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 ...
Excellent post and well thought out argument. Let me attempt to respectfully disagree! :)
I think the government interest you describe above is in fact legitimate, not just seemingly so. The fact that government has corrupted its purpose (as the pursuit of power will always do) in this area doesn't de-legitimize that interest.
Outside of a few left wing “think” tanks, I don't think there's a legitimate argument against the assertion that children on average are more likely to become productive and law abiding citizens when raised by a Mom and a Dad. I would also argue, based less on data and more on personal observation, that children raised in such an environment also tend to be more moral people. Morality is the necessary corollary to small government (see my other posts on that subject). Thus I believe it is well established that a free republic like ours depends critically on a healthy institution of marriage throughout society in order to stay free.
The question is how to accomplish this. Indeed marriage is and should also be religious covenant, but we must keep government's role well clear of that aspect. As far as the government is concerned, marriage has one purpose only - to create an environment in which as many children as possible are raised in stable homes with a Mom and a Dad. Consequently, if a lefty church wants to “marry” two men and they introduce themselves thereafter as husband and husband, that's fine - but their union will not be recognized as marriage by the state because it doesn't serve the stated public interest of the institution. The state can therefore direct special consideration (not largess) to married couples such as first dibs on all adoptions, sovereign parental rights when determining how to raise their children (special protections from social worker busybodies) and other such things. In effect, the government approaches and provides protections to married families in much the same way we establish laws to protect businesses and intellectual property in the name of free markets, and the legal stability required for free trade.
As distasteful as it is for me to acknowledge this, it is a necessary role of government to regulate things. The trick is to make sure that regulation is aimed at the proper objectives: Justice, NOT fairness; liberty, NOT prosperity; individual freedom, NOT security. To the extent that justice, liberty, and freedom are served by fairness, prosperity, and security, then fine, but fairness, prosperity and security are NOT the objectives of government. Official recognition and protection of marriage and the family unit is an important part of that recipe.
“You do not favors gorgeous anyone by saying things like “Hell is for homos.” How long ago did you join the Westboro Baptist Church?”
I think arguments, very bold ones, can be made against same sex marriage without professing hatred for gays.
One could grant them the rights to equality in employment, housing, and civil unions, while still firmly maintaining that marriage must not be transformed into something it was not made to be.
Gay people could remain a respected and contributing sub-culture - and many Americans fall under the class of subculture - without needing to proclaim that they must be in the forefront to the point of changing laws and times.
Yes, that is true. They do. Very narcissistic of them to do so.
Indeed Universities need to stress more courses in philosophy and basic reasoning techniques of logic, because people don’t know how to THINK. And if you use emotions instead of reason, you’ll go very far afoul, as we see now.
“You do not favors gorgeous anyone by saying things like “he’ll is for homos.” How long ago did you join the Westboro Baptist Church?”
The Bible says homosexuals go to hell.
” No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 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,nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. “
1st Cor 6:8-10.
Other passages explain that if you indulged in these or other sins in your past, they can be forgiven. But all sin must be repented of, which involves fighting and turning against it, not holding parades for it.
Yes they did, but something needs to be done. We can’t continue on like this.
Excellent quote! thank you for that.
Yes, by allowing the state to define marriage it becomes vulnerable to whatever changes the state makes.
But this is not the fault of the state, but the people who have come to run it. I still believe somehow that the state must be involved - otherwise, you will have a secular society with its own definitiosn, and a Church with different ones. Church and State cannot have that huge a gulf between them. Or so it seems to me.
“I think arguments, very bold ones, can be made against same sex marriage without professing hatred for gays.”
To warn someone they are hell bound is not to hate them. Quite the opposite.
Why only consenting adults? Shouldn’t children have equal rights? And what about animal rights?
Yes, I understand this very well.
But in our current era, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as the old saying goes.
“But in our current era, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as the old saying goes.”
I am not sure how that would play out, i.e., should I celebrate the homosexuality instead of condemn it?
Getting government OUT of the public school would be a great start, along with burning all the Marxist-filled, Billy Ayers-type curricula with Sex Ed dripping from it to destroy the innocence and morality of our children.
Special Rights for some-—and promotion of lies in schools-—Heather has two mommies-—Christians are Bigots-—Sodomy is good—the Founding Fathers were evil-—have got to be eliminated from the formation of Worldview in the majority of our children, if we don’t want this country to collapse.
Critical Theory is a Leftist tool to destroy Western Civilization. They have to kill God (Christianity) to take over the World. They wrote about it-—research Cultural Marxism. Divide and Conquer. All identity groups are Communists Fronts-—like the Homosexual movement, Unions, Feminist groups, La Raza, etc. Even the Democrats have been infiltrated and now controlled by Marxists. It is their MO.
Homosexual people are not some special category, hell-bound unlike any other. We must all repent of our sins. Not just sexual sins, but any sins.
Keep in mind as well that merciful people obtain mercy:
Matthew 6:15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Outrage? His comments are simply the “gay marriage” argument itself, taken to the next logical step.
I pray he does not “back down” from this comments - and stands by them. It won’t be long before their truth will be revealed.
Sodomy should always be considered a Vice—a sin, which it is. You can never legitimize that activity by creating “civil unions”. It is the slippery slope always-—like we see today with the “marriage” movement.
Employers should have a right to discriminate against certain behaviors. That is the basis of Religious Freedom.
You should never have to put up with men and women mocking God, esp. in front of your children.
Yes. The objective is utterly transparent at this point, and "gay marriage" is just one weapon in the arsenal. The ginned up furor generated in response to Chik-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy's comments (with the associated accusations of "hate") was a clear and deliberate attack on the Bible.
The recent (20th Century) Mexican Marxist bloody persecution of the Church south of the border should serve as a warning of what can occur when leftist totalitarians contrive to seize power.
Seduced by Marxist errors and Masonic superstitions, revolutionaries declared war on the Catholic Church. They seized control of the government and, in 1917, wrote a socialist constitution packed with anticlerical articles with the goal of marginalizing the Church's influence — if not driving her from Mexico altogether.
Backed by the full force of federal law, the Revolutionary Government confiscated all Church property, including hospitals, monasteries, convents, and schools. Priests were forbidden to wear their clerics in public. They were not allowed to express opinions on politics, even in private conversation. They could not seek justice in the Mexican courts. To take a religious vow became a criminal act.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7826
No, not celebrate, but tolerate.
Tolerance is NOT acceptance. It is NOT saying, “two men or two women together are no different than a man and a woman”. Tolerance does not change laws and definitions .
This is what angers the gays: They KNOW in a democracy they are tolerated. They openly scorn it, and want total acceptance. So perhaps I just undid my own adage, as honey tastes like vinegar to them now in any case.
Agreed, and I think, a major reason for the seeming generational split in who supports homosexual marriage. Many young people, including those who consider themselves Christian, don't see what's wrong with homosexual marriage, because they see marriage as being about feelings, love and sex. What's interesting is that many of the young people who support homosexual marriage have no interest in marrying themselves. They have a very jaded view of the institution, caused by the frequency of divorce over the past 30 years, so they think "why not" when homosexuals demand their 'right' to be married.
Much of this is because of the way the twenty and thirty somethings are viewing children. Many of them see children as impediments to their fun, or their careers, etc., so they don't see marriage and children as being connected, anymore. Easy access to contraception, and the general liberal attitude toward sex that has been created by the media have contributed to this. Easy divorce, and what they see of how heterosexuals have damaged the whole notion of marriage has only contributed to their ideas.
LOL - the good Bishop left off some of the folks in San Francisco who 'love' horses... Yep, might even want to 'marry' one and claim the animal as a dependent at tax time... Lots of groupings other than a 'man and a woman'.
How about a woman who wants to marry 300 potential 'immigrants' from third world countries? Who can deny true love? Especially when each of her 'husbands' give her a $5,000 diamond ring?
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.