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 said:
Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.Lovely Mixture said:
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.
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.lemby117 said:
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?).
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?
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.Guiltyone said: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?
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 said:
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.lemby117 said:
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.Lightknight said:
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...
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.barbzilla said:
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.
Believing that marriage is an institution is between a man and a woman with the goal of rearing the next generation (as many people believe and as religions have traditionally taught) is not necessarily hating gays. It is making a statement about marriage itself rather than saying that gays are evil and need to be hurt. That isn't hate speech. Hatespeech requires an element of vilification or call to do harm. Hatespeech is not merely offensive speech. People often confuse the two. The argument I've heard most often is that marriage is "this", not "that". Not that gays are evil and shouldn't have access to it because they're bad or something. Though I'm sure some people do that and those people should be treated like they're committing hate speech. It's no different than saying a blind person is evil for not being able to see like the rest of us.bravetoaster said:
I'll make a side comment right here. Hopefully you're just using ambiguous pronouns here and don't literally mean me when you say "you". I am extremely pro-gays getting this license. My entire purpose for making this sentiment of changing the name is to help people understand that the government has no control over the religious institution of marriage. The two are separate things. That's important, both for religious individuals and particularly for individuals who believe in the practice of separating church and state. So I fully agree that other people getting a piece of paper from the government that says they're married has nothing to do with any religion's marriage ceremony besides the name. However, the marriage license WAS estasblished with the intention of legislating who may be married. Particularly, it was used to prevent black and white people from getting married by the church. To say that the original intention of the marriage license wasn't to legislate religious marriage is a significant error. Today, however, the purpose is a clerical filing of a union between individuals that can be performed by any notary. For example, I like to say that my best man married me as I had him notarize the marriage certificate and not the pastor of the ceremony.
Christians, Muslims, and Jews see marriage as a binding of a man and woman by God. That is "marriage" to them and they are a non-trivial number of people. Their scriptures all maintain that marriage is between a man and a woman. So to tread on this is to dismiss their faiths. To maintain the same name for a license that is no longer used to legislate religious ceremonies is only maintaining that perception. That changing who gets that is opening up the individual's faith to have to accept that. This is creating an uphill battle that doesn't need to be fought. I believe that the marriage license should be done away with and replaced with something like a civil union that everyone (hetero or homo) gets. The same rights as before, just a different name. A rose by any other, if you will.
Too be fair though, Ender's Game is one of the most overtly gay books I have ever read. Little naked boys wrestling each other in the shower...
There is consensus, both scientific and psychiatric, that sexuality is not a choice. This is NOT the same as saying it's there from birth.theApoc said:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdfAmerican Psychological Association said:
(See section 2 for efforts to "change" sexuality).
http://www.outhistory.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ned_Katz:_%22Sex_Is_in_Our_Heads,_Not_in_Our_Genes,%22_April_2,_1995
(Katz, who has done numerous studied himself into the subject, explains why the "Constructionist" argument does not mean that it boils down to choice).
http://www.alliant.edu/cspp/about-cspp/cspp-research-institutes/rockway-institute/experts.phpJonathan Katz said:
(The CSPP lists conversion therapies & claims of "ex-gay" groups as a major field of study for psychological reasons, though recognises the lack of validity in their claims).
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.long
(Above link is supported in this claim by the Journal of Adolescent Healthcare).American Academy of Pediatrics said:
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf
Royal College of Psychiatrists said:
http://www.psychiatry.org/mental-health/people/lgbt-sexual-orientationRoyal College of Psychiatrists said:
(The American Psychiatric Association, distinct from the American Psychological Association which I linked above. In the above link, they state there is "no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy").
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdfMichael King said:
(The above statement is supported also by the Counselling Association Governing Council).Statement by American Psychological Association said:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdfHuman Rights Campaign said:
(Discussion of biological factors aside from genetics by the Royal Society, as well as the persistence of genetic behaviours that seem to be an evolutionary hindrance).
I considered posting this. I mean, male on male kissing, Rose the Nose animating his junk with what I assume is a tablet, and everything else.Mycroft Holmes said:
Pretty much my view, except for your thoughts on changing the name.Lightknight said:
I think the marriage license, as given by a state, needs to be for any combination of individuals. Everyone get's it, and for the purpose of legally binding two sets of possessions etc together, everyone needs it.
From that point onwards, you're married, and according to the state, all who fall under the category are completely, uniformly equal in their rights.
After this point, if you wish for a religious ceremony extra to the legal, state union, according to your beliefs (as formally presenting yourselves for marriage "before your God" is something held in high regard in many religions, regardless of what the state in which you find yourself has already granted to you), then you can make attempt to have one. If you're denied for whatever reason, that's that religious institution's prerogative to do so. Your rights have not been affected as a legally bound couple. You're still married. Besides, where one institution of a religion may deny you, another (example, another denomination of church, another kind of synagogue, another kind of mosque, etc) may have [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_and_loosing"]bound/loosed[/a] their rules of scripture differently, thus accepting the petition for a religious ceremony.
Denying a gay couple marriage for whatever belief/reason in a pluralistic society is wrong, as chances are, they don't hold that same belief / accept that line of reasoning to be correct. Conversely, threatening any religious institution with a revocation of right or licence to marry couples on the grounds of their beliefs not being compatible with the performing of marriage on a gay couple inside a society where the performance/or lack thereof of the marriage has absolutely no bearing on that couple's rights or opportunity for recognised marriage outside of that religious institution, sails incredibly close to the same winds of intolerance, [a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+bigotry"]bigotry[/a], and oppressive force that is found in the people who practice the acts of the first sentence of this paragraph.
TLDR: In my opinion, denying gay couples marriage is wrong. Forcing religious institutions at legislative gunpoint(which is what the threat of marriage performance licence revocation is) to marry a couple that is against their personal beliefs is wrong. Regardless of what irks you in this situation, a fair balance of ruling must be struck for all parties concerned.
I fully agree. If someone's talking strictly about religion, there's no reason for anyone (outside that religion, at least) to get upset over debating who can or cannot marry and under what circumstances.Lightknight said:
Again--very well stated.
I don't know what's going on in Card's head, so I cannot speak to whether or not he thinks being gay makes you evil (anyone who thinks such a thing is simply wrong), but he has argued that, if you are gay, the United States Government should not grant you the right to legally marry the person you love (and thus deny you equal rights under the law). Card's (most infamous?) essay on the matter essentially argued (implicitly or explicitly--I can't recall which and will not intentionally subject myself to such poor writing a second time) that, if you are gay, you cannot raise healthy children, and that the way you feel and who you love does not matter if it's not someone of the opposite sex, and you do not deserve equal rights.
My understanding of "hate speech" is more that it's a specifically "speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate / speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes" (why, yes, I am stealing the NTIA definition from wikipedia), so I doubt Card's rants qualify as hate speech (I'm not a lawyer, can't even pretend to be one, so if someone wants to explain otherwise, please go ahead), but they do illustrate two important things: 1) he's not actually discussing religion (otherwise the government and being able to legally marry would never come up, much less be the main focus) and 2) his "argument" is flimsy and built upon a tower a bullshit.
Correct--I meant "you" as a theoretical person in the example, not you, Lightknight (I don't know you, personally, so I am not going to assume that I know your thoughts, feelings, beliefs, or much of anything else about you). Sorry for the ambiguity.
Here is the FULL context of your quote from the first source provided:Silvanus said:
"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
Reread that statement, and the WHOLE sentence not just the tail end. How you grow up, the types of people you encounter, a plethora of things come into play. Just as they do when people "choose" to like blue over red. Vanilla over chocolate. What seems to be in consensus is that sexual orientation is generally not a conscious choice, but there is nothing stating that anyone person is born one way or another. The fact that once people have made a choice, conscious or not, they are not readily swayed to make the opposite choice does not in and of itself prove the idea that we pop out one way or the other.
Semantics aside. One persons PREFERENCE is no more right or wrong than another persons. SOCIETY determines what is good or bad, acceptable or not. Circumventing the will of the people, NO MATTER HOW MISGUIDED THEY MAY BE, is never the solution. If society decides this should not be an issue, guess what, it won't be. Crying to the Fed to try and force people into acceptance is never going to be the answer and only serves to widen the gap between the sides.
I do think that boycotting Ender's Game is wrong.Lovely Mixture said:
I don't know, maybe it's a cultural thing. For me, boycott is a very strong word. I live in Russia, and although I was born after USSR, I was still surrounded by it's culture as a child and teenager. Much of Soviet movies and literature are naive and propagandistic, promoting blind idealistic righteousness that often included boycotting some poor individual. And oh boy boycotts are SCARRY. It'a a form of shunning, an ostracizing of a person from society. In ancient world exile was considered to be punishment vastly more cruel than death, and only worst of criminals deserved it. So when someone decides that he or she won't pay any money to Card, I can understand that, although personally I think that rejecting Ender's Game, a brilliant book that judges evil of xenophobia and promotes value of empathy, is a big mistake.
But "boycotting" Card because of his religious beliefs, no matter how backwards they are, is something very different. As it was stated by other people in this topic, boycott is something different. It's not a personal choice, it's a societal, сommunal act of deliberately hurting someone.
We are honestly better than that.
I have read the sources I gave; I wouldn't have posted them otherwise.theApoc said:
That is fully in tune with what I said. I never said sexuality is purely nature; I never claimed nurture played no role; I never claimed you're born one way or the other; I never claimed anything of the sort.
I simply said it isn't a choice. On that, there is consensus, and that is completely understandable alongside the entirety of what you just quoted. The APA even state as much. Simply because environmental factors and life experiences may play a role does not contradict this in any way.
Without changing the name of the license people will not understand that the government isn't legislating a religious institution and future laws may be applied which do legislate actual religious practices. Renaming the license to something else like Civil Union (that everyone gets) would side step that issue by means of clarification. It's just a simple disambiguation. The government can't change what religions call marriage, but they can change what they call the union. As long as the two are synonymous we will continue to run into the same problem over and over again because people aren't seeing it as a simple legal union, they're seeing it as a religious practice under attack. Ignorant or not, it has the same effect on both sides. Gays don't get the rights they deserve and the spiritually minded feel oppressed as well. That's a completely unnecessary powder keg just to keep around a religious term and to keep an area where the government appears to be fulfilling the role of church (because this is why the license exists at all, to legislate who can get married).Griffolion said:
And that's part of the problem. Because of the confusion over the use of the term "marriage" for this kind of civil union, people think it is talking about religion. So the ambiguity of the term blurs the line.bravetoaster said:
Thank you! Your posts are clearly thought out and also well-worded.
Implicit is implied, explicitly is direct/blatantly/outright. Here, have a tictac (implying your breath smells). Have a tictac, your breath smells (explicit statement of such).
This is actually a time honored argument. It hinges, as I stated earlier, on the point of marriage being believed to be (by OSC and many others) an institution is between a man and a woman with the goal of rearing the next generation. That a gay couple cannot successfully reproduce at the moment (science has recently figured out how to create an egg from the skin cells of males... so...) is a contention they hold. The common response to this regards couples who are infertile for whatever reason. But that comes back to the man and woman bit.
I maintain that whether or not they're going to openly say it that this comes down to a cultural and religious mindset rather than the intellectual debate they try to pose it in.
If one, as many do, believes the marriage license to relate to the traditional/religious institution of marriage, then one need not bring up religion to still be defending one's religion.
Please bear in mind that my entire argument here is that a marriage license has nothing to do with the religious institution even though people think it is. So of course I believe any argument regarding it to be flimsy just by accepting the faulty premise. People who think this won't come out and say, "I don't want this because my religion is against it." But that's what they're thinking and all just because of how the term is used.