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 ...
The government does have the obligation to regulate things, but based on the fundamental law of that society. Our Constitution is based on natural law, and needless to say, “gay marriage” has no part in that!
The real interest of the state in marriage is actually not the social good of children, but property: who has title to it, how it is transmitted, and even who it can tax on that property.
Unmarried persons are free to leave their property to anybody they want to leave it to, free to hold it, free to give it away if they want, and certainly are available for paying taxes, so the state has absolutely no need to declare that they are “married” in order to pursue its interest in their property. However, if the state wants to create some system where unmarried persons (two gay men, or even something like an older parent living with an adult child) can apply for a “household” status, say, this could solve what gays claim to be the problem of unfair tax treatment, etc.
In other words, there is no need for the state to get involved in the sexual aspect of marriage; if they want to create some other practical institution, fine, but it’s not marriage and they can’t force the churches to accept it as such.
And gays have always had their faux weddings and other ceremonies, if they want to accompany the legal status with something more romantic, shall we say.
But that’s not what they want. They want to destroy the Church (and I include in that term other orthodox Christian churches) and they have seen that this is a way they can use the power of the state to do so.
I want to go to his Church... I want him to be my Bishop...
I think we could all use someone like this Bishop. ;)
The first stone at the institution of marriage was lobbed by heterosexuals, with decriminalization of adultery -- a clear crime of fraud and physical endangerment, -- easy divorce without a defined fault, easy remarriage, normalization of premarital sex and commonplace use of contraception.
The homosexuals are simply scavenging on the ruins.
Nevertheless the homily itself is admirable. God bless and protect Bishop Hugh Gilbert.
“...otherwise, you will have a secular society with its own definition, and a Church with different ones.”
In my opinion, at least in the modern era, the Church can’t punish you beyond kicking you out if one disagrees with whatever their take on marriage happens to be, and their take usually changes much less than the state. That danger will always there with the state’s involvement, and their definition just keeps changing all the time—and for the worse as far as I can think of.
But it is a moot point, as the state will never divest itself from the institution. Statists won’t give it up because it gives massive control of the culture for their own ends, and homosexualists because they need a way to punish those who don’t buy into their nonsense.
Freegards
To what degree?
"Tolerance" has unfortunately only served to embolden these activists, and has permitted them to launch aggressive campaigns (using our legal system and the media as tools) with the intent of relentlessly pushing the envelope until those who oppose their goal of eradicating Christian ethics from the public square are pushed completely into the closet. Now our children are subjected to homosexual PDA's everywhere they turn, while the schools and media are busy attempting to indoctrinate them in favor of unnatural behavior.
How can there be a reasonable middle ground when one side is so relentlessly determined to dominate the other, and deprive them of their God-given rights?
"And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of Heaven".
Amen.
But the fact is that hell is not “for homos” - it is for the punishment of sin to those who do not repent and believe in Christ. If you said “hell is for unrepentant sinners” you’d be correct.
Thanks! I'll check it out.
Tagged - hate to steal - but it's too good to pass up...
In my daily activities I encounter many such couples, including some people of whom I am quite fond and have no desire to harm or see harm come to them. That however does not change the reality that their behavior choices are
biologically irrational
psychologically delusional
societally destabilizing
morally narcissistic
scripturally heretical
Pray that Mr. Smith and his family will turn to Christ and His saving grace.
Yes!
And now since even unmarried people can adopt children, the whole concept of marriage (between a man and a woman) to (pro)create children is further diluted.
It's all about CHOICE, in their eyes, rather than God's design.
Nope. In this current era, you need both carrot and stick. Hell is rarely mentioned in church nowadays. Just sweet and sugary praise songs. Not working.
Then why the outcry?
Why do the heathen rage?
I've long argued for two separate institutions, neither of which has anything to do with the sexual orientation of the people or is an attempt in any way by the government to regulate people's sex lives.
The first is marriage, a permanent contract between a man and a woman (actually between those two and the rest of society) designed to facilitate child-rearing and stable family units. Difficult to get into and even harder to terminate. This was the subject of my earlier post.
The second we could call “civil unions” that any two adults can enter into. Simple to get into (i.e. checking a box and putting a name on your annual tax return paperwork) and even easier to terminate. These are temporary, lasting perhaps only a year or two and then must be renewed. If not renewed they simply expire. A man and a woman could do this, two men, two women, a Dad and his son, etc. It has NOTHING to do with sex or procreation. Its purpose is to allow two people not interested in a lifelong commitment to still be able to face a tough world by pooling their resources, thereby minimizing the number of folks in our society relying on charity to get by.
The laws governing these institutions would be tailored to their individual purposes: property, inheritance, taxes, etc.
This arrangement gets government out of the bedroom. The people and our various churches can continue to regulate sexual behavior with marriage as we've always done, but the government stays out of that side of things.
Here is some background.
Senator Moynihan in 1994 "Defining Deviancy Down: How We've Become Accustomed to Alarming Levels of Crime and Destructive Behavior." :
"Asserts that the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond levels the community can afford to recognize and that society has been redefining deviancy to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized and accepting as normal behavior that considered abnormal by earlier standards. Redefinition is categorized as altruistic, opportunistic, and normalizing. "
Yes, absolutely essential and terribly important to recognize the trend of defining deviancy down.
One can see this at work in the amount of couples (straight) nowadays who say things like, “My girlfriend and I are expecting a baby” (no plans to marry) or couples co-habitating openly (very bad idea). (The way some females dress is another- but I better not go there.)
Also some women get pregnant and have no idea who the father is and don’t care and go ahead and cheerfully announce the pending birth of the child (seen in my own family).
Recall in one of my college classes too in my undergrad days a Prof pointed out the people who proudly say, “Just been through my second messy divorce” when formerly was viewed as a failure, not an accomplishment.
Gay agenda is part and parcel of this.
“...accepting as normal behavior that considered abnormal by earlier standards. Redefinition is categorized as altruistic, opportunistic, and normalizing.”
Absolutely, I can relate. Excellent defining of irrational and sociopathic behaviors.
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.