I don't know, Roger. The LDS indoctrination machine is one of the more efficient operations that exists these days. It seems to supply a fairy tale that is particularly beguiling to a certain type of personality. Once that vision of sugar plums and seven levels of heaven is planted, it seems nearly impossible to uproot.
I'm sure they'd be happy to take your money, though. --Doug On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Roger Critchlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think someone should contribute $30,000,000 to foment a schism in the > Church of the Latter Day Saints based on their internal conflicts on this > issue. > > -- rec -- > > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Orlando Leibovitz < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Owen, >> >> In my opinion the word marriage should not be removed. I believe that >> civil marriage should be available to all consenting adults. Various >> religions can then do as they please. If, in fact, this is a civil rights >> (constitutional) issue then religions that violate civil liberties should, >> at the least, not have 501c3 status. I try to understand but am not >> sympathetic to religious angst about this as I would not be if you >> substituted black, jew, Christian, etc for the word gay. >> >> James, I am grateful to the Quakers for many of the positions they have >> taken. >> >> Orlando >> >> >> James Steiner wrote: >> >> Consider also the relligions that have.supported and do sanctify >> same-sex marriages, without regard for, indeed in spite of, the legal >> status of such unions, e.g. the Meetings of Friends (Quakers). >> >> >> >> >> On 11/9/08, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 9, 2008, at 12:09 AM, Orlando Leibovitz wrote: >> ... >> >> >> In my opinion this is not a marriage issue, it is a civil rights >> issue. >> >> >> And there you have the problem in a nutshell. "Gay marriage" >> confounds the two. >> >> One the one hand, the word "marriage" creates considerable angst on >> gay issues within the various religions. The recent Anglican/Episcopal >> split was largely over gay marriage and gay bishops. This is a >> complex issue where religions have to confront difficult problems >> within themselves. And definitely a church/state boundary. >> >> On the other hand, gay civil rights are clear: they are being violated >> and the strictly civil rights have to be granted immediately. "Civil >> union", however, may be a distasteful term to the gay community. >> >> Most of silicon valley had to deal with this within their corporate >> laws. They all grant gay civil rights by now. They simply had to >> change the concept of "partner" and insurance, spousal rights and so >> on were easily solved. I don't believe religions are concerned about >> this solution. As far as I know, the government does not object, and >> even allows for joint tax filing. >> >> I wonder if the word "marriage" were taken out of the equation, would >> it at least help obtain civil rights for gay couples? >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> -- >> >> Orlando Leibovitz >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> www.orlandoleibovitz.com >> >> Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183 >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
