Scientology Cult Supports California Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[Mark A. Baker]

They are pointing their fingers at Mormons.

Some bigotry is okay, it just depends who is doing it.

Hypocrisy in particular is absolutely great, or else all bigotry would be bad.

Again, it depends on who is being the hypocrite.

Mormon & Catholic churches were big players in the politics of defeating the measures. As a result many california residents think they should have their tax privileges pulled for violating IRS rules requiring privileged religious institutions to refrain from political activity in order to assure their tax free status.

Some of us actually believe in separation of church and state, no matter WHAT church.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Matex]

Yeah, well, I can see why people would point fingers at Mormons. Or any religion. Bill Maher's "Religulous" did this to great effect.

They had a great commercial where these Mormons enter a lesbian home, rifle through their things, and tear up their marriage license.

An even better commercial would have state and federal workers breaking in and taking a third of their possessions away. Furniture, appliances, the children's toys.

Taxes are democratically voted on after all.

You can't "own" things, maaaaan.... no more than you can ban the rights of gays!

 

[uniquemand]

uh...

 

[Operating DB]

I lol'd.

Oh, trust me, you don't have to worry about children being taught homosexuality in schools... you know we're already hiding in every corner, lurking on every street, waiting to lure your children away and teach them our wicked ways. And we won't give them the politically correct version, either... oh no. We will teach them what counts. Soon, your sons will learn about pink neck scarves. Your daughters will be shown where to buy Birkenstocks. The homosexual agenda will replace your children's school diaries, and following that, we will even teach them how to fall in love... because there's just no way a teenager could figure that out on their own, right?

But not to fear. Your children are in good hands. After all... we have Clay Aiken.

Well said! This is what the fear mongers of the "religious" right want people to think. They spend an awful amount of time, energy and money at spreading ridiculous false information about gays rather than cleaning out their own heterosexual closets full of perversion and sex crimes or even helping the needy with that wasted money. It all comes down to homophobia. The sky hasn't fallen in Massachusetts or other countries like Canada where gay marriage has been legal for quite some time now.

It's interesting how not just scientology is corrupt but groups like Focus on the Family, American Family Association and similar cultish groups are just as bad and need their Ethics put in. I would love to see Anon protest the more homophobic churches (and yes, the Mormons) in the USA.

 

[uniquemand]

One thing at a time, to result.

 

[Smitty]

I think the gay community went at the concept without a realistic strategy.
First, marriage has an established dictionary definition. Legislation cannot change that. It involves a legally sanctioned relationship between opposite sexes. It was a foolish idea to push the marriage notion for same sex couples and provoke social conservatives into counter action.
If gays would have pushed for domestic partnerships, that had a slightly different legal standing, and opened it up to opposite sex couples as well, they would have been more successful. That strategy has actually worked in some European countries. It probably would work in many places here in the U.S.

 

[Tim Skog]

If there are such things as civil marriages then civil rights should prevail and any two people should be free to have that ceremony.

If a church or denomination does not want to allow "gay marriages" that is just part of freedom of religion. Conversely, if a church wants to allow "gay marriage" freedom of religion also prevails even if it is in a state of the union that has an amendment to it's state constitution that does not recognize such marriages.

Hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will someday rule in favor of gay marriages and end all the small mindedness.

 

[riptide]

I am sure that somewhere buried very very deep (no pun intended) of the LRH archive...

there a exists an LRH scribbling that in no uncertain terms states that homosexuality was invented by Psychiatrists on the Whole Track as a means to suppress the true moral structure of the family and the second dynamic.

Rd00

There was something I read, not sure where, LRH mentions that it's a wonder people aren't any more confused than they re: sexuality due to past track being both sexes so many times. (I'm paraphrasing) From what I read about Hubbard's early activity with Jack Parsons, apparently he was involved in a homosexual ritual.

Not to derail, but I think in the spirit of clear and open and full disclosure, the subject of Scientology including it's founder's past activities, and the organizations criminal acts should not be a taboo subject that is flatly denied by the cult. It only sets them up to appear deceptive and controlling.

Let the subject move forward on the merits of it's workability, I think the fact it's founder had an active and rigorous path of "research" and that it's roots may have included dabbling in the occult, and that he may have engaged in homosexual activities if briefly.

 

[Mouseyhair]

I think the gay community went at the concept without a realistic strategy.
First, marriage has an established dictionary definition. Legislation cannot change that.

Wut?

No, really, wut? That's pretty much the whole point of changing laws. You change the law, you write a new version of the dictionary. It's not a big magic trick.

Gee, remember when marriage was defined as being between two people of the same race?

I live in a country where gay marriage has been legal for nearly a decade. If I decide to marry a girl, I can. If I decide to marry someone with a different skin color, I can. That's pretty good, I'd say.

 

[Smitty]

Wut?
No, really, wut? That's pretty much the whole point of changing laws. You change the law, you write a new version of the dictionary. It's not a big magic trick.

That is definitely your opinion.

Gee, remember when marriage was defined as being between two people of the same race?

No I do not.

 

[thetanic]

It was a foolish idea to push the marriage notion for same sex couples and provoke social conservatives into counter action.

You have it exactly ass backwards.

The conservatives acted with prop 22.
The pro-civil rights activists countered with test cases.
The courts ruled in favor of the civil rights activists.
The conservatives re-acted with prop 8.

The gays and allies did not start this one, and they will not lose it. They lost a skirmish.

 

[thetanic]

They are pointing their fingers at Mormons.

Some bigotry is okay, it just depends who is doing it.

Hypocrisy in particular is absolutely great, or else all bigotry would be bad.

Again, it depends on who is being the hypocrite.

FYI, the Co$ contributed $0 to the yes on 8. So they may have said they supported it, but I didn't find the name of a single high-profile Scn in the yes on 8 contributors.

Mormons, on the other hand, were told that they had to vote a particular way, and had people soliciting them for contributions all the time, and asking them to take call-in shifts. And the LDS church contributed money, as did a number of LDS staffers. There were zero people who were Scn staff who contributed (that I saw, I didn't check one file and I'm too lazy to right now).

As far as this battle's concerned, I'm frankly glad the CoS keeps the Scns all broke, because it means they won't contribute no matter how they feel -- they can't!

Fortunately, the side of religious freedom will prevail, and I'll once again be able to perform civil weddings for same-sex couples.

 

[Wisened One]

Well-said and Mouseyhair!

Gee, remember when marriage was defined as being between two people of the same race?

I live in a country where gay marriage has been legal for nearly a decade. If I decide to marry a girl, I can. If I decide to marry someone with a different skin color, I can. That's pretty good, I'd say.

 

[Wisened One]

Hope this isn't derailing the thread any, but on the gay thing and $cn:

I always thought it was a bit strange how when scn's are so against gays (as it were)..that TC allowed gays to be in the movie Eyes Wide Shut
(I know it wasn't his movie, but still....).

And other people like Kathy Najimy and Leah Remini have been on Ellen Show/in a movie with Ellen about gays, etc...

Whenever I'd see that, I'd always sorta wanna scratch my head at that...

Ohhh yeah, but they're celebs, maybe they don't KNOW what lrh says about gays...

(btw: I'm not against gays at all, never really was).

 

[thetanic]

They know. It's just that Scn has been downplaying the gay thing for public celebrities.

 

[Operating DB]

Did they really do that? Pink stars?

Hitler rounded up the homosexuals and had pink triangles sewn into the left sleeve of their shirts to identify them as such, just as the Jews had a yellow Star of David. Gays have reclaimed the pink triangle and use it as a symbol of pride.

 

[thetanic]

Hitler rounded up the homosexuals and had pink triangles sewn into the left sleeve of their shirts to identify them as such, just as the Jews had a yellow Star of David. Gays have reclaimed the pink triangle and use it as a symbol of pride.

Wow. I hadn't known the origin of the pink triangle before, though I had known of it as a symbol of gay pride. Thanks for the info.

 

[Wisened One]

Yeah, figured as much. They'd have to, considering how many people are gay in Hollywood/celeb world.....

They know. It's just that Scn has been downplaying the gay thing for public celebrities.

 

[Smitty]

reply to Thetanic

You have it exactly ass backwards.
The conservatives acted with prop 22.
The pro-civil rights activists countered with test cases.
The courts ruled in favor of the civil rights activists.
The conservatives re-acted with prop 8.
The gays and allies did not start this one, and they will not lose it. They lost a skirmish.

Thetanic, you have it exactly ASS UPWARDS:
I was not referring to California as you ASSininely ASSume.
That issue was on the ballot in Florida and other states as well.
The scenario I describe did occur in Florida and a couple other states.
Wake up, most of the world does not think in terms of California politics, which is largely ASS backwards.

 

[thetanic]

Wake up, most of the world does not think in terms of California politics, which is largely ASS backwards.

Especially when it comes to a state where the voters can vote to remove civil rights of adults who've committed no crime.

I'm ashamed to be a Californian right now.