known rich Scn. businessman regularly donated money to various cult causes. Well, that's right, he was given the VIP red carpet treatment at Celebrity Center and Flag with the best auditors in the world.
/
I was going to say that Catherine Bell is a real life example of the type of thing you are talking about, but that is not technically correct. Bell is not married to her girlfriend, and indeed is not officially "out" to my knowledge.
Still, I haven't heard any indication that the Church of Scientology has hassled Bell in any way, and I would be shocked if they did.
The last time they hassled (to put it mildly) a celebrity who was still in, Leah Remini, it did not turn out well.
The last time they hassled (again, to put it mildly) an internally prominent lesbian person who was still in, Michelle LeClair, the result was an anti-Scientology book and People magazine cover.
IF Bell ever chose to come "out" and complain about Scientology's treatment of the LGBT community, Bell would destroy Scientology's standing in that community and, more importantly as a practical matter, with those who care about that community and LGBT rights. It would be headline news.
/
I agree.It's been commented on before, but it still AMAZES me that Scn management didn't excise those degrading passages in Scientology books/materials which peg gays as sleazy and perverted SPs. It's right there in black and white, anyone can walk into any Scn center worldwide and read what Hubbard said about the diabolically evil "1.1" gays. I guess they're plenty scared of commiting the "High Crime" and "Technical Degrade" of editing and removing Hubbard's toxic words..
.I agree.
But as Karakorum noted above, "Miscavige can barely get away with some very minor tweaks." Could Miscavige get away with such a major change? Would he have the courage?
Would there be a partial exodus like with GAT 1? Or would parishioners, Class 5 staff, Sea Org and particularly Reges and FSMs quietly say to themselves "Finally!" and breath a sigh of relief that they don't have to deal with the issue anymore?
To the extent that the Church of Scientology has any members left, it is an urban phenomenon. Clearwater, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco for Xenu's sake. Big cities tend to be gay friendly, or at least intolerant of referring to gay people as 1.1 covertly hostile perverts. Even Kansas City has a PrideFest.
The big hang up making the changes that you suggest may be the book Dianetics. To my knowledge, Hubbard's text in the book has never been changed (unlike other Hubbard texts), there are a zillion old copies floating around, and the deletion would be obvious and draw comment.
One way to handle the changes required in various texts (including Dianetics) would be stealthily, best buried amongst other changes to a plethora of materials, without comment, perhaps with an Order that all old materials be pulped.
Another way to handle it would be to "discover" that before Hubbard voluntarily dropped his body: (1) he Ordered the changes based on his further research; but (2) evil homophobic SPs hid or destroyed the relevant Orders to deprive gay people of the benefits of Scientology, and to discredit Scientology itself. The RTC Research Team, led by Chairman of the Board David Miscavige, found and verified the pertinent Orders. [Show photos of the Orders.]
The acceptable truth would be that Hubbard was, as always, ahead of his time. He tried to fully open the doors to Spiritual Freedom to gay people, only to be temporarily thwarted by evil, homophobic SPs. Fortunately, Chairman of the Board David Miscavige succeeded Hubbard, investigated an obvious injustice, and was able to fully open the Bridge to Total Freedom to the gay community. It was only his tireless efforts that ensured that Scientology Scriptures were finally On Source and the gay community received justice and freedom as Ron intended. [Standing ovation.]
This explanation could be broadly distributed, or perhaps only internally.
/
Thank you. I may or may not have handled the Church of Scientology's current problem -- i.e., the LGB of LGBT, but you anticipated and handled the problem that the Church of Scientology didn't even know it had -- i.e., the T of LGBT..
Good post. You should offer consulting services to COS senior management, LOL.
The best solution (which you suggested) is the one where it is "discovered" that someone alter-ised Ron's material on gays.
Then there could be a major search project to find everything Hubbard ever said/wrote that might demonstrate that he regarded man as a spirit, not a body. From there it would be easy to jump the gap over to the BIG REVEAL! As you said, Ron was way ahead of his time---when he wrote and lectured about how:
"The being does not have any sex or gender!"
Ron was therefore the first to recognize that there is no gender, only what the being considers. Cut to the axiom about "goodness and badness are alike considerations and no other basis than opinion". Which proves that if one "considers" themselves to be male or female or any of the 123 other gender categories, then they ARE that gender!
Amazing, that Ron!
And sometimes a being changes their sexual gender when picking up a male or female body from lifetime to lifetime! That proves (again!) that Ron respected all gender designations in conformity with what "the being" wishes (considers).
We should all be on cult payroll! LOL
.,