Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Shawn Hopper
Recent Activity
-
Shawn commented on the article |I really doubt these tactics will have any effect because they're simply not believable.
The general public may be fairly gullible at times, but they're not going to believe that the Government is storming into private bedrooms across the nation to prevent two men from having sex with each other.
The fact is folks simply don't want to re-define marriage as a societal institution. They may feel compassion for homosexuals or even support civil unions, but changing the very definition of what marriage means in this society is an entirely different thing.
-
Shawn commented on the article |
I really doubt these tactics will have any effect because they're simply not believable.
The general public may be fairly gullible at times, but they're not going to believe that the Government is storming into private bedrooms across the nation to prevent two men from having sex with each other.
The fact is folks simply don't want to re-define marriage as a societal institution. They may feel compassion for homosexuals or even support civil unions, but changing the very definition of what marriage means in this society is an entirely different thing.
-
Shawn commented on the article |Amanda, I might agree with you if Congress had only recently decided the nature of marriage, and had done so based on competing arguments from two religious factions. But the point is, they never even debated the nature of marriage—it simply was what is was as understood through centuries of tradition.
Now that the debate is on, the question is why re-define marriage now? The social benefits of committed heterosexual marriages are clear: children do best when raised by two biological parents.
So, what are the social benefits of same-sex marriage? And, what would the consequences to society be if marriage were re-defined?
As I pointed out above, we are already seeing consequences: a Christian photographer was sued who declined to provide services for two Lesbians. And she lost! How obscene is that? What the law is saying is that she is effectively compelled to provide services for an event that violates her religious and moral conscience. Even the military provides an out for conscientious objectors. Not even our national security trumps an individuals' right to conscience. And yet, two Lesbians' desire for commitment ceremony photos from a specific photographer does?
This, and the lack of evidence that there is any real benefit to society make this change, at best, imprudent.
-
Shawn commented on the article |
"Thousands of churches and ordained clergy are being denied the free exercise of their religion in violation of their first amendment right."
Wait a minute. So, now you're saying that Congress must recognize what goes on within the walls of churches? But just the liberal churches you want them to recognize, right?
That is some twisted logic Burton. Liberal churches can conduct any type of ceremony they want within their four walls: gay marriages, poly-amorous marriages, whatever, and their 1st Amendment right is not being restricted in any way if the Government ignores these ceremonies.
In fact, I think that is the whole point of the 1st Amendment.
-
Shawn commented on the article |I'm well aware of the Stonewall riots Chris. And I have never suggested that gays should be persecuted in any way in any of my posts. Your insinuations to the contrary are insulting.
My position is that marriage should not be re-defined to include two persons of the same gender. This is not persecution or oppression of gays, it is disagreement about how to define the institution of marriage.
As far as your last paragraph, you should realize it is exactly this type of militant aggression that fires up the opposition. I would suggest that you will have far more success by wooing mis-guided liberal Christians then through a blatant call-to-arms against the freedom of religion in this country.
-
Shawn commented on the article |
Ross, assume whatever you wish. And frankly, all that has been demonstrated so far is that you're the type of person willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.
Perhaps my statement was not as precisely phrased as it could have been and I should have said "churches that refused to allow marriages of same-sex persons to be conducted".
Or perhaps you want to sidetrack the discussion from the point of my original argument which is that,
"As much as the gay activist movement wants you to believe this is simply about individual happiness, you should know that our society will be literally turned on its head if gay marriage becomes legal."
which is obviously a valid and legitimate concern when we see that already many religious organizations are facing lawsuits from gays seeking to enforce their "rights" to fill-in-the-blank over and against the right of religious freedom.
Next time you wonder why Protestants, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and even Muslims, are willing to stop bickering with each other and confront the very real threat of radical homosexual activism in this country, just go back and read that NPR article again: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
-
Shawn commented on the article |
Well, I actually used the word "conduct", but that would be quibbling... look Ross, take a deep breath and accept the fact that gays are suing. They're suing states, they're suing cities, high schools, doctors, photographers, even the Boy Scouts... the list goes on and on. In fact there is so much "gay suing" going on your own leaders called an audible: Lambda Legal: Make Change, Not Lawsuits
At the bottom of the NPR article there are multiple examples of gays suing religious or religiously affiliated people and organizations because they declined to render services based on their religious conscience. That is the point I'm making, and I can see it is on point since it hit such a hot button with you.
-
Shawn commented on the article |
Ross, whether or not the minister was asked in that particular case is irrelevant. A church should not be forced to allow ANYONE to use their facility. It is private property. And consecrated by those who purchased and maintain the facility for their purposes of worship and/or community. To force them to "accommodate" a same-sex commitment ceremony or marriage is an absolute affront to the right of religious freedom, not to mention a violation of their right to privacy. Private entities, churches and otherwise, should not be forced to participate in things that violate their religious conscience whether that is in the conscription of their person or property. When I said, "churches that refused to conduct marriages of same-sex persons have been sued", it was not meant to mean exclusively that the pastor or priest would be sued personally (though that may very well happen), but that churches would be sued—and indeed that has happened.
-
Shawn commented on the article |
@Michael – Alright so you don't like that website. Here is NPR's version of the story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
Also, it is clear in the article that the property was owned by the group.
@Ross – I didn't make anything up. I just provided you an example of two Lesbians suing a church organization because they refused to allow them to use their private property for their ceremony.
-
Shawn commented on the article |
@Burton Bagby-Grose
The Greek word used in this passage that we were disucssing is "arsenokoitai". As I said above, there really isn't a big mystery about what this word means: it simply joins "man" and "lying with". It doesn't refer to pederasty, but rather is very simple. The most accurate translation would probably be "men who have sex with men".
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits
