Let's cut to the quick here. This conflict is typical in conspiracy circles. It is often between three parties:
1. people who believe in homosexuality (or even "other" sexuality than the one they instinctively expect/respect) as a legitimate behavior but dismiss or ignore the idea of a sexual agenda
2. people who know there is at least one sexual agenda but dismiss or ignore philosophical musings about how our individual sexual agendas "glutenize" and form gangs of likeminded and allied behavior sets — i.e.; those who ignore sexual dynamics at work on the human race for sake of politeness or propriety or some other form of "appealing to all people"
3. people who know there are many sexual agendas and oppose the ones they believe to be illegitimate or wrong
We mostly exist in the 1 category but apparently we occasionally slip into the 2 and 3 categories here on CluesForum when things get heated about sex.
However, we should be clear. The fakery we oppose is a kind of opposition to a certain
tendency that may manifest as a kind of certain sexuality: the tendency to lie at all costs (or even
for public costs) and this might be traced back to a proclivity that is tied to all sorts of different sexualities when named by cultural understandings of sex; but there is something more unifying still and it's not hetero or homo. Particularly, we end up looking at the human race on any issue and their sexuality might be tied up with one or another agenda: the duality of sadism & masochism vs. equality. Those of us for equality are up against two opposite sexualities that support and feed into each other, which is why we might be losing. Sadism is the flip side of masochism and we see it in our public. The propagandists are the sadists, the willfully manipulated are the masochists. So the honesty and forthrightness we ask of our officials might be considered
a perversion to those whose sexuality is about honesty appearing in particularly intimate arenas only — if ever.
From the perspective of CluesForum, it's very smart to be aware of all powerful agendas
whether we would support them or not. There may even be people on the forum who
privately believe in "perversions" like necrophilic sex, pedophilic sex, incest, etc. etc. — and in the grand scheme of things, "mere gayness" should not be always considered a "slippery slope" to those things that are historically and consistently viewed as the most extreme, forbidden, desperate, predatory or otherwise unsavory desires, from every known culture we can imagine. But if there were some objective divine test that humans could achieve (and I don't think we have seen much evidence humans are actually capable of inventing even an automatic self-inventing machine that could invent such a test) which told us whether any perverse relationship were mutually beneficial and harmed nobody, that was entirely absent of any sadomasochistic aspects, we might not even be brave enough to use it.
I benefit greatly from the public ban on cigarette smoking in public bars. I can now comfortably go out with friends without choking down corporate poison dumps that most urban cigarette smokers consume. (Except all the fumes from literally everything else which health-wise equate to smoking a pack a day or worse). The point is, however, there was and is clearly an agenda against cigarette smokers. And that agenda is, in a sense, a non-consensual forced relationship between the public and the individual. It infringes on my friends' right to enjoy a sacred vegetable. This was and is a
forced cultural change, which stems from ...
somewhere. And we
should come to understand where it comes from if we are to understand the mechanisms of propaganda. There are other hot button issues we have opinions about. Abortion. Cloning. Veganism. Drugs. It's the nature of hot button issues to be the very subjects of propaganda efforts — probably partially
because exercising power on those issues is a
demonstration and re-assertion of existing power structures.
But the master of them all is the extreme hormonal and behavior changes of individuals, which is often demonstrated during the openness of sexual encounters between trusting individuals (for empaths) and the openness of a sexual behavior
upon a situation (for psychopaths); that is, one of the most intense examples of "earnest" behavior is in sex, where pleasure on multiple complex levels harmonize into a behavioral expression. Sex or creativity or other things tied up with certain spiritual/hormonal activities of the human creatures we "live in" and
survive as, in comparison to things that aren't sexual expression (even though sex's motivations prevail and manifest in countless other ways) is both the most private thing and the most public thing in the sense that we respect each other's sexuality at the same time that we are constantly working to countermand, court, avoid or otherwise interact with it in others. It's immensely powerful. Like the magnetic core of people we pass and interact with.
I just don't see two healthy consenting mature individuals loving each other and sticking together through thick and thin and supporting each other as the best examples of human love we know about ... as the worst example of abusing this human power. I would say a more extreme and more disturbing sexual power is that demonstrated by the psychopaths who feel the need to socialize everyone to their rules — regardless of what our rules are or even the rules they are imposing — because their sexuality (or some aspect of their driving force which may be tied to their sexuality) dictates that
imposing something — domination itself — is an expression of who they are. It's a kind of sadistic drive, an egotist's drive, an overactive 'parenting' when it's the most innocuous, and far far more weird when it's at its most extreme. I have no doubt that the Pope is as twisted an example of a human being as we might imagine compared with the public's naive and dainty imaginations about how people operate. To be clear, sexuality need not even be expressed as sex. It can simply be how we describe
drives in general.
So the psycho's need to control others is, in my opinion, a much more pointed sexuality we can target and name, rather than any combined homosexual agendas. Their mental labyrinth might be seen as a
sexuality towards the public, even if you would call it a demented one. I would say most of the psychopaths in charge are pansexual. They have behavior types which drive them to be attracted to overactive stimulation — drug-based, sexual-based, anything. This drives them to extreme hormonal changes more frequently, and this is what gets their rocks off. They would probably laugh at the idea of "homosexuality" as a rather minor outlet for their need for stimulation of all kinds.
The agenda to promote and push sexuality
that doesn't belong to us upon all others — via some top-down government or State or religious decision — is something I am sure everyone can feel and sense is wrong from the egalitarian perspective, and that includes forcing heterosexual preferences on homosexuals. So unless someone is an absolute authoritarian, I would ask us to please tolerate posts that defend people loving one another, and which rightfully point out that homosexuality is
not the same as sadism; indeed, you might point out a large number of failed or distressed heterosexual relationships that are more sadistic — and these sanctioned and enshrined "holy marriages" exemplify the worst psychological tortures two human beings can inflict upon one another, while some of the most stable, happy, loving, humble, thankful and gracious relationships I have ever seen have been some gay couples. And of course, the reverse can also be true. And no marriage is Elysian.
And let's also face it: we humans are very uptight about our own rules, or we wouldn't have created this little web site for "anal"-ysis in the first place. We are all sexual. Even asexual or sexually agnostic aspects of us, as atheism is a kind of spiritual belief system. Let's use it for good and not evil. And if we're going to deny we have it or skirt over the topic, let's not throw sexualities that aren't ours under the bus, lest we become the "sexual colonists" that are ruining so many innocent loving people's lives.
I am sure that even the psychos in charge could get their sadistic rocks off without harming the public good (and without kidnapping, raping, torturing, dolling up and objectifying or otherwise imposing sexuality/individuality by tainting/ruining/destroying the lives of other individuals, as reported by some sources) so much as they do now, and if that's the only thing we ever accomplish as a result of dismantling the mechanisms of unnecessary Statism, propaganda and domination, we will have done good by everyone.
P.S.: Halloween is traditionally a special time of year when the veil between the living world we know and the occult world is thinned, and things are said to be a bit topsy turvy. It is a kind of "trickster" period which elicits tales of times the poor people might have approached the rich's houses and demanded recompense or a nasty "trick" might have been played upon them. In this special time, when unsavory, spooky, ghoulish or
forbidden topics may come to the fore for regular reassessment by a restless public, even tradition itself seems to be in flux. In some circles, it is traditionally a time to
purge and
mock evil rather than give it power. Perhaps, for some communities, it is a time that people are even more "open" to talks of intrigue and "the big picture" subjects many people avoid the rest of the year. Maybe it's a time to talk of reality and fiction and a more
realistic picture can be drawn of which is which, when the festivity of frivolity and consumerism wanes. If there's not any sort of ethereal effect, at least it's a fun excuse to bring up vicsims and hoaxes. So, in the coming nights, may you have a Happy All Hallow's Eve, everybody! (No matter who or what you like to go bump in the night with!)