Kudos Mike. You’ve tackled very well an extremely difficult scenario to explain. ie The truth of how an operating Scientologist’s mind actually works. They are not generally bad people, in fact they are quite the opposite for their intentions are based on good things. However, instead of expanding Scientology as they insist they are doing, they are actually shrinking and destroying it, and all the while the “help” button is in BIG NEON LIGHTS flashing away in their minds. They are so out of communication with life it stings!
Maybe the simplicity of why a Scientologist lies has to be lived and then rejected as lies before it can be understood. Like a lot of things in life one has to experience it first hand in an operating environment to grasp it. Intellectual understanding is not all that successful in the real world and favors ivory tower behavior. What strikes me as the insanity of a Scientologist, is the evidence. What must a Scientologist reject or suppress with their own sense of right and wrong when they see an empty Org (that they paid for). They lie to themselves just as much as they will lie to anyone else.
The more I see and read of the effect of Hubbard’s Policy letters by the ex-management and HCO departmental SO on this site the more clarity of the insanity and knee jerk reaction that Scientology was founded upon as a group. I happen to like some of the tech and like to see people unburden themselves of personal upsets etc but the operating climate devised for Scientology is extremely bigoted.
The critical point for the marriage debate is that every same-sex pair, without exception, is certainly and irreparably incapable of natural intercourse, and therefore certainly and irreparably incapable of exchanging moral rights in relation to each other for actions which by their nature are ordered to the procreation of children. Another way of approaching this truth is to say that every woman is in a condition analogous to relative impotence regarding every other woman, and every man is in a condition analogous to relative impotence regarding every other man. The same man may be perfectly potent in relation to a woman, and therefore capable of marriage in principle, yet with every other man there is something like the impediment of relative impotency. I say “something like” because the categories of potency and impotency are conceptually and traditionally proper in reference to male-female relationships. Nevertheless, speaking of a condition analogous to relative impotency between all persons of the same sex seems very suitable not only for illustrating why same-sex “marriage” is impossible but also for responding to charges of bigotry or animus for those who recognize that impossibility.