Skip to comments.If We Donít Say No to Same-Sex Unions, then Why Not Incest and Pedophilia Says Archbishop
Posted on 04/03/2007 8:56:28 PM PDT by freedomdefender
The new head of the Italian bishops conference has made political waves by asking on what basis may incest and pedophilia be denied if Italy legalizes same-sex unions and other alternatives to the family.
Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, who was appointed last month to lead the Italian Bishops Conference, is spearheading efforts of the Catholic Church in Italy against legislation giving unmarried unions including same-sex ones legal status and benefits.
Why say 'no' to forms of legally recognised co-habitation which create alternatives to the family? Why say 'no' to incest? the Archbishop said at a meeting of Church workers, according to the Italian journal, La Repubblica.
Why say 'no' to the pedophile party in Holland? Bagnasco stated, referring to the Dutch Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party, which lobbies to reduce the age of consent from 16 to 12 and legalize child pornography.
Supporters of the DICO bill, which would grant legal recognition of opposite and same-sex civil unions and benefits, immediately objected that the Archbishop had equated the legislation with pedophilia and incest.
Environment minister Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, a vociferous advocate of the homosexual agenda, said Archbishop Bagnasco had created a grave, foolish comparison which offends millions of people.
However, an editorial in Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference, dismissed the controversy as a storm in a teacup, saying that Archbishop Bagnasco had merely illustrated the fact that family policy must be founded on principles other than whichever way public opinion gravitates.
No equating DICO with incest or pedophilia, then, in his words, the newspaper said.
In other words, the Church is emphasizing family policy must have a basis in natural law and the moral order, or else public opinion someday may justify with law destructive sexual relationships once believed inconceivable, even well beyond homosexual unions.
Italy's bishops have called on Catholic politicians to vote against the bill backed by Prime Minister Romano Prodi, warning that it undermines traditional marriage and the family, which Pope Benedict XVI has called a "pillar of humanity."
Benedict XVI has warned that projects legalizing pseudo-marriage arrangements are dangerous and counterproductive to the health of society by weakening and destabilizing the legitimate family based on marriage."
"Only the foundation of complete and irrevocable love between man and woman is capable of forming the basis of a society that becomes the home of all men.
Rick Santorum got fried for saying the same thing.
Hey, hey, slow down there, yer holiness! Let’s start with cornholin’ our buddies, then we’ll move on to cornholin’ our brothers! All in due time, speedy!
Has he ever read the Bible?
Did anyone at all try to answer his question?
Or did they all just holler at him for daring to ask it?
Am I missing something?
That thar goat got some pretty skinned-up knees.
It’s pathetic that it’s come down to this. We have people actually arguing, “If you do this, why not this bad thing that is seen as worse?”
No mention of the fact that no society on earth has accepted this outside of the last 10 years. No mention of the fact that what is being proposed is completely removing the child-bearing and child-rearing from marriage.
If you think divorse rates and birth rates are low now, wait until little Johnny is raised with, “Well, son, if you choose to marry a girl, you can have kids one day. And if you marry a boy, well, that’s okay, too!” Gone are the days when having children was pretty much a societal expectation. Kids will see marriage as solely something to tickle their fancy and make them feel better. And honestly, after you’ve weakened the backbone of the family, how well do you think the abstract notion of romantic love is going to hold up against the strains that show up in marriages?
Legalizing gay marriage will hurt straight marriages simply be redefining marriage in a careless, destructive manner.
Homosexual “marriage” is wrong from the first mention. You don’t need to mention bestiality or molestation. It’s not natural, it’s not healthful, and it’s ultimately not in the interest of society.
Well, fired by the people of Pennsylvania, which may speak volumes for the personal sexual habits of the people of Pennsylvania. :-)
The article said — “Why say ‘no’ to the pedophile party in Holland? Bagnasco stated, referring to the Dutch Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party, which lobbies to reduce the age of consent from 16 to 12 and legalize child pornography.
Supporters of the DICO bill, which would grant legal recognition of opposite and same-sex civil unions and benefits, immediately objected that the Archbishop had equated the legislation with pedophilia and incest.”
What the Archbishop says is very true. Yes — *on what basis* do we deny reducing the age consent to 12 and legalize child pornography — if indeed — we do sanction same-sex civil unions and benefits?
Note that the Archbishop is not trying to change the law to be in favor of pedophilia or child pornography. On the contrary...
The article states — “Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, who was appointed last month to lead the Italian Bishops Conference, is spearheading efforts of the Catholic Church in Italy against legislation giving unmarried unions including same-sex ones legal status and benefits.”
That’s where he’s coming from. What he’s pointing out is that our *basis* for rejecting these things (including same-sex marriages) all come from the same place, the revealed Word of God. if you “give way” on one of these issues, then you give way on *all of them* — and that will *certainly* happen, if we do.
There is *no other basis* for rejecting same sex marriages, or reducing the age of consent to 12 or child pornography.
It’s good that the argument comes down to recognizing where we’re eventually going with same sex marriages...
I hope everyone recognizes that.
I know. I worked hard for Rick and Diana Irey but it didn’t happen. I was surprised that Rick lasted as long as he did. Honor and Christian values don’t float around here.
But then again most men think one is plenty!
Same sex ‘marriage’ is a thinly disguised movement that’s sole purpose is to destroy the institution of marriage. I’ve been listening to the liberals rant for decades about how pointless and hypocritical the idea of spiritually sanctioned fidelity is. I heard and believed that they held nothing but contempt for the whole idea. Why now would they suddenly demand the right to become part of it?
You said — “Dont forget polygamy.”
Check with Mitt Romney. He might bring that one back into play. Or, at least his church might want him to...
You asked — “Has he ever read the Bible?”
Yes, I’m sure he has, and that’s probably why he’s pointing this out, as he is...
P.S. — He’s right you know..., if we’re all just a product of evolution, just the same as any animal that is out there, they start engaging in sex as soon as they are physically able. So, this Archbishop is saying, then you only have evolution as a “basis” — therefore, you’re going to have people start engaging in sex as soon as they are physically able to do so, just like the animals (mind you..., we “evolved” just like they did...).
“Gay marriage” affects real marriage the way counterfeit money affects real money.
You said — “Same sex marriage is a thinly disguised movement thats sole purpose is to destroy the institution of marriage. Ive been listening to the liberals rant for decades about how pointless and hypocritical the idea of spiritually sanctioned fidelity is. I heard and believed that they held nothing but contempt for the whole idea. Why now would they suddenly demand the right to become part of it?”
That’s certainly right. It is a movement to destroy the institution of marriage. Note the *basis* of that institution.
Jesus said in Matthew 19:4-6
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
And from Genesis 2:23-24
23 And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
As for the condemnation of those who try to make it man with man and woman with woman, see Romans...
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
So, one man/one woman marriage was instituted at the very creation of the first man and the first woman in the world. Jesus affirmed this very thing by what He said to the people of His day, making it clear that this was “from the beginning” with the very first man and woman who existed in our world.
Of course, if one chooses to ignore God, what He has said in the Bible and to remove themselves (for a time) from His authority (and the authority of His word) — then what it says in Romans (above) applies. We can see what the Bible says about that.
It’s talking about those who have suppressed the truth of the word of God, although it’s well known to them that God has created this world (all that is seen, as it said). We can see that by suppressing the truth of the Word of God, it leads them to become fools — and also we see the starting point of homosexuality in this — very specifically and pointedly stated in the Bible.
Once one has abandoned the Word of God, which forms the *basis* for this one man/one woman marriage — then one cannot appeal to the Bible for any of the other morals for other some of these other things (spoken about in the article).
The alternative is evolution (versus creation by the direct hand of God of the first man and first woman, and as stated by Jesus). And with the means of evolution, we see that animals (of which we are part of, by viture of evolution) engage in sex indiscriminately, according to whatever desires they have, and as soon as they are physically able to do so and their hormones kick in. Thus, so it “should be” with humans, too — just another part of the animal kingdom (in the understanding of evolution, anyway...).
And there you have it...
You said — Gay marriage affects real marriage the way counterfeit money affects real money.
You mean, it makes you suspicious and wary of “real marriage”? Or, do you mean it debases the currency?
Finally, someone on the level of Bishop, saying the logical and obvious objection to changing laws away from millennia-old definitions.
Of course as a Protestant, in addition to Natural Law (which is a tad bit undefined for my taste....as are not homosexuals just trying to redefine our understanding of natural law to include their unnatural affections?) I would want to go to the source of Western civilization’s ideas of what is and what is not sexually immoral. That would be found in Leviticus 19, the ancient Hebrew “holiness code.” Besides just the natural revulsion normal people feel towards sexual perversion(s), Leviticus 19 backs up our gut, (and hopefully, like the Bishop, our guts too...) with the very revelation of God.
Ummm, actually, in practice, homosexuality is fairly common among Islamic peoples.
As it was reported a few months ago, Al Queda apparently issued a new set of rules, which included a prohibition for men taking boys into their bedroom...apparently as this had been an issue with them. The background is that the Koran is apparently silent on homosexual pedestry--so legalists that they are, it is widely practiced.
The strict separation of the sexes too, makes homosexual practice that much more easy... Hence despite all the self-righteous rhetoric from the Mullahs, Islam has more than its fair share of sodomites. With the ROP especially, look what they do, not what they say.
The growth of Islam in Australia, Europe, and North America seems to correspond with the general decline of Christianity in those regions.
I think that's about the most perfect answer I've ever heard.
It will come and then even Nambla will have its day.
And how can we then oppose consensual cannibalism so long as it is sexually based?
I think the Archbishop has hit the nail right on the head here. If you dont believe in moral absolutes, then surely anything does go? If its ok for homosexuals to “marry”, then why isnt bestiality ok? Or paedophilia? Or incest? How dare Liberals argue that these things can’t be done because they are illegal? or “wrong”? If they do, are they not applying their own moral absolute? Well, their moral absolute may not be the same as mine.
This is a paradox in liberal, humanist thinking that needs to be exposed again and again and again, and good on the Bish for bringing it up.
Of course, some liberals argue that its wrong because its not consensual. No problems! Incest COULD be consensual. Paedophilia could be. Parents might even approve of it, given inducements. With a legally drawn up contract...no problem.
The answer is simple, Archbishop. Same-sex unions (NOT the same as marriage) don’t hurt anyone.
Well, you know, we have just got to get the social conservative bigots and churchgoing knuckledraggers out of the GOP, don't you know. Just ask any neocon or Yacht Club member.
The guys at The Weekly Standard have been pounding this line for 10 years.
Well, you'll have some of that among folks whose very existence seems to require being offended all the time.
Well, then you pay for it yourself... I don't want the government giving subsidies and tax deductions for perversion...
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited?
The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on idolatrous fetishes?
Disability, welfare, Social Security, etc., etc., ad nausea...
The social psychosis generated by behavioral conditioning (Pavlov’s salivating dogs) in the popular culture and the conditioned response to accept the false premises of mental illness or birth defect will be used as a political tool to systematically rob the public purse.
Then, we could have other self-inflicted mental illness and disease (aside from those we already do) subsidized by the government consolidating an ever increasing portion of the economy in the hands of the cultural Marxists.
He left out polygamy...
But then again most men think one is plenty!
It's not the multiple *wives*; it's the multiple mothers in-law!
NO cheers, unfortunately.
... I don’t want the government giving subsidies and tax deductions for perversion...
Actually, I don’t think the government should be giving subsidies and tax deductions for ANY marriage. Get the government - and tax code - out of the marriage business entirely.
[...Archbishop Bagnasco had created a grave, foolish comparison which offends millions of people...]
Deviants have been offending me for years.
It’s time they were offended for a change!
“Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are:
outbursts of anger,
and things like these, of which I forewarn you,
just as I have forewarned you, that those who
practice such things will not inherit the kingdom
of God. —Galatians 5:19-21—
[...”Only the foundation of complete and irrevocable love between man and woman is capable of forming the basis of a society that becomes the home of all men....]
While this is a noble sentiment, without the
authority of God Almighty and His Word, it is
just the blathering of a man (sorry Pope, but
you are only a man).
And call no man your father upon the earth: for
one is your Father, which is in heaven. —Matthew 23:9—
This is why our moral baseline must be The Word
of God as written in The Holy Bible. The
boundaries of Secular Humanism will change with
the wind. God’s Law is the same yesterday, today
and forever. —Hebrews 13:8—
Jesus Christ is risen! Hallelujah!
To Post #37
Don’t worry, our future Islamic masters won’t take kindly to same-sex marriage and similar indulgences!!
I'm guessing the second choice. No attempt to answer, just charges of bigotry, etc.
I've often used the counterfeiting analogy in reply to the cry "what we do in our bedrooms is nobody's business!"
Particularly when the participants then go on to tender dread disease and infirmity to the larger community, out of their carelessness and perversity.
Very good question. And don't forget polygamy and bestiality.
And so, both 'gay marriage' and counterfeiting of money must be kept illegal.
>>>And so, both ‘gay marriage’ and counterfeiting of money must be kept illegal.<<<
There was an entry for bigamy: Having one wife too many. (see marriage)
Then you look down, and there was an entry for marriage: Having one wife too many. (see bigamy)
Hey, I just read 'em, I don't make 'em!
Why not pedophilia? The Church has been saying that for decades.
If I were to set up my very own counterfeit $100 bill making machine and pass them off as real currency, the FBI and every other law enforcement agency would storm my house, shut down the presses, and frog-march me away to the big-house, pronto. And rightfully so. That is because counterfeit money dilutes (harms)the value of real money....It cheapens bona fide currency.
Likewise, ‘gay’ marriage dilutes real marriage...you said ‘debases’ and I agree. As a society, anything that dilutes or debases bona fide marriage should be declared illegal. (And please don’t get me started on the state of anti-Family Law in this country, which is the subject of an entirely different rant)