On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> The only real reason for it now is to ensure parental support for
> children. With DNA-based paternity testing, that's also no longer
> necessary.
Bingo. Hopefully, the days of sterile men paying for their wife's affair
are coming to an end.
--
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:16:39 -0800 (PST), Deirdre Saoirse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The reason the state got into licensing relationships can be tracked
>back to the 1700s in England when men left their families, moved to
>another town, and started over. That's the only reason people
>published
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> Well, I think the state should get out of the marriage business
> altogether. That would take away a large part of the desire of
> religious organizations to be recognized by the state in the first
> place. (The other reason is probably priest-pen
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Jenny Brown (was Gable) wrote:
> sometimes gender-balanced, sometimes tending more toward women. It's also
> not constrictive. In general it encouarges learning about other things,
generally speaking this is one reason that I decided that I wasn't wiccan,
rather my/our own b
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:36:00 -0800 (PST), TeknoDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>if you are referring to the ULC they do have a few select doctrines,
>that all basically can be summarized as "the priesthood of all
>believers"...
ULC does have a "doctrine" but it's only there because the states
r
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> I was ordained over the Internet, actually. I am aware that by doing
> so I joined a church. The church I joined has no doctrine and exists
if you are referring to the ULC they do have a few select doctrines, that
all basically can be summarized
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:53:46 -0500 (EST), Bad Mojo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Recognition isn't all bad. It does allow a church the ability to do
>many things important. Tax free contributions, marriage under law,
>etc.
You can get the tax free thing without being a church.
>When you get orda
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> I would never be a member of any church which sought recognition with
> the state as a church, except for a church whose sole reason for
> existing is to obtain recognition from the state. IMO, the act of
> seeking recognition imposes hierarchy and
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:57:25 -0600 (EST), "Jenny Brown (was Gable)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I'm Wiccan; it's somewhat organized, legally recognized, and varies
>from quite traditional to quite liberal.
I don't accept the tag "Wiccan" as defining anything. There are so
many types of "Wiccan
dont know if anyone else has read terry pratchets "Small Gods"
but the one of the things said in the book rings true for me
namely that organisation of a 'religion' tends to kill the escense (sp?)
of it. ( it is a comedic fantasy tho )
things said in jest etc.
Sean
--
"Real Program
> Snarfblat wrote:
> > On a
> > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious?
Yes
> > In my
> > experience, organized religion is a very patriarchial and constrictive
> > environment, which I would imagine, would put off most people here.
> > Is
> > there a near mutual exclusion
11 matches
Mail list logo
