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 ...
It really is quite obvious that he is asking the correct question.
As you said, he's speaking logically. Of course the homosexual activists don't like this, because they know that if everyone else did the same, they may not be quite so in favor of homosexual marriage.
It won't be long now, in the US, before some polygamists start agitating for their 'right to marry'. On what grounds will a court that has already allowed homosexual marriage deny them to anyone else?
Yes, it is a good argument. And I can certainly see the reasons for the churches to break from the state.
At the same time, if civil marriages become the norm for the secualar world, then gays would indeed have full equality, and there is something to be said for fighting full equality for moral and social reasons.
In this sense, it would be ideal to make gays stop at civil unions, and continue defining marriage as one man/one woman.
Exactly - and this is why it might be a very good thing if polygamists began boldly requesting this right now (already occurring in Canada).
The left has bastardized the argument by bringing the notion of equality into it. It has nothing to do with equality, but more to do with what is being distributed. Suppose, for example, that you have a large surfeit of apples that you wish to divide amongst your ten friends. The apples are divided, and each friend gets an equal moiety. One of the friends, however, is not satisfied. He doesn’t care for apples, and insists that in the name of equality you give him pears. But in effect, he has not been treated inequitably, because he has had the same thing and in the same proportion as the other nine.
Right. And to this question the Rainbow Agenda has repeatedly answered with silence.
Yes, they are destroying the basic foundation, and they don’t want to be reminded that a good many people can see this. They would rather stick with the “equality” crowd who are sentimental and say, “How’s it hurting your marriage if 2 guys want to marry, huh?”. Some of these people are in their 50s and sound like sullen teenagers.
Therein lies the crux of the matter and the slippery slope. A society can live by whatever morals they chose to live by, whether they be based on a religion or pulled out of a hat, like gay marriage. The only reason polygamy isn't legal is because polygamists haven't organized as well as the homos have, but with the advent of gay marriage, the argument against polygamy, incest, etc. can hold no water. Governments would have to change the laws to allow for any behavior between consenting adults.
Absolutely. And this is a fact the gay agenda does not like to be reminded of.
The objective of gay marriage is to criminalize Christianity. No practicing Christian will be eligible to be a policeman, teacher, politician, or an employee of a major corporation, unless you forswear the faith.
Your argument is excellent by try getting them to listen to it. They will only say, “But we were born with special digestive systems which can only digest pears and not apples.”
The problem with the state’s involvement, at least in the modern era, is that the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time. And that’s it.
“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
—Pope Leo XIII about 130 years ago.
Freegards
Reason and Logic (according to nature) is supposed to be the basis of Rule of Law. Without reason—you can justify any silly, arbitrary thing-—like two men can “marry”. Such stupidity and unnatural conclusion can only happen with Unjust, arbitrary law which is unconstitutional because it defies Reason (and Natural Law).
BTW, Marxists want to remove God from our Natural Rights-—and Reason from our laws—so that they can control everyone with Unjust Law. Marxists destroy and pervert words (Wittgenstein)—control words and you control the perceptions of the people)—like “marriage” and “family” and “Pro-Choice”, etc. so they can normalize any outrageous, evil thing—like killing and taking children from their biological parents, etc.
It should be against the law to change the very definition of words in Legal Dictionaries. That destroys the ability to debate and refer to the past-—the Marxists have to destroy knowledge and history because of the promotion of their Big Lies.
Rule of Law is the only thing which can keep us from becoming a Totalitarian State——and the Marxists (since Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr) have destroyed the meaning of Justice-—Just Law.
Hell is for those who refuse mercy.
You're not from around here are you? I does appear, however from what I deciphered, that your ox has been gored.
Well said!
Bravo to that. The destruction of language was a postmodern project, and has succeeded. Something must be done before we reach the point of no return.
Funny you should say that--I found out just last night that Adam Smith, The Bully of Chick-fil-a, may be an atheist and his whole ill-conceived rant was really an atheistic attack on CFA's Christian CEO and principles. If this is true (that Smith is an atheist), it could blow the whole gay agenda wide open as simply a blatant attack on Christianity. The homos have always said that what happens between two consenting adults is no one's business, but I wonder how they feel about having atheists, whom aren't prone to keeping their mouth's shut, as bedfellows??
I meant to say “you don’t do any favors for anyone” but my stupid auto-correct wasn’t cooperating.
Of course they will, but that has nothing to do with the argument. And it's not them we'll be trying to convince, after all, but ourselves. We need to stop letting the other side define the terms under which we disagree. Like the devil, they use our sense of honesty and fair play as a club to beat us with.
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.