Posted on 08/05/2012 7:18:57 AM PDT by scottjewell
A CATHOLIC bishop has sparked controversy by suggesting that, if the Scottish Government truly believed in equality, it could extend legislation on same-sex marriage to encompass bigamy and even incest.
Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Aberdeen asked why equality did not extend to "nieces who genuinely, truly love their uncles" and why men could not have two wives, adding such scenarios were not freaks of nature but might in fact occur in Scottish parishes.
...
In an interview with the Scottish Catholic Observer (SCO), Bishop Gilbert, the first to be appointed in Scotland by Pope Benedict, said: "You can't have a meal without food and you don't have marriage without a man and a woman. This isn't just social convention. It's not something any Government can change. It's a fact of life.
"The truth is that a Government can pass any legislation it likes, it can legislate to say everything with four legs is a table, even when it's a dog and not a horse, but that won't make it so. Why is it all right for a man to marry another man, but not all right for him to marry two women? If we really want equality, why does that equality not extend to nieces who genuinely, truly love their uncles? And, if you say that such things don't happen, that they are mere freaks of nature, extreme examples dreamed up for the sake of argument, I say you need to spend more time in the parish."
He added: "As Bishop of Aberdeen, I know there are gay people among the community of the Church. I promise I will always respect and love them and uphold them in their relationship with the God who loves them. But I won't marry them. It just can't be done."
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldscotland.com ...
You’re right, that is another valid point. Could even be extended to straight incestual marriage as contraception/adoption/reproductive tech. (sperm donation) could also make in-breeding a non-issue.
Wow, I had not seen or heard about that, but thanks for linking to the video and article. Frightening and disgusting, and part of the slippery slope we are descending.
addendum:
I agree with this as per Skittles ad:
“John Nolte, an editor for the conservative news site breitbart.com says the ad is part of a broader attempt by liberals to remove the stigma of bestiality.
‘You can laugh and say it’s just a joke, but through a war of inches, Hollywood continues its assault to define deviancy down and to normalize destructive behavior. Humor is an excellent way to get us used to and to take the shock value out of something hideous and immoral,’ he writes.”
You'e exactly right, annalex. It was a decayed heterosexual society that broke down the "definition of marriage" so that it was temporary, serial, and sterile. At that point, it was exactly what gays were looking for: the gratification of adults, with all else being optional.
In particular: contracepting couples have already turned sex into an infertile-by-design, "unnatural act." They are heterosexual gays.
” If you said “hell is for unrepentant sinners” you’d be correct.”
True, but if you also say “homosexuals are unrepentant sinners,” you’d be correct.
A homosexual who is not fighting/resisting his impulses is not repentant. Nor for that matter is a fornicator, an adulterer, or a reviler.
This one is even sicker in its implications, which are both lesbian and teacher-on-student ——this is frightening, & whoever they have doing these ads has an agenda and is very ill. Good lord.
Certainly, Mrs. Don-O, I don’t have any more hope for unrepentant fornicators or revilers than I do for unrepentant homosexuals. Repentance is key and involves a change in behavior, not mere lip service.
Perfection can’t be expected, on the other hand, no man can achieve it.
The spirit of this age, however, is to elevate homosexuals to some sort of sacred tragic victim, rather than unapologetic rebellious sinners.
I know what you mean about the “sacred tragic victim” category -— well put. That, plus “misunderstood creative genius.”
The bible does NOT say that homosexuals go to hell. It says that sodomites go to hell. If you can’t grasp the distinction, you don’t belong on this thread.
I agree Scott. Really troubling with the dyke-like looking teacher and the young girl. Sick on so many levels. The other one your sent did say it wasn’t an actual Skittles ad, but I imagine something might crop up soon like that. And I agree; there’s an agenda!
“The bible does NOT say that homosexuals go to hell. It says that sodomites go to hell. If you can’t grasp the distinction, you don’t belong on this thread.”
Well, enlighten me. Is a sodomite different than a homosexual?
1 Corinthians 6:8-10
8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS,[a] nor SODOMITES, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. “
ah, did not see that it wasn’t a real one, but yeah, the other one was completely sick. Yes, unless stopped they’ll keep pushing it no matter how sick.
To continue throughout one’s life buggering or being buggered is in defiance of God’s Law. It’s not incorrect to speculate on the future of one’s soul when the sinner dies unrepentant. Priests and rabbis do it all the time.
Good term.
| 1 Corinthians | ||
| English: Young's Literal Translation | Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) | |
| 1 Corinthians 6 |
||
| 9. | have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, | η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται |
| 10. | nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit. | ουτε πλεονεκται ουτε κλεπται ουτε μεθυσοι ου λοιδοροι ουχ αρπαγες βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν |
Two words are of interest here. "μαλακας" is literally translated by Young as "effeminate". It is a common swear in modern Greek; as any swear it applies to anything you don't particularly like, but the precise meaning is "one who masturbates", i.e. "jerk"; "μαλακια" refers to something stupid or worthless or deceptive. You can say, "Don't tell me malakies" i.e. don't lie to me.
The word is so important if you visit Greece, that it has two entries in English Wikipedia: Malakas and Malakia. The second entry lists passive homosexuality as a possible meaning.
Observe that "αρσενοκοιται", literally, "male bed partners", and it is listed separately from "effeminates".
You can draw your own conclusions.
What I offer criticism of, is the offhand "Hell is for homos," which -- like most bumper-sticker-length aphorisms --- is troublesome because it fails to make a couple of important distinctions:
If "homos" is taken to mean "people who have a homosexual orientation," --- and that's often the meaning taken --- it's simply false. No kind of orientation in itself puts you in hell. Orientation is an attraction pattern, even a temptation pattern, but not a sin.
The phrase suggests a -- possibly unintended --- link between "hell" and "homo" only --- as if it this were the one hellish sin.
Consider covetousness. This is quite openly displayed and flagrantly encouraged all around us --- think of it, it's the "soul" of the advertising industry --- and one never encounters, on Free Republic anyway, a flip phrase like
Yet that is also Scriptural --- and of course I take it seriously.
We probably don't need to keep lobbing these particular issues back and forth, because I think we're actually in substantial agreement on these.
But imagine the uproar I'd kick up if I were to say
This being Hiroshima Day and all.
Yet that is equally true: target-equals-city bombing being, according to our religion, forbidden because it is indiscriminate killing, a damnable crime. The Church says we could know this from Natural Law; we ought to also know it from the 20+ times in Scripture where God says that the shedding of innocent blood is an abomination in His eyes.
Excusing homosexual vice is not a thing to which we FReepers are prone. Excusing other sins --- well, I should look to my own faults. I've been guilty of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.