Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

[theApoc]

Marriage didn't start as a religious institution, or at least not religious in the sense of belonging to any extant religion. So far as we are aware marriage predates history, and thus any religion we know about. Further marriages in earlier societies, such as in ancient Greece, didn't always require much in the way of the blessing of any particular gods.

Further even if your argument held true, for it to have any validity at all one would also have to deny heterosexual atheists the right to marry - which frankly the US government does not do.

Still further, even after banning atheist marriage you would still have to allow gay marriage in religions which allow it - as otherwise you would fall foul of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Except that the purpose of marriage has always been to join and expand families, consolidate fortunes, resources and control. The tradition of marriage has a very specific and well defined purpose in OUR society.

Marriage is not about religion, the religious aspect stems from a set of beliefs that people of the same sex should not be together in the same way people as the opposite sex. It has been tied to religion, but that is not the central point of the tradition making your point about athiests little more than hyperbole.

 

[barbzilla]

I think what people are getting at with the boycott is that they don't want their funds to trickle down to the anti-gay movement groups. We should tolerate him in the way we treat the subject though (I.E. not throwing vitriol at him or his views), but that doesn't mean people have to support him financially.

I don't think it comes from a place of hate, I think he is a mormon and has those views because he is told that it is against god in his religion. That doesn't make it right, but we should support his right to his religious views at the same time. So, I don't mind people avoiding his material in response, but I do get a bit rankled at people's venomous words about him.

And I don't have a problem with that either (edit: not wanting their money to possibly go towards anti-gay foundations or movements (end edit)), I just don't like people being hypocritical by demanding others be tolerant of their viewpoints while they, themselves, refuse to tolerate the viewpoints of others.

A sentiment I can agree with wholeheartedly. Cheers!

If you look back at my arguments, you will see I admit that marriage as the term predates any modern religions. However, marriage as it exists today (a joining of two people in love) started as an evolution of a pagan rite. I don't really consider what came before that marriage as we know it since it was basically a contract between men for ownership o fwomen.

Then marriage as you define it didn't exist in the US up until about halfway through the 19th century, considering the legal effects of coverture, and the shift towards a more feminist friendly form of marriage where women were not regarded as chattel wasn't a particularly religious one.

Actually both existed, but you are correct that it wasn't until more recent years that it became just the one and not the other.

Regardless of if marriage started as a religious ceremony or as a legal contract, can we not both admit that people seem to view it with a dual nature? One end being the legal contract (the important end from my view point) and the other end being the religious aspect. What I am proposing is separating the two faces of marriage. Giving each face its own term (I don't care which is called marriage and which is not) and removing state control over the religious portion (so that the religious people have nothing to complain about) and removing religious claims on the state portion. This allows for A: churches to marry whomever they choose and B: any two people to be allowed to legally marry. Separation of church and state as intended in the constitution (well as written, not necessarily intended).

P.S. I am still kind of curious as to how what I said would imply that atheists couldn't be married. I'm not trying to be antagonistic with that statement, I am genuinely curious.

If marriage is by its nature a religious institution, then atheists by rejecting the very foundations of most religious authority by definition couldn't get married any more than gay people could. Atheists can't be joined by God, we don't believe in him.

As marriage is a legal institution however, such a restriction doesn't come into play. We can recognise that two people are married whether they got married in a church, a temple or a courthouse.

The problem with your two-name solution is separate but equal is never actually equal. Otherwise it wouldn't be separate.

The best solution of all is the simplest.

"Legally, its all the same thing with the same name. Your church doesn't get to set legal definitions."

The law should be by its nature secular, which is to say what religion has to say on what constitutes a marriage should be irrelevant.

Think of it this way, under Sharia law a Muslim is not allowed to drink - should national law be used to enforce that? No. Because what Sharia law says is irrelevant to national law.

Okay, I see where the disconnect is. I don't intend my two part system to be equal. If someone gets married religiously, it is just that, a religious bond between two people as a promise to their god/gods/whatever. If someone gets married legally, it is just that, a legal contract between two people granting them all of the legal rights due to them. The church marriage would grant nothing other than something people seek by getting married in a church, the legal marriage would grant the legal rights. This way any two people who want the legal benefits of marriage could seek this out without offending any sort of religious extremist church group, and anyone who wants to be married before god, but not be included in some government database would be allowed to do so (provided it is within the church's religious doctrine).

The two are mutually exclusive in my proposed system, thus the need for separate names instead of calling them both marriage. This is basically how it works now, but it follows the same name either way. You can go get married at a courthouse and have all the legal benefits (well some people can, and that is the problem), but not be recognised as married by, say, a catholic church as it wasn't before god (in their eyes). Meanwhile someone can get married in a church, and if they didn't do the legal documents beforehand, it will not be considered a legal marriage and they will not be due the legal benefits of the marriage. All I am suggesting is to separate the names to show the disconnect.

I hope this helps to explain my meaning more thoroughly than I have managed to before, because I don't think we share opposing viewpoints, I just feel as though I'm not expressing mine well enough.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

What.... wait....
*goes and reads songmaster again*...
Yeah, there is definitely homosexuality in there, and it isn't treated horribly (though I can see some minor undertones of negativity, as well as some positive notes). I think you may want to check out his library a bit more thoroughly before tossing words about m8.

I was specifically talking about the Ender series (and the related Bean series). I haven't read outside that universe - which had its apex somewhere in Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide and then went on a long downward slide thereafter. Card's "best" being kinda crappy, I never bothered to read anything else by him, not wishing to deal with frustration and disappointment.

I like his Ender series (other than the terrible 'new' one). The Bean series is pretty awful in comparison, not to mention fairly misogynistic - but that's another thread.

If Songmaster is better about that, then that's fine - it's one of his earlier books, before he started consulting with Nuns, so I wouldn't be shocked by that. However, I'm annoyed enough at the man that, unless I lack other things to read (I'm currently reading Cloud Atlas, since I liked the movie), I don't plan to return to his works.

Edit: Just read the rest of this page. Wow - we're like the only people still discussing Card and his books. For everyone else, this thread is now about gay marriage.

 

[Lightknight]

Except that the purpose of marriage has always been to join and expand families, consolidate fortunes, resources and control. The tradition of marriage has a very specific and well defined purpose in OUR society.

Marriage is not about religion, the religious aspect stems from a set of beliefs that people of the same sex should not be together in the same way people as the opposite sex. It has been tied to religion, but that is not the central point of the tradition making your point about athiests little more than hyperbole.

There is a difference between marriage as a religious institution and the legal/financial ramifications of it.

The marriage ritual is very religious and culturally based. It has always been so with all kinds of practices from the superstitious to the religious encircling it. The rest? That was business. The problem is that the distinction has become blurred, especially with the government calling it marriage and controlling part of it.

What I think we're talking about is a distinction between the ritual/vow/ceremony and the contractual union. Naming the license something else is a very easy thing. Making ignorant people understand the difference? That's a difficult if not impossible thing. As long as the same term as the religious institution is given to the government license, people will continue to think that laws made to change it are laws impacting or being made regarding their actual religious practices. You will get all kinds of people upset that way, not just bigots or anti-gays. Just because you have intellectualized the difference doesn't mean that people as a whole have or even can.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

All in all, I'm really glad to see so much comments separating Card's public persona from his books, and other calmly expressing their views. Whether you think that he deserves tolerance or not, show it, because when tolerance is denied due to someone "not deserving" it really scarry bigotry, the silent, most powerful one is born.

Yes, Card was an asshole. That much won't change. But by discriminating against the discriminator, we change nothing. If anything, we become just as bad as they do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how politically incorrect it is, and the minute we start trying to destroy people for that is the minute we are no longer a free and open society.

And to me, that is more important than any other legal declaration.

Ok. Do you guys really think that boycotting is discrimination? Or am I just reading this really poorly?

I don't mean to say that OSC shouldn't be boycotted by those who feel it is needed, just that if you are going to boycott him for his actions/words, then you should also boycott others in entertainment with his beliefs.

Yeah... I do. And that was never part of the argument.

I hadn't heard of Chick-Fil-A, but now I will never buy from there.
I don't listen to 50 Cent, but I will never give him money.

 

[Ayay]

So the dude got no spine .I dont care what he belives in , thats his right , But not having the balls to stand for it , and in this case just to make money is just low. Well i think his plan will fail, I know i wont give him any money , dont care if the books or movie is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

[bravetoaster]

You do not, in fact, have to tolerate someone declaring that you should be a criminal, because they are not living and letting live. If someone punches me in the mouth, I don't have to say, "Well, that's a fair opinion."

There's a very nice, very old notion I'm rather fond of: that people should be free to do whatever they like so long as they're not infringing on the freedom or rights of others. Card's welcome to be a bigot, but once he crossed the line when he started trying to infringe on the freedom of others; he can go fuck himself.

I like your example, as well, and I'd love to see an OSC apologist try to explain how you should tolerate that person's because they were just physically expressing their opinion that you should be assaulted.

 

[Lightknight]

You do not, in fact, have to tolerate someone declaring that you should be a criminal, because they are not living and letting live. If someone punches me in the mouth, I don't have to say, "Well, that's a fair opinion."

It's a fairly large leap between someone saying gays shouldn't be able to get a marriage license and saying that they should be incarcerated. I'd also posit that with the confusion over the term marriage being synonymous with a longer standing religious tradition (that the license WAS created to control), OSC should be seen as defending his faith, albeit erroneously, rather than trying to attack someone else.

Your scenario is a very different situation if the individual thought you were attacking them.

However, there ARE people who aren't just trying to defend what they feel is a religious institution. People who just hate gays. Nothing OSC has led me to believe he's one of those, but we should certainly come down hard on actual hate speech which this was not.

 

[bravetoaster]

However, there ARE people who aren't just trying to defend what they feel is a religious institution. People who just hate gays. Nothing OSC has led me to believe he's one of those, but we should certainly come down hard on actual hate speech which this was not.

His 'essays' (read: poorly structured, unfocused, inarticulate rants; look them up if you're unfamiliar) and role in NOM, trying to deny gay couples the right to get the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, don't strike you as illustrating that he hates people for being gay? (Or, if not hate, inexplicably and obstinately believes they should not be entitled to the same rights as the rest of the country because they are gay.)

NOM is not a religious organization and OSC's 'argument' was never religious in nature. If it sounds like I'm overstating it, look it up.


Side note: Is there actually some religion somewhere that has its "definition" of marriage being changed? ...and why would that matter? If you think [your deity/whatever of choice] regards you and your partner(s) as a special union, do other people's [holy/spiritual] unions affect yours?
Or is the religious issue simply something like "We have traditionally done X this way and think it would be bad to change it because of Y reason."? If that's the case, debate away. And here's a rather good article: http://religiomunda.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/some-reflections-on-scotus-doma-and-christian-concern/

 

[barbzilla]

What.... wait....
*goes and reads songmaster again*...
Yeah, there is definitely homosexuality in there, and it isn't treated horribly (though I can see some minor undertones of negativity, as well as some positive notes). I think you may want to check out his library a bit more thoroughly before tossing words about m8.

I was specifically talking about the Ender series (and the related Bean series). I haven't read outside that universe - which had its apex somewhere in Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide and then went on a long downward slide thereafter. Card's "best" being kinda crappy, I never bothered to read anything else by him, not wishing to deal with frustration and disappointment.

I like his Ender series (other than the terrible 'new' one). The Bean series is pretty awful in comparison, not to mention fairly misogynistic - but that's another thread.

If Songmaster is better about that, then that's fine - it's one of his earlier books, before he started consulting with Nuns, so I wouldn't be shocked by that. However, I'm annoyed enough at the man that, unless I lack other things to read (I'm currently reading Cloud Atlas, since I liked the movie), I don't plan to return to his works.

Edit: Just read the rest of this page. Wow - we're like the only people still discussing Card and his books. For everyone else, this thread is now about gay marriage.

I can respect that, I have no qualms with people who are uninterested in his work not buying it. I just wanted to point out that he does handle some gay material without being horrible towards them. Not that this excuses his actions and stance on gay marriage mind you.

 

[lemby117]

As for your final statement, I think that the church should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to marry inside their religious beliefs. I also think that the government should have a "legal" marriage or legal joining that should be allowed to any two people who want to be married, granting them all of the legal benefits therein. This means that I support marriage between any couple, I just think that the term is being confused as it is. It has a certain duality about it that needs to be changed. Separating the church and the state portions of marriage is how I think this could be accomplished.

See m issue with this is that it puts the church above the law, if I own a shop I can't say i refuse to serve gays or I refuse to serve blacks. Why? Because that's bigoted, discriminatory and I am infringing on the rights of people. However if the church decide to say that they wont marry gays then thats A-OK because it's "Traditional" how about we see if a church would get away saying they wont marry interracial couples? Because that is in escence what they are doing to gay people.

 

[barbzilla]

All in all, I'm really glad to see so much comments separating Card's public persona from his books, and other calmly expressing their views. Whether you think that he deserves tolerance or not, show it, because when tolerance is denied due to someone "not deserving" it really scarry bigotry, the silent, most powerful one is born.

Yes, Card was an asshole. That much won't change. But by discriminating against the discriminator, we change nothing. If anything, we become just as bad as they do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how politically incorrect it is, and the minute we start trying to destroy people for that is the minute we are no longer a free and open society.

And to me, that is more important than any other legal declaration.

Ok. Do you guys really think that boycotting is discrimination? Or am I just reading this really poorly?

I don't mean to say that OSC shouldn't be boycotted by those who feel it is needed, just that if you are going to boycott him for his actions/words, then you should also boycott others in entertainment with his beliefs.

Yeah... I do. And that was never part of the argument.

I hadn't heard of Chick-Fil-A, but now I will never buy from there.
I don't listen to 50 Cent, but I will never give him money.

In that case my argument doesn't apply to you personally. If you are up to date on hypocrisy and anti-gay supporters and actively avoid those parties, then you are not being hypocritical yourself and not part of the problem I was targeting. So, good on ya.

As for what you were saying to the others, I do think that some people feel that boycotting is discrimination (not personally, just trying to interpret what I've read so far). As to the why of it, they feel that refusing to separate the work from the worker places undue stress on the work itself. I suppose if the work was a collaboration (such as movies) then that would be a different matter to me, but since this is a case of an author who's work is his own I don't think it applies.

 

[barbzilla]

As for your final statement, I think that the church should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to marry inside their religious beliefs. I also think that the government should have a "legal" marriage or legal joining that should be allowed to any two people who want to be married, granting them all of the legal benefits therein. This means that I support marriage between any couple, I just think that the term is being confused as it is. It has a certain duality about it that needs to be changed. Separating the church and the state portions of marriage is how I think this could be accomplished.

See m issue with this is that it puts the church above the law, if I own a shop I can't say i refuse to serve gays or I refuse to serve blacks. Why? Because that's bigoted, discriminatory and I am infringing on the rights of people. However if the church decide to say that they wont marry gays then thats A-OK because it's "Traditional" how about we see if a church would get away saying they wont marry interracial couples? Because that is in escence what they are doing to gay people.

How would this put the church above the law? It would completely separate the two acts. What churches do would no longer be connected with what a legal marriage is (though I imagine that many people would seek both). Since churches are allowed to have their own belief structures, it is already allowed for them to bypass some discrimination laws. That is a completely different matter though.

For the sake of this argument lets say that my idea comes to pass. We call legal marriage marriage, and church marriage holy moly joining ritual (or HMJR for short). From that point on any two people who want to get married could legally get married in whatever courthouse they want, meanwhile people seeking HMJR could get married at any church that accepts them. It would be two completely separate entities, and not related to legal jurisdiction as it is religious doctrine and protected by law.

I hope this manages to make this a bit more clear.

Edit: To further clarify, let me state what each action would allow.

A: Marriage
Allows a legal joining between two people giving them all the legal benefits and penalties due to a married couple.

B: Holy Moly Joining Ritual:
Allows two people to be joined in the eyes of the church they are members of. To allow them to be together without sin (or whatever that particular religion believes).

2nd Edit:
Some churches already refuse to marry interracial couples (as I found out myself recently). On top of that, in Florida a business has the right to refuse service to anyone. That doesn't mean that they won't get buried under bad PR if they refused a single racial group, but from a legal standpoint they can, provided they don't do it in a hateful manner (kind of screwed up huh?).

 

[Guiltyone]

Regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter, i would like to say that OSC's case is so bizarrely strange and ethically interesting.
Here we have an author who wrote some of the best sci-fi books ever. This books are, essentially, about how evil intolerance, xenophobia and resulting miscommunication are, and teach readers to be empathetic to others and open to things and people whom you don't necessarily understand.
But the author himself is a stone cold homophobe.
Also he is a internationally prized sci-fi author who is also a creationist.
Is this insane or what?

 

[barbzilla]

Regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter, i would like to say that OSC's case is so bizarrely strange and ethically interesting.
Here we have an author who wrote some of the best sci-fi books ever. This books are, essentially, about how evil intolerance, xenophobia and resulting miscommunication are, and teach readers to be empathetic to others and open to things and people whom you don't necessarily understand.
But the author himself is a stone cold homophobe.
Also he is a internationally prized sci-fi author who is also a creationist.
Is this insane or what?

It would make a rather interesting case study for an up and coming psychiatric profiler. I have to wonder if this is a case where the book ideas didn't come from him originally, but since he was the better writer he wrote them. I've seen nothing to suggest this (other than the disconnect between his personality and his books), but it would be an interesting tale if nothing else.

 

[lemby117]

As for your final statement, I think that the church should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to marry inside their religious beliefs. I also think that the government should have a "legal" marriage or legal joining that should be allowed to any two people who want to be married, granting them all of the legal benefits therein. This means that I support marriage between any couple, I just think that the term is being confused as it is. It has a certain duality about it that needs to be changed. Separating the church and the state portions of marriage is how I think this could be accomplished.

See m issue with this is that it puts the church above the law, if I own a shop I can't say i refuse to serve gays or I refuse to serve blacks. Why? Because that's bigoted, discriminatory and I am infringing on the rights of people. However if the church decide to say that they wont marry gays then thats A-OK because it's "Traditional" how about we see if a church would get away saying they wont marry interracial couples? Because that is in escence what they are doing to gay people.

How would this put the church above the law? It would completely separate the two acts. What churches do would no longer be connected with what a legal marriage is (though I imagine that many people would seek both). Since churches are allowed to have their own belief structures, it is already allowed for them to bypass some discrimination laws. That is a completely different matter though.

For the sake of this argument lets say that my idea comes to pass. We call legal marriage marriage, and church marriage holy moly joining ritual (or HMJR for short). From that point on any two people who want to get married could legally get married in whatever courthouse they want, meanwhile people seeking HMJR could get married at any church that accepts them. It would be two completely separate entities, and not related to legal jurisdiction as it is religious doctrine and protected by law.

I hope this manages to make this a bit more clear.

I understand what your saying and in the UK we have that to an extent with civil services and all that shit but what I'm saying is that while it is illegal for most institutions to refuse services because of somebody's sexual alignment it is seemingly okay for the church to do it. As I said before if the church refused to marry somebody because they were black there would be uproar but if they refused to marry someone because they are gay that is acceptable somehow?

 

[barbzilla]

As for your final statement, I think that the church should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to marry inside their religious beliefs. I also think that the government should have a "legal" marriage or legal joining that should be allowed to any two people who want to be married, granting them all of the legal benefits therein. This means that I support marriage between any couple, I just think that the term is being confused as it is. It has a certain duality about it that needs to be changed. Separating the church and the state portions of marriage is how I think this could be accomplished.

See m issue with this is that it puts the church above the law, if I own a shop I can't say i refuse to serve gays or I refuse to serve blacks. Why? Because that's bigoted, discriminatory and I am infringing on the rights of people. However if the church decide to say that they wont marry gays then thats A-OK because it's "Traditional" how about we see if a church would get away saying they wont marry interracial couples? Because that is in escence what they are doing to gay people.

How would this put the church above the law? It would completely separate the two acts. What churches do would no longer be connected with what a legal marriage is (though I imagine that many people would seek both). Since churches are allowed to have their own belief structures, it is already allowed for them to bypass some discrimination laws. That is a completely different matter though.

For the sake of this argument lets say that my idea comes to pass. We call legal marriage marriage, and church marriage holy moly joining ritual (or HMJR for short). From that point on any two people who want to get married could legally get married in whatever courthouse they want, meanwhile people seeking HMJR could get married at any church that accepts them. It would be two completely separate entities, and not related to legal jurisdiction as it is religious doctrine and protected by law.

I hope this manages to make this a bit more clear.

I understand what your saying and in the UK we have that to an extent with civil services and all that shit but what I'm saying is that while it is illegal for most institutions to refuse services because of somebody's sexual alignment it is seemingly okay for the church to do it. As I said before if the church refused to marry somebody because they were black there would be uproar but if they refused to marry someone because they are gay that is acceptable somehow?

See my previous edits, but the short of it. In the US (or Florida at least) a business can refuse service to anyone they wish to. That doesn't mean they won't get a crap ton of bad PR for it, but they can get away with it legally. As for churches, some do refuse certain racial groups or interracial couples. I was recently refused by my fiance's parents' church because we are interracial. Needless to say, her parents no longer go to that church.

 

[theApoc]

There is a difference between marriage as a religious institution and the legal/financial ramifications of it.

The marriage ritual is very religious and culturally based. It has always been so with all kinds of practices from the superstitious to the religious encircling it. The rest? That was business. The problem is that the distinction has become blurred, especially with the government calling it marriage and controlling part of it.

What I think we're talking about is a distinction between the ritual/vow/ceremony and the contractual union. Naming the license something else is a very easy thing. Making ignorant people understand the difference? That's a difficult if not impossible thing. As long as the same term as the religious institution is given to the government license, people will continue to think that laws made to change it are laws impacting or being made regarding their actual religious practices. You will get all kinds of people upset that way, not just bigots or anti-gays. Just because you have intellectualized the difference doesn't mean that people as a whole have or even can.

Indeed it is culturally based. Which is why I believe you cannot legislate its interpretation. There is no legal reason that I can think of why I as an individual should not be able to partner with anyone I choose from a legal standpoint. THAT kind of support and cooperation, regardless of the reasons for such a partnership will always benefit society.

Ceremonial marriage, while tied to the process of a legal union, does not actually create that union(an actual license is what truly matters, the ceremony is a formality and a religious official ends up being little more than a notarized witness of the bond).

So, the key to this argument IMO is as you said, separating the legal aspect from the ceremony. So fighting for gay-MARRIAGE to me becomes little more than a pointless quest for acceptance, and THAT is where I find fault in the whole idea of "gay rights". Laws are not meant to force acceptance, they are meant to enforce compliance. And while a religious official CAN marry two people, they are not the only conduit for people to get married, thus a church refusing to marry same sex couples is NOT discriminatory and should not be looked at as such.

What people are upset about, regardless of their acceptance, is the idea that they HAVE to agree with someone else's lifestyle. That they have to accept someone else's beliefs above their own. No one gives a crap about who can visit you in the hospital, or file taxes with you.

I am so tired of the whole, being gay is not a choice. WHAT? Of course it is. Being straight is a choice, being a Morman is a choice. Everything we do in life is about choice. We are born blank slates and OUR perception of beauty and companionship develops based on our experiences. Saying someone is born gay is no better than saying they are born with a disease. Being gay is not a disease anymore than being straight is the cure.

Laws are made to NEGATE the need for universal acceptance, something that anyone who has experienced racism post civil rights movement can easily attest to...

 

[lemby117]

As for your final statement, I think that the church should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to marry inside their religious beliefs. I also think that the government should have a "legal" marriage or legal joining that should be allowed to any two people who want to be married, granting them all of the legal benefits therein. This means that I support marriage between any couple, I just think that the term is being confused as it is. It has a certain duality about it that needs to be changed. Separating the church and the state portions of marriage is how I think this could be accomplished.

See m issue with this is that it puts the church above the law, if I own a shop I can't say i refuse to serve gays or I refuse to serve blacks. Why? Because that's bigoted, discriminatory and I am infringing on the rights of people. However if the church decide to say that they wont marry gays then thats A-OK because it's "Traditional" how about we see if a church would get away saying they wont marry interracial couples? Because that is in escence what they are doing to gay people.

How would this put the church above the law? It would completely separate the two acts. What churches do would no longer be connected with what a legal marriage is (though I imagine that many people would seek both). Since churches are allowed to have their own belief structures, it is already allowed for them to bypass some discrimination laws. That is a completely different matter though.

For the sake of this argument lets say that my idea comes to pass. We call legal marriage marriage, and church marriage holy moly joining ritual (or HMJR for short). From that point on any two people who want to get married could legally get married in whatever courthouse they want, meanwhile people seeking HMJR could get married at any church that accepts them. It would be two completely separate entities, and not related to legal jurisdiction as it is religious doctrine and protected by law.

I hope this manages to make this a bit more clear.

I understand what your saying and in the UK we have that to an extent with civil services and all that shit but what I'm saying is that while it is illegal for most institutions to refuse services because of somebody's sexual alignment it is seemingly okay for the church to do it. As I said before if the church refused to marry somebody because they were black there would be uproar but if they refused to marry someone because they are gay that is acceptable somehow?

See my previous edits, but the short of it. In the US (or Florida at least) a business can refuse service to anyone they wish to. That doesn't mean they won't get a crap ton of bad PR for it, but they can get away with it legally. As for churches, some do refuse certain racial groups or interracial couples. I was recently refused by my fiance's parents' church because we are interracial. Needless to say, her parents no longer go to that church.

Oh wow I did not realize that that could still happen in the US, that does certainly put a different spin on the legal side of it I guess. And I am sorry to hear that about your fiance's parents' church. I guess that if that's the situation in the US then perhaps less sweeping changes are in order when it comes to issues such as these.

I guess I just find the refusal of a christian marriage towards homosexuals irritating because of the fact that while most churches would marry me no questions asked, I am almost a zealot in my opposition to organised religion, where as one of my good friends is gay and I have never met somebody more devoted to Christianity.