TOTALLY GEEKED!

huskerbb · Guru

RE: Ministers Must Conduct Same Sex Weddings or Go to Jail

WYSIWYG · Guru

The difference is that that is a Church. It's not a storefront business.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
The difference is that that is a Church. It's not a storefront business.

The location doesn't matter. Catholic priests wouldn't marry two people outside of the faith at the local country club, either.

huskerbb · Guru

Besides, with your little diatribe of "there is no way to reasonably justify discrimination" you FAILED to make an exception for churches. Do I need to go back and remind you of what YOU posted.

Similarly, if we can make an exception for churches, then there is NO WAY that MINISTERS of a church, whether they are in the church or not, should not also be treated in that same light.

huskerbb · Guru

You aren't asking them to be DJ's, or cater the event--you are asking them to perform a RELIGIOUS RITUAL that is in direct conflict with their beliefs.

It's like asking a rabbi (or whomever does them in the Jewish faith) to circumcise a non-Jew.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I believe they are being asked to perform a LEGAL ritual.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
I believe they are being asked to perform a LEGAL ritual.

No. You are dead wrong. If that is what they are asking--then they don't need a minister. They can go to the courthouse. The ONLY reason to have a minister perform the wedding is for the religious aspect.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

A LEGAL ritual can be done by a Justice of the Peace. A religious ritual is....religious.

huskerbb · Guru

One of the first things a minister tells those he is going to marry is that a wedding is, first and foremost, a church service. A church service is religious in nature.

If one does not believe it is religious--then they don't need a minister to marry them. Pretty much every county in the nation has a courthouse--including one right across the street from the CHURCH in question here.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

just Czech wrote:
A LEGAL ritual can be done by a Justice of the Peace. A religious ritual is....religious.

Yeah, again, I don't get it. If you just want to get married then have a JOP. Or find a minister who agrees with your beliefs.

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
just Czech wrote:
A LEGAL ritual can be done by a Justice of the Peace. A religious ritual is....religious.
Yeah, again, I don't get it. If you just want to get married then have a JOP. Or find a minister who agrees with your beliefs.

It's because they don't really care about "rights". Even their own rights are really secondary to the agenda of taking away rights of others.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I keep hearing about rights. Rights rights rights. I don't have the right to get married in a Jewish church. I am not Jewish. A Jewish minister wouldn't even marry NOT in a Jewish church. For instance, in a public park. I don't have the right to have a Catholic wedding. A Priest will not marry me in a Catholic church because I am not Catholic. I couldn't even get a Priest to marry me in a park because I am not Catholic. We don't all have the right to have whatever we want and force our choices on whomever we want. Life just doesn't work that way.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"A LEGAL ritual can be done by a Justice of the Peace. A religious ritual is....religious" - just Czech

True. Or it could be done by a business that offers the specific legal service. A business such as a Wedding Chapel could perform the legal ritual.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"A LEGAL ritual can be done by a Justice of the Peace. A religious ritual is....religious" - just Czech

True. Or it could be done by a business that offers the specific legal service. A business such as a Wedding Chapel could perform the legal ritual.

No. That's not what they do. They perform the religious ritual, as well. That's why they have ministers.

If all they want is the legal ritual--they can go to the courthouse across the street.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Tuesday 21st of October 2014 11:21:49 PM

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"A LEGAL ritual can be done by a Justice of the Peace. A religious ritual is....religious" - just Czech

True. Or it could be done by a business that offers the specific legal service. A business such as a Wedding Chapel could perform the legal ritual.

A marriage ceremony is not performed by a "business". It is performed by a person - in this case a MINISTER. And this particular minister provides a RELIGIOUS wedding service.

ed11563 · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
I keep hearing about rights. Rights rights rights. I don't have the right to get married in a Jewish church. I am not Jewish. A Jewish minister wouldn't even marry NOT in a Jewish church. For instance, in a public park. I don't have the right to have a Catholic wedding. A Priest will not marry me in a Catholic church because I am not Catholic. I couldn't even get a Priest to marry me in a park because I am not Catholic. We don't all have the right to have whatever we want and force our choices on whomever we want. Life just doesn't work that way.

Perhaps I could point out that there's no such thing as a Jewish church or a Jewish minister.

Spouse and I were married by a Rabbi in a big meeting room in a very nice hotel.

Any Jewish service or ceremony or ritual can take place anywhere there is a "minion", which is a group of 10 or more Jewish men. That can be in a building (ANY building), or in a park, or a forest, or on a beach or a ship or an airplane (although that would be unusual).

I don't think it would be easy to convince a Rabbi to perform a wedding ceremony for two people who were not Jewish.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I MEANT Rabbi and I believe it was clear what I meant. And if gays can sue to get religious ceremonies done by religious people then I should be able to sue to get a Rabbi to marry me. Same exact thing.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

It's funny how Jewish people don't want their rights trampled on but it's perfectly okay for them to support Christian ministers going against their religion.

ed11563 · Guru

In this country, anyone can sue anyone else for virtually anything. But this situation is nonsense and un-American.

Jews don't go to Priests to get married, Catholics don't go to Rabbis, and at this point it's clear that there are plenty of gay Priests.

But it makes no sense to try to force this issue.

I can't imagine someone doing their job with pride when they've been coerced into it.

ed11563 · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
It's funny how Jewish people don't want their rights trampled on but it's perfectly okay for them to support Christian ministers going against their religion.

I'm sure there are Christian ministers who are gay. Likely about 10% are gay, just like the rest of the population.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

10% of the population is not gay. You need to recheck your calculations. I've done a lot of research on this and talked to a lot of doctors about it. The figure is more like 1-3% and that includes bisexuals. It's up to five percent if you count all of the LGBT community like transexuals, transgenders, and cross dressers. Even a recent HUGE government study was released supporting those numbers. And no, I'm not posting it because I posted it in another thread. You chose to ignore it then and you'll ignore it now.

When I posted it Dona made the comment that she didn't believe that statistic because there were seven gay people living in her house. My theory is that gay people tend to congregate in one area with other like minded people. Just like most people do. I don't deny that their are sections of the country in which there are a high gay population. But overall, if you look at the country AS A WHOLE, the statistics bear this out.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Most google searches say 1-3 percent.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Most google searches say 1-3 percent.

Thank you! I have read multiple research papers that put it at 1-3%. Even an extensive government research project. I don't think the Department of Health and Human Services has a dog in this fight. I've also talked to doctors and psychologists. They all agree that the number is about 1-3%. It goes up to five if you add the fringe of the LGBT society.

ed11563 · Guru

I don't want to argue over statistics. My point is that gay/lesbian couples should have no trouble finding someone to perform their marriage ceremony, without forcing anything on anyone.

And forcing someone to perform a service, or bake a cake, or rent space for an event, goes against the Free Enterprise basis for our economy.

Definitions and statistics from Kinsey's research:

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

Incidence versus prevalence

Another significant distinction can be made between what medical statisticians call incidence and prevalence. For example, even if two studies agree on a common criterion for defining a sexual orientation, one study might regard this as applying to any person who has ever met this criterion, whereas another might only regard them as being so if they had done so during the year of the survey. However, it must be understood that sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Therefore, a person can be celibate and still identify as being bisexual or homosexual based on romantic proclivities.^[1]

Western perception of homosexuality versus the rest of the world

The population that has come to be referred to as "gay" in the West is not a descriptive term that would be recognized by all men who have sex with men (MSM) as known in the rest of the world. While gay culture is increasingly open and discussed, the world of MSM consists of a diverse population that often may respond differently depending on how communications in clinical settings are framed. "Gay" is generally used to describe a sexual orientation, while "MSM" describes a behavior.^[2]

Some men who have sex with other men will not relate to the term "gay" or homosexual, and do not regard sex with other men as sexual activity, a term they reserve for sexual relations with women. This is particularly true among individuals from non-Western cultures. Nevertheless, it is common in the US. Terms such as MSM or “same gender loving” are often used in place of the word gay. Men in Africa and Latin America engage in sexual relationships with other men while still referring to themselves as 'heterosexual', which is known as being on the "down-low".^[3] The same is true of men who engage in homosexual activities in the military, gender-segregated schools and universities, or prison; most of them do not consider themselves gay but still engage sexually with members of their own sex in order to fulfill their desires.^[4]

There is a lack of information on sexual behaviour in most developing countries. The limited sources that are available indicate that although homosexual self-identification might occur relatively infrequently, the prevalence of homosexual behaviour is higher. These men are not taken into consideration in some sexual identity surveys which may lead to under-reporting and inaccuracies.^[5]

Importance of having reliable demographics

Reliable data on the size of the gay and lesbian population would be valuable for informing public policy.^[6] For example, demographics would help calculate the costs and benefits of domestic partnership benefits, of the impact of legalizing gay adoption.^[6] Further, knowledge of the size of the "gay and lesbian population holds promise for helping social scientists understand a wide array of important questions—questions about the general nature of labor market choices, accumulation of human capital, specialization within households, discrimination, and decisions about geographic location."^[6]

The Kinsey Reports

Two of the most famous studies of the demographics of human sexual orientation were Dr. Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). These studies used a seven-point spectrum to define sexual behavior, from 0 for completely heterosexual to 6 for completely homosexual. Kinsey concluded that a small percentage of the population were to one degree or another bisexual (falling on the scale from 1 to 5). He also reported that 37% of men in the U.S. had achieved orgasm through contact with another male after adolescence and 13% of women had achieved orgasm through contact with another woman.^[7]

His results, however, have been disputed, especially in 1954 by a team consisting of John Tukey, Frederick Mosteller and William G. Cochran, who stated much of Kinsey's work was based on convenience samples rather than random samples, and thus would have been vulnerable to bias.^[8]

Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, dedicated years to reviewing the Kinsey data and culling its purported contaminants. In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) concluded that none of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by the perceived bias, finding that 36.4% of men had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, as opposed to Kinsey's 37%.

Modern survey results

Recent critiques of these studies have suggested that because of their dependence on self-identification, they may have under counted the true prevalence of people with a history of same sex behavior and/or desire.

huskerbb · Guru

You are right.

This is a VASTLY different scenario than the Deep South of the U.S. during Jim Crow laws.

Today, if such and such a baker doesn't want to make a cake--there are 10 other places willing to do it. There would be SOMEONE else in this case (right across the street as a matter of fact) who would perform this wedding. Only in VERY RARE instances such as when there is only one business/venue of that type in the town should this ever be an issue.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

This is not about Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws allowed you to turn people out the door based upon the color of their skin. None of us are advocating the ability to refuse service in a restaurant or a bus or anything else because someone is gay. This is about an ACTION - participating in something sinful. You can't force that. Hell- you can't force participation of most things, people have the right to refuse service.

A photographer has every right to decline to go photograph a wedding in downtown harlem for a wedding. You going to force them to do it? Is that racism?

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
This is not about Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws allowed you to turn people out the door based upon the color of their skin. None of us are advocating the ability to refuse service in a restaurant or a bus or anything else because someone is gay. This is about an ACTION - participating in something sinful. You can't force that. Hell- you can't force participation of most things, people have the right to refuse service.

A photographer has every right to decline to go photograph a wedding in downtown harlem for a wedding. You going to force them to do it? Is that racism?

I know. But that has been the ridiculous comparison that some are making/insinuating. Like I said--VASTLY different.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
This is not about Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws allowed you to turn people out the door based upon the color of their skin. None of us are advocating the ability to refuse service in a restaurant or a bus or anything else because someone is gay. This is about an ACTION - participating in something sinful. You can't force that. Hell- you can't force participation of most things, people have the right to refuse service.

A photographer has every right to decline to go photograph a wedding in downtown harlem for a wedding. You going to force them to do it? Is that racism?
I know. But that has been the ridiculous comparison that some are making/insinuating. Like I said--VASTLY different.

Thankfully, not everyone agrees with you.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
This is not about Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws allowed you to turn people out the door based upon the color of their skin. None of us are advocating the ability to refuse service in a restaurant or a bus or anything else because someone is gay. This is about an ACTION - participating in something sinful. You can't force that. Hell- you can't force participation of most things, people have the right to refuse service.

A photographer has every right to decline to go photograph a wedding in downtown harlem for a wedding. You going to force them to do it? Is that racism?
I know. But that has been the ridiculous comparison that some are making/insinuating. Like I said--VASTLY different.
Thankfully, not everyone agrees with you.
flan

They are wrong and completely ignorant of the history of Civil Rights in this nation.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
This is not about Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws allowed you to turn people out the door based upon the color of their skin. None of us are advocating the ability to refuse service in a restaurant or a bus or anything else because someone is gay. This is about an ACTION - participating in something sinful. You can't force that. Hell- you can't force participation of most things, people have the right to refuse service.

A photographer has every right to decline to go photograph a wedding in downtown harlem for a wedding. You going to force them to do it? Is that racism?
I know. But that has been the ridiculous comparison that some are making/insinuating. Like I said--VASTLY different.
Thankfully, not everyone agrees with you.
flan

Of course not everyone agrees. Some people are just wholly ignorant and stubborn.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
This is not about Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws allowed you to turn people out the door based upon the color of their skin. None of us are advocating the ability to refuse service in a restaurant or a bus or anything else because someone is gay. This is about an ACTION - participating in something sinful. You can't force that. Hell- you can't force participation of most things, people have the right to refuse service.

A photographer has every right to decline to go photograph a wedding in downtown harlem for a wedding. You going to force them to do it? Is that racism?
I know. But that has been the ridiculous comparison that some are making/insinuating. Like I said--VASTLY different.
Thankfully, not everyone agrees with you.
flan
They are wrong and completely ignorant of the history of Civil Rights in this nation.

There, there, husker...

evileye

flan

FNW · Guru

My uncle, RIP, was an ordained minister. He was particular about who he married. If he didn't feel a couple were getting married for the right reasons, or if he did not think they were really devoted to each other and to Jesus Christ and his teachings, he would not marry them. He did not marry me and my ex-husband, even though he was asked. We just went on and found someone who would, no hard feelings.

Ministers should be able to decide how to do their job according to their own beliefs.

huskerbb · Guru

FNW wrote:
My uncle, RIP, was an ordained minister. He was particular about who he married. If he didn't feel a couple were getting married for the right reasons, or if he did not think they were really devoted to each other and to Jesus Christ and his teachings, he would not marry them. He did not marry me and my ex-husband, even though he was asked. We just went on and found someone who would, no hard feelings.

Ministers should be able to decide how to do their job according to their own beliefs.

The same people who whine about separation of church and state now want the government to dictate who religious minister can or cannot or must marry.

It's absolutely hypocritical and ridiculous.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

To compare the gay movement to the civil rights movement is just ignorant. A gay white man had the right to OWN a black man. A gay white man could vote when a black man couldn't. A gay white man has never been told he couldn't eat in a restaurant just based upon his appearance. It's dismissive of the struggle of blacks to compare the two.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
This is not about Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws allowed you to turn people out the door based upon the color of their skin. None of us are advocating the ability to refuse service in a restaurant or a bus or anything else because someone is gay. This is about an ACTION - participating in something sinful. You can't force that. Hell- you can't force participation of most things, people have the right to refuse service.

A photographer has every right to decline to go photograph a wedding in downtown harlem for a wedding. You going to force them to do it? Is that racism?
I know. But that has been the ridiculous comparison that some are making/insinuating. Like I said--VASTLY different.
Thankfully, not everyone agrees with you.
flan
Of course not everyone agrees. Some people are just wholly ignorant and stubborn.

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

flan