Repost: Scientology Homosexuality

Sorry,

I won’t find the time to answer all emails today (but I’ll try by tomorrow, I promise). For starters, here is an article from Scientology Myths that should give some answers:

 

Q: Is Scientology against homosexuality?

There was some early writings that appeared to be “anti-gay”, stating that homosexuality was covertly hostile. But one must look at that in the context of the times. In the 1940s – 1950s most people in western countries did consider homosexuality to be a mental or even physical illness.

I do not have any knowledge or evidence of anti-homosexual actions taken by the church at any point, other than the few writings on the subject. It was pretty much left alone for many years.

Then in 1967 Hubbard issued a policy which reads, in part, “It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or to attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition… Therefore all former rules, regulations and polices relating to the sexual activities of Scientologists are cancelled.”

Hubbard later released a book about ethical behavior that was silent on the subject of homosexuality, and offered a gender-neutral ethical guidelines about being faithful to one’s partner and avoiding promiscuity.

The Church of Scientology is a leading proponent for human rights for all people of earth as can be seen by their campaigns with Youth for Human Rights and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights.

16 Comments

  1. How is it irrelevant to this topic if Ron is talking about staff members and not gays in gerneral?
    Post the rest of that reference.
    You and I know for a fact Scientology is against gays.
    If a male wanted to marry another mail in the Sea Org ….LMFAO…you know it wouldn’t be allowed.

    Can’t keep me shut up can you. I’ll be here exposing your lies.

  2. Now, I’m a little bit confused. You said:

    “Then in 1967 Hubbard issued a policy which reads, in part, “It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or to attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition… Therefore all former rules, regulations and polices relating to the sexual activities of Scientologists are cancelled.””

    You state, correctly, that this was in 1967.

    However, a decade later, Hubbard said:

    “The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II [i.e. sexuality] such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Kraft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically… he is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also far from normal and extremely dangerous to society…” (Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, pp. 122–123. Church of Scientology of California, 1978 edition)

    Is this case of where the “policy” was cancelled, but the beliefs and statements still (clearly) continued?

    As an nteresting note:

    In the 40’s, Hubbard was in an leaving the military, where sodomy and homosexuality were against the uniform codes. Initially, homosexuality was seeminly not permitted within Scientology. This is supported by Hubbard’s 1951 book “Handbook for preclears”, which defined homosexuality as a perversion by people that “can’t practice love”.

    In 1967, Britain Legalized homosexuality. This is the same year that Hubbard did issued the second memo, and the same year that he was sailing in the Mediterranean (near, of course, Britain)

    Surely you would agree then that this particular belief system was entirely driven (and eventually reversed) by the opinion or climate of others?

  3. “Comment by truth rules on October 31, 2009 1:13 am
    This is another shore story. That reference is not talking about gays in any way. It was a paragraph pulled out of context. Why don’t you post the rest of that reference Lou?”

    The rest of the policy letter talks about staff members, which is irrelevant in this context. As you are the one knowing everything better, why don’t you back up your criticism with some facts?

    – L

  4. This is another shore story. That reference is not talking about gays in any way. It was a paragraph pulled out of context. Why don’t you post the rest of that reference Lou?
    Ron clearly places all gays at the tone level of 1.1. Which is a “lower” tone. And if you have ever been around Scientologists years ago it was wide spread hate for gays. They were looked at as out ethics and in need of auditing to fix their homosexuality.
    Now it’s just an effort to cover that same exact idea up. But the hate still exists.

  5. So… we can all agree that Hubbard, and his writings, were not flawless? That he was wrong, at least at certain points in his life?

  6. I disagree, but we each have a right to our assessment, I suppose.

  7. I think he did not care much about the subject. And, if you would read the actual Hubbard book of that time, he a) says clearly that this all is work in progress and not final and b) you would realize that Dianetics/Scientology is neither pro nor anti-gay.

    – L

  8. Correction, should have read “ahead of HIS time”

  9. “There was some early writings that appeared to be “anti-gay”, stating that homosexuality was covertly hostile. But one must look at that in the context of the times. In the 1940s – 1950s most people in western countries did consider homosexuality to be a mental or even physical illness.”

    So that makes hubbard’s writings, and position of the time okay? because other people were doing it? I thought he was ahead of this time…

  10. Damage control? :)

    Well, he is rather well known for his support of human rights, and is well respected and decorated for his work. True or not, surely you won’t deny that this will have wide-reaching implications. I mean, every major news outlet is discussing the issue.

    His biggest complaint appeared to be the apparent consent of the issue, claiming that he asked Tommy to talk to them, who said he would, but never did. Is this, at least, possible?

    • Actually that goon in San Diego that supported Prop 8 was off the list within 48hrs or so (“the list” being the prop8 website that has the supporters listed). It was not even the Church organization there supporting Prop 8. Given that fact, there was nothing for Tommy to do.

      – L

  11. I don’t think Paul Haggis had his “coming out” because of the “gay issue”. That’s just finger pointing and blowing hot air. He wasn’t a Scientologist for years. He now said (or his publisher) that the resignation was not meant to be public (quite telling on the quality of his friends), so I guess he wanted to give shit to someone, thinking it is kept private.

    – L

  12. It seems the concern is that Scientology hasn’t come out and said, “Hey, we are a pro human rights organization, thus they do not speak for us. ” It seems like that was all Paul Haggis was looking for, and never got.

  13. Yes, “my” San Diego organization was out of line.

    Ask five Scientologists and you probably will get five very different opinions about gay marriage or homosexuality in general. This story is blown out of proportion. Some guy in San Diego, a Scientologist, supported Prop 8. It became “the Church of Scientology San Diego” and now “everything Scientology”. Propaganda at its best. I am just sorry that the LGBT movement got smeared by Haggis into believing he would take a stance to support them. He does not. He is abusing them in his personal sour fight against the Church of Scientology.

    So much hot air about nothing.

    – Louanne

  14. Screenwriter Paul Haggis recently left scientology because of the organizations refusal to condemn its San Diego location for its support of California’s Proposition 8.

    Given the tone of this update, could you clear the air about this? Was your San Diego organization out of line?

  15. And this one: http://www.humanrights.com

    – L


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos