Talk:LGBT issues and Scientology/Archive 1

NPOV dispute

To me, this article seems to be written far in favor of Scientology rather than presenting opposing viewpoints. It's almost a persuasive essay; indeed, the opening paragraph presents that if you read on the allegations are "unfounded." 06:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Offkilter

Piece by piece, Scientologists have been adding to this article. I replaced their puff piece with the original one, with a few edits. It's a struggle to get toward NPOV in articles like this, especially when someone biased thinks that they're actually writing from an NPOV.

The again, perhaps the best way to find out about Scientology is to examine source material such as a book written by L. Ron Hubbard, rather than rely on opinions of web surfers. -Esky

I am not for or against Scientology, but in wanting to research this issue found the article beneficial. Homosexuality as treated by Scientology in the 21st century sounds similar to the way it is treated in other churches. -MV

The Church takes no stance on the issue. You can be gay, straight, up, down, in, out, sideways or celibate, the Church could care less. The article parallels news reporting in placing controversial elements of Scientology Tech alongside other information as if there were some significance. There isn't. The Church could care less if you are gay, straight, up or down or celibate. The Church would treat you in exactly the same way, sell you exactly the same courses, treat you exactly the same way. It is a trivial non-issue, as important an issue within the Church as your race or eye color. There is a little bit of technology that includes information about homosexuality, and everyone reads it as they go along. oh hum. Terryeo 16:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Profoundly wrong. It is next to impossible for homosexuals to advance beyond the basic levels. For example, "OT Preps" seek to correct such "outnesses" as homosexuality. (Renyseneb 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

To say that in the article would need reliable sources that could be cited and quoted, otherwise there's just the Church of Scientology's statements about their position. AndroidCat 22:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried and tried to find solid evidence that the OT Preps contain anti-gay language, but the info just doesn't seem to be out there. (Can't someone ask Tory Christman to divulge what her OT Preps consisted of?)

Personally, regardless of what Hubbard felt about the subject, I think the current CoS probably doesn't want to exclude gays because, after all, they have money too, just like everyone else. And the fact that Cruise and Travolta are their most well-known spokesmen speaks loads.

Finally, this article mentions - but perhaps doesn't stress it prominently enough - that in 1967 Hubbard cancelled ALL previous rules, regulations and polices relating to the sexual activities of Scientologists, and he did it in a Policy Letter, which means if the CoS today were still discriminating against gays, they're squirelling in a big way. wikipediatrix 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How could Hubbard do that in 1967? He stepped down in 1966. (Snort!) I don't see how an editor here could ask an ex-member and then include their statement as a RS. It still has to be a valid secondary source, possibly a quotation in a newspaper story. Personal accounts should be set into a proper time frame—Unless there's something built into the doctrine, CoS's real attitudes over time probably reflect those of general society, with a certain amount of organizational resistance to change—like many other groups. AndroidCat 22:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting we just take Tory's word for it and use that on Wikipedia, of course. I'm just loudly dropping the hint that someone out there should probably find it out and publish it somehow, if for no other reason than I'd be curious to know. And if it was something we could use as a source here, all the better. wikipediatrix 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Current view points

These should be chronological.

I don't see how there can be a current viewpoint. Per CoS policy, Hubbard writings countermand any other opinions. A Scientologist in disagreement with the idea that a homosexual is a pervert could be penalized for squirrelism (the Scientology crime of diverging from Hubbard's writings). There is no "current viewpoint." What there is a PR (public relations) statement. There is no tolerance of homosexuality within Scientology churches (at least as to late 2006). Homosexuality is seen as something that the parishioner is expected to overcome at one point. In 1991-1992 I have seen homosexuals (lesbians) being forbidden to have sexual relations. In addition, a husband was told he should not get masturbated by his wife as Hubbard describes masturbation as detrimental for the mind in Handbook for preclears (it mixes mental pictures). Finally a woman complained of being sent to Ethics (being disciplined) for having had sex with two men at the same time. You cannot rent a room together in the Flag hotels unless married. The church DOES care about sexual orientation (or used to until it started to draw fire or it) --Leocomix 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of mentioning that article that Hubbard's homophobic ideas could come from his son Quentin. When Hubbard expressed homophobic ideas in DMSMH and SOS in 1950-51, Quentin was not born!!! What could be mentioned is teh fact that by 1976, Hubbard was embarrased that his son was gay, showing he had not evolved on that matter in spite of his earlier 1967 statement.

Then again, Quentin was not a mere Scientologist, he was part of the Sea Org which expects a higher moral standard.

Straight dope, my ...

Link was provided offering [quote]The Straight Dope[/quote] on this subject. It is nothing to do with the widely-respected straightdope.com, but instead goes to some kind of new age site with a page called "The straight dope on (etc)". Have provided a caveat to that effect.Garrick92 14:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Straight dope" is a popular phrase, and I don't think anyone would be confused, especially since all one has to do is hover their mouse and look at the status bar to see that the site is "liveandgrow.org". wikipediatrix 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The use of capitals certainly made me think "Ooh, I wonder what Mr Adams has to say on this one?", and I didn't realise till I clicked through (tending to believe that wikipedia is upfront about its links, I tend not to 'hover' on them). Would be interested to hear opinions. Glad to see you left the new scarequotes on, though, anyway. Garrick92 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I put "liveandgrow.org" in the link title so there can be no chance of confusion. wikipediatrix 15:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

'60s?

I recall that John McMaster was homosexual and that this was no problem for anyone. And I vaguely recall people who were in the CoS in the '60s saying that some regarded the CoS as a place that was safe to be gay in. I'm vague on that one, you understand. This present article is a mess, not a survey of the subject - David Gerard 22:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, David. Especially if you take the time to read the article by the homosexual Scientologist posted at the bottom of the article. I get the impression that this entry has largely been molded by the backlash against Tom Cruise. I have no strong opinions about Scientology, since I have almost zero exposure to them other than the media portrayal. I came here to supplement that perspective. I do agree with the person who recommended that the only way to really know the beliefs is to read L.Ron Hubbard. Personally, I am in a PhD program currently and I am a Methodist who has already pretty much settled my spiritual quest --for now, and so I was hoping to skip that level of research, because it is all that I can do to work and keep up with my school reading;-). I have only a casual interest, really. Therefore, I was a little disappointed to not find a more objective and substantive entry.

If you don't have any exposure to Scientology, then why would you offer your opinion AT ALL? Makes no sense to me, except in light of the fact that one of the more subtle methods Scientologists use to indoctrinate people is to pass themselves off as naive observers and to suggest that people pick up the books and read them. Could that be your angle? Hmmmm?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.210.153 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability tag

I came across this article because it is one of the ones that readers of the main Scientology article are told to see. To me it looks like a lot of original research. Has anyone in the mainstream said that "Homosexuality and Scientology" is an notable topic? Have any books been written about the subject? Any articles? For that matter, in all the media coverage of Tom Cruise, who is a Scientologist and rumored to be gay, has the topic of "Homosexuality and Scientology" been mentioned? This article seems to be sourced through primary Scientology sources and some critical sites. I think there is one newspaper story about Hubbard. That information could go into his article. There is also a trivial mention of Scientology's definition of marriage and some rumors about celebrities. I don't think there is enough to make up a WP article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tag most of the other "Homosexuality and x" articles too? AndroidCat 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I do think that "Homosexuality and Christianity" is more important than "Homosexuality and Scientology", if only because there are more Christians in the world than Scientologists. Steve Dufour 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply being in the minority does not make a group unimportant however. I'd be careful about saying things like that about any religious (ethnic, etc.) group. As a more general comment, I would point out that LGBT issues are a major topic in the world today, and that includes how various religious groups view and treat sexual orientation. Aleta 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The ReligiousTolerance.org citation seems awfully notable and reliable to me. And it's specifically about this topic. As for notable, while I realize Google isn't a great measure, searching for "homosexuality scientology" does return 504,000 hits. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

ReligiousTolerance.org is a specialized site for that kind of information. I think that WP should contain some information about Scientology's views of and/or actions concerning homosexuality. However, I don't think the topic is important enough for its own article. Steve Dufour 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I see it as an exercise in comparative religion - it's certainly complementary (and of a piece with) similar article on other faith systems' views on homosexuality. Also, don't forget Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- ChrisO 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In the article on Scientology it is suggested that Scientology is not a religion at all. But here it is treated as a peer of religions that are thousands of years old and now have millions of members. There are a few thousand Scientologists in the world. Their opinions are not that important. Hubbard's can go into his article. Steve Dufour 05:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly enough Scientologists to have a cultural impact. I've removed the tag. Aleta 20:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the cultural impact of Scientologists concerning public attitudes toward homosexuality, gay rights, etc. Thanks. Steve Dufour 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I think you're starting to get into WP:POINT territory here. Please knock it off. -- ChrisO 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No I am not. This article is not about a notable subject. I asked Aleta to explain the cultural impact of Scientologists' views on homosexuality. If someone can explain why this topic is notable enough for a WP article I will remove the tag. Steve Dufour 22:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply on Talk:Homosexuality and Bahá'í Faith. -Aleta 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I second ChrisO's warning of WP:POINT. The Points brought up by User:Steve Dufour are highly inappropriate. Smee 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

You said, if I understand you correctly, that how gay people in these groups are treated is important and that how group members' attitudes might affect the larger society is also important. I agree. However both of these are fairly small groups, compared to the rest of the human population. Do Scientologists and Baha'is have a greater influence on society than other people? Once again, I am not advocating removing any of the information from these articles from WP. It could all be put into other articles if these non-notable articles were deleted. Thanks. Steve Dufour 06:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Where would you like to see the information? I see no reason to move it. Aleta 13:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The information on Hubbard's opinions could be put in his article, if it is not there already. Steve Dufour 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is the intersection of two different projects, moving it without duplicating the information in two places would be difficult (and unneeded). AndroidCat 13:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon and Scientology

Why isn't there an article on this? I am sure that many Scientologists play Pokemon. I am trying to make a point here, but I think that is ok on a talk page. :-) Steve Dufour 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Write one, Steve.--Fahrenheit451 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Shhhhh.... please don't give Smee any ideas ;) wikipediatrix 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientology and homosexuality in media, referenced a Wikipedia article

• Naff, Kevin (May 18, 2007). "When Scientologists attack: Gays should be wary of 'church' that has helped advance the reckless idea that homosexuality can be cured". Washington Blade. Window Media LLC Publication. Retrieved 2007-06-13. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

  Article references the article Scientology, in a discussion of Scientology and homosexuality. -- Would be a good citation and information to add to this article. Smee 18:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

According to the BBC Hubbard's son was gay.

In a BBC documentary, it said that one of Hubbard's sons was gay and later committed suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.25.203 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference?--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's known that Quentin Hubbard was gay. Wikipedia even says so, so obviously if Wikipedia accepts a source that Quentin was gay in another article, then it must be true. ForestAngel (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Scientology and sex

• Oppose Merge. - These are completely different topics and will most likely incorporate a whole set of different types of sources. I do not think they should be merged. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and psychology

Lol, if Scientology denounces psychology and psychiatry so much, then how come L. Ron Hubbard used psychological and psychiatric studies to support his claims? And how come his views on gays sound just like Freud, even though $cientologists like to cite Freud to say that shrinks are stupid and crazy? These guys are such hypocrites! ForestAngel (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

The article has an over-weighting of primary sources, and the primary sources tag should remain until the article is balanced with a significant amount of additional material from secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Homosexuality and Scientology → Scientology and homosexuality — Seems to be the convention. See examples like democracy, hypnosis, celebrities, marriage, psychiatry, and sex. — Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. Per convention of other articles, see examples at Template:Religion and homosexuality. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely missed that. Am i able to close the request or does it have to run its course? Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You can close it. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reputable site?

Why isn't religioustolerance.org [1] a reputable site? Seems reasonably sane to me. Hope somebody has a good answer, because there are loads of BS critical sites and scientology hate group sites used ALL THE TIME in wikipedia as RS and they are no more reputable than this site. in fact, much much much much less so, since they are maintained by avowed critics that want the church outlawed, destroyed and/or fed to lions. ---Slightlyright 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the current Scientology pages of religioustolerance.org are authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor, an official of the Church of Scientology, who appears to be cribbing his text directly from Scientology sites. That seems to be a break from the stated neutral policy of the site. As well, the particular page cited didn't list any author. AndroidCat 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK... I guess that is less than ideal...maybe. So, if I don't care for a single contributor to a website I get to then declare that site Non RS? Is that how it works? I 've been a scn for a long time I know for a fact the church doesn't give a darn about homosexuality unless it worries the person seeking services. Yet this article goes on for paragraph after paragraph about how Scn hates homosexuality or did in the 50s when it was considered perversion by darn near everyone. It is just an attack piece.

Excuse me, but if Hubbard was so fuckin' englightened and such a genius, why did he go along with "darn near everyone" about homosexuality? Seems to me and enlightened genius of a man who is considered the SAVIOR of every human on the planet might have told us, "You know, there are many variations in human sexual orientation, and homosexuality is merely one. It exists in every animal on the planet that has gender, and always has. There is nothing inherently evil, 'wrong,' or pathological about being something other than heterosexual." But did he? No! He went right along with "darn near everyone." Don'tcha think that's a MAJOR problem for the Scientologists? Of course, Christianity has this issue as well, so I guess that DOES make Scientology a religion after all, eh?

The whole article could be reduced to say:

The Church of Scientology doesn't care about the sexual orientation of its parishioners (source). There are several organizations of active Scientologists who are openly gay. (source,source) In the 50s Hubbard held the then almost universally widespread opinion that homosexuality was a sexual aberration and mentioned it in a few of his writings (source, source).

Everything beyond this is just blatantly using Wikipedia as a vehicle to heap ridicule and scorn on Scn.

I know this will seem like a stupid question to all the editors here that hate scientology, but why is the Church of Scientology not a valid information source for information about the CofS's position on homosexuality... it just staggers me, the hatred and bias I find here masked in sincere delusions of NPOV.

This article should somewhere and clearly state the truth: that Scn doesn't care about the sexual orientation of its parishioners. That is simply the truth. Call me crazy, but that should be readily apparent to a reader of the article and it isn't!

OK, I am done ranting now. Thanks for listening. ---Slightlyright 06:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Almost all of the current Scientology pages of religioustolerance.org are authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor, an official of the Church of Scientology"

Source?

What's more! how many singly-authored or co-authored "critical" sites of Scientology that have been used for source in WP can you think of ?---Jpierreg 06:45, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

It is not true that scientology "doesn't care about the sexual orientation of its parishioners". Go by a current "Dianetics" book.

Or become a Sea Org staffer, and tell another male that you think he's hot and see whats happening :-) (That would be "original research", however) --Tilman 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to replace critics claim that Hubbard never revised his basic premise that being gay was a perversion.{{who}} with a text that mentions a current dianetics book, with its exact publication date, and that the "pervert" text is still there, not even with a footnote. --Tilman 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If thats true (I dont have the book) I think it would be fine to say "the 200X edition of Dianetics continues to carry the statement from the original edition (insert the relevant quote)". BabyDweezil 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

religioustolerance.org is not a "reputable" site because its just a private website. These folks haven't been quoted in the media, no academics have written about them, etc. Even Anton Hein (has been written about in an academic article) is more reputable. --Tilman 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just for the record, the above assertions concerning religioustolerance.org were verifiably wrong.
• Looking at google scholar: [2], [3], religioustolerance.org has entered academic discourse, and has been cited by numerous reputable and reliable sources (examples include The Lancet, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Journal of Religion and Society, Nova Religio and others).

Examples of citations in academic books:

• [4] (Apologies to Thucydides by Marshall David Sahlins, University of Chicago Press, p. 312: B. A. Robinson essay included in bibliography)
• [5] (Ethical Studies textbook by Robert Bowie quoting Robinson, p. 187)
• [6] (Freedom's Distant Shores by R. Drew Smith, Baylor University Press, cites religioustolerance.org as a corroborating source [note 19])
• [7] (Wrestling with God and Men by Steven Greenberg, University of Wisconsin Press, p. 293, cites Robinson article on religioustolerance.org)
• [8] (Theological Librarians and the Internet by Mark Stover, p. 145: academic review of theological web resources, berates undergraduates for dismissing the site in a course assignment, because it carried advertising; describes the site's content as a "massive education program")
• [9] [10] (Teaching New Religious Movements by David G. Bromley, Oxford University Press, pp. 296, 307: lists religioustolerance.org among recommended secondary research sources, along with peer-reviewed journals and academic websites)

(The google book links given to the actual pages may decay over time.)

• Press mentions: [11], [12] Jayen466 08:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

religioustolerance.org indeed has real problems with reliability, particularly as concerns the Church of Scientology, which have been heavily discussed on Wikipedia before. This is in no way, shape or form a new issue that just cropped up. Now I myself believe RT.org can be trusted to a certain extent. If RT.org gives me a specific quote that was supposedly said by a particular individual, I can put a fair amount of faith that that quote was actually said by that individual. However, the claims that were being attributed to RT.org in this article require far more than simply the ability to reproduce a quote accurately, and RT.org has in fact shown serious problems in exactly those areas. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So are there any specific facts that you would dispute in this article The Church of Scientology® & homosexuality by religioustolerance.org -- Jpierreg 07:45, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

It doesn't change that it's not an RS. At a brief look,

• It uses this Wikipedia article as a reference. (There was a case of another Wiki article referencing that reference, a circular mess with curious timing.)
• The entry on the Dohring site www.scientologymyths.info is listed as 2005, but the site didn't exist until after 2006-09-20 and soon after that, the entry was back-added to the page. (There may be some good reason for blocking the Wayback archiving bot, but it's awkward not having a record of changes from a neutral third-party.)

If the references listed on that page are reliable sources, why not use them directly? AndroidCat 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should better use a direct source instead when possible. While 2005 instead of 2006 seams just a detail, the reference to WP articles seams only handy to point at other sources as per below quote from Religioustolerance.org"

2005: According to an article in Wikipedia: 7

"In 2005 an article in Source (an official magazine published by the Church of Scientology) featured a male and his 'partner' in a success story about their WISE consulting business."

"In 2005 an article in the New York Daily News suggested that the homophobic writings of Hubbard might have come from his own embarrassment over Quentin Hubbard, his gay son, who committed suicide in 1976. The article cites a spokeswoman for Scientology, 'Mr. Hubbard abhorred discrimination in all its forms,' and that the Church encouraged relationships that are 'ethical'. The spokeswoman said also that the Church had not taken an official position on gay marriage, and that members prefer not to talk about it."

"However, a 2004 article in the St. Petersburg Times claims that the Church defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. This also suggests that gays must remain celibate if they want to be part of the group's clergy." 8

I don't see how such reference to WP here would make the web site less reliable -- Jpierreg 18:25, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

"So are there any specific facts that you would dispute in this article" -- well, that's exactly the point. In the disputed text it is not "specific facts" that are being disputed but rather conclusions. The sentence segment cited to RT.org in the disputed text is "Hubbard's views in the mid-20th Century on homosexuality as a mental illness were consistent with the views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology of that period". We can't take RT.org as a reputable source for such a conclusion, obviously, if we can't take it as a reputable source for what "the views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology of that period" were -- and part of what brought RT.org's credibility as a "reputable site" into question in the first place was RT.org reporting the Church of Scientology's interpretation of the motivations and beliefs of people who were in conflict with the Church, rather than what those people would identify as their cause of action. Obviously given that the Church of Scientology has spent over fifty years publicly and vehemently opposed to "mainstream psychiatry and psychology" (and making frankly inaccurate representations of its beliefs such as the supposed belief that "man is an animal") we really just can't take RT.org as a reputable site for conclusions which require independent evaluation of the views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology, or anyone else the Church of Scientology considers an enemy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders a reliable source in expressing what we can consider the "views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology of a period" ?-- Jpierreg 10:35, 19 February 2007 (GMT)

Subject to the usual cautions inherent in using primary sources, yes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Source

There is a useful source here that could help to address the perceived OR problems with this article, and help balance the article

• by putting Hubbard's view into historical context (he was within the mainstream, which until 1970 considered homosexuality a mental illness)
• covering assertions by Scientologists that he later changed his mind. Jayen466 19:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Full cite:

• Siker, Jeffrey S. (2006). Homosexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 90–91. ISBN 0313330883.

Interesting that this encyclopedia has an independent entry on this exact topic. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ambig

The link to WISE is ambiguous

scientology celebrity

Lawyer statements such as "Mr. Cruise is not gay" mean nothing. It certainly does not mean "Mr. Cruise never had homosexual relations." The lawyer statement should be understood from the scientology belief that homosexuality is an aberration and that therefore nobody is really gay. Scientology Public Relations Officers are drilled to give such answers that seem to contradict a statement but are just a smokescreen. (The classic example being that the practice of labeling people "fair game" is cancelled. Yet records show that it was just the labeling that was cancelled, the actions connected to "fair game" were never cancelled. )