Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Outcry after bishop's gay marriage jibe
Herald Scotland ^ | Aug 4 2012 | Gerry Braiden

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholic; homosexualagenda; incest; polygamy; religiousliberty; scotland; speakingthetruth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last
If you look at the Bishop's argument, he is using logic, reason, and the ethics of reason. He is using logical inference and deductive reasoning.
1 posted on 08/05/2012 7:19:00 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scottjewell; ebb tide; Sirius Lee; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; Monkey Face; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


2 posted on 08/05/2012 7:21:02 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Logic doesn't work with these people. Certainly heterosexual sex between a man and two wives is more normal than packing fudge, but they don't want to hear that.

Certainly the call for more and more acceptance of sexual contact we now consider to be abnormal will come as we accept more and more Homosexual sex.

The old saying is that there is nothing new under the sun, and these aberrational acts have been performed for thousands of years, but accepting the perverse because Caligula did it , does not make it right.

3 posted on 08/05/2012 7:26:41 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Good for His Excellency!

We need more clergy that speak their minds!

Hell is for homos.

Pass the Chic-Fil-A’s!


4 posted on 08/05/2012 7:26:41 AM PDT by IbJensen (If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

“But I won’t marry them. It just can’t be done.”

What a wonderful, logical and concise summary.

BXVI obviously realizes that this issue is going to be the one that the forces that hate the Church and Christianity are going to use for their immediate legal attack in European countries and the US, because he has appointed a raft of new bishops (even to San Francisco!) who are very clear and outspoken about the issue, no matter the reaction.

This comes after years of earlier bishops who either seemed to tacitly approve of it, or were too scared to say anything about it. All that did was weaken the position of the Church.

Good luck and many years to your new bishop!


5 posted on 08/05/2012 7:28:20 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Well said...It’s almost as if all these consequences must happen in order for the reversal to come. I don’t feel like waiting for it, though, just because liberals don’t know how to engage in deductive reasoning.


6 posted on 08/05/2012 7:29:34 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
If you look at the Bishop's argument, he is using logic, reason, and the ethics of reason. He is using logical inference and deductive reasoning.

Yeah, but people don't think that way. They merely feel.

It should be obvious that if a form of argument leads to some absurd conclusion then something is wrong with the argument and any conclusions that result from its application should be questioned.

Almost no-one gets that though, except those that have some background in mathematics or logic.

7 posted on 08/05/2012 7:29:58 AM PDT by conservative sympathizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Logic doesn’t work with the mentally blind... but we try it anyway... hopefully some will listen.

But some words seem so true: “He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury.” (Proverbs (RSV) 9:7)


8 posted on 08/05/2012 7:30:57 AM PDT by Bayard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

As I often say, you can’t reason somebody out of a position reason didn’t get them in to....
Of course, I love and approve of the Bishop’s statement fully!


9 posted on 08/05/2012 7:32:36 AM PDT by Uriah_lost (Is there no balm in Gilead?....MiE (Mainer in Exile))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

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?


10 posted on 08/05/2012 7:36:48 AM PDT by RightFighter (It was all for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

You do not favors gorgeous anyone by saying things like “Hell is for homos.” How long ago did you join the Westboro Baptist Church?


11 posted on 08/05/2012 7:37:46 AM PDT by RightFighter (It was all for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Of course he’s right. But this argument will be called “hateful” and soon there will be “laws” passed against “hate speech”, and a man like this will face fines and imprisonment.

Don’t kid yourselves...Progressivism is most of all a fascistic doctrine...go back and read about Woodrow Wilson and even Theodore Roosevelt...they viewed their opposition as not only wrong...but evil.


12 posted on 08/05/2012 7:40:03 AM PDT by kjo (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Well, obviously I’m having problems typing coherent sentences on my phone this morning.

FR’s comment entry page needs revamping. It’s very difficult to see what you’re typing on a mobile device.


13 posted on 08/05/2012 7:40:11 AM PDT by RightFighter (It was all for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Logic doesn't work with these people. Certainly heterosexual sex between a man and two wives is more normal than packing fudge, but they don't want to hear that.

Your suggestion that marriage is simply about sex only supports the idea of same sex marriage-equality. It's a shallow view, IMO, and it plays into the hands of those that want to devalue marriage.

We're not talking about just sex. We're talking about a complicated relationship between people and their relationship to the rest of society.

Proper family formation is essential for the healthy continuation of society and civilization. A special social recognition and support of those people that wish to begin families is important.

14 posted on 08/05/2012 7:41:37 AM PDT by conservative sympathizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Logic doesn't work with these people. Certainly heterosexual sex between a man and two wives is more normal than packing fudge, but they don't want to hear that.

Your suggestion that marriage is simply about sex only supports the idea of same sex marriage-equality. It's a shallow view, IMO, and it plays into the hands of those that want to devalue marriage.

We're not talking about just sex. We're talking about a complicated relationship between people and their relationship to the rest of society.

Proper family formation is essential for the healthy continuation of society and civilization. A special social recognition and support of those people that wish to begin families is important.

15 posted on 08/05/2012 7:41:42 AM PDT by conservative sympathizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

100% on the money! Good to hear it from a bishop.


16 posted on 08/05/2012 7:42:18 AM PDT by mlizzy (And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell others not to kill? --MT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlizzy

And of course this argument would apply globally. But in this era someone who uses logic is simply drowned out by the voices of political correctness.


17 posted on 08/05/2012 7:57:26 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: conservative sympathizer
We're talking about a complicated relationship between people and their relationship to the rest of society.

Not complicated but complex. And your premise is 100% correct. Lose this and the foundations of our society are transformed. We are a tolerant people but we have had enough transformation.

18 posted on 08/05/2012 7:58:30 AM PDT by corkoman (Release the Palin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
If you look at the Bishop's argument, he is using logic, reason, and the ethics of reason. He is using logical inference and deductive reasoning.

Absolutely! The Bishop is asking a very logical question, one that I've asked my liberal friends. The reaction is the same, they have no answer so they cry "Homophobe". Every argument they put forward to justify homosexual "marriage" can be used to justify all types of unions. IMHO thanks to this gay marriage legislation, in 20 years or so, we'll be fighting to keep polygamy illegal. Especially given the rise of sharia in the west.

When you strip it all down, marriage was created for the production and the protection of the next generation period. That's why you have inheritance, child support obligations and until recently, adoption only to married couples. Progressives with their "gay marriage" are destroying the core of society, the family.

19 posted on 08/05/2012 7:59:30 AM PDT by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Eventually, the conservative churches might again take control of marriage as a religious rite, outside of the realm of government control and influence.

The reason that government got involved in the first place was seemingly legitimate, that society had an interest in promulgating marriage and children, so it should “help them out” married couples with largess. However, overnight this turned into a situation of furthering government power and control.

The first step in doing this is the hardest, that from a given time, couples that wish to be married will only be recognized in that denomination’s churches as married, not getting a government license to marry at all.

As far as the government (typically the IRS) is concerned, they will be called POSSLQs. Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters. They will keep their unmarried names in public, and known as Mr. and Mrs. only in their church and to friends and family.

Another hard step will likely need the agreement of many conservative churches, to *not* recognize marriage outside of their conservative churches. This will have to be “grandfathered” for those couples married previously, of course.

After some years, when this comes into effect, those couples married in civil services will have to officially no-contest divorce, before they can be married in church or have their marriage recognized as legitimate.

Government wants its control, however, so will not appreciate the effort to restore marriage to a religious rite. They will continue to try and force churches to marry anyone and everyone, and force couples to be government married and licensed.

So this is not just a glib exercise, but a very serious decision by the conservative churches, to separate “the state” from “the church”.


20 posted on 08/05/2012 8:06:10 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
why equality did not extend to "nieces who genuinely, truly love their uncles" and why men could not have two wives,

It really is quite obvious that he is asking the correct question.

21 posted on 08/05/2012 8:10:10 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
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.

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?

22 posted on 08/05/2012 8:10:17 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

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.


23 posted on 08/05/2012 8:10:52 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Exactly - and this is why it might be a very good thing if polygamists began boldly requesting this right now (already occurring in Canada).


24 posted on 08/05/2012 8:12:28 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

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.


25 posted on 08/05/2012 8:13:37 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Right. And to this question the Rainbow Agenda has repeatedly answered with silence.


26 posted on 08/05/2012 8:13:46 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb

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.


27 posted on 08/05/2012 8:16:22 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Why is it all right for a man to marry another man, but not all right for him to marry two women?

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.

28 posted on 08/05/2012 8:20:55 AM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randog

Absolutely. And this is a fact the gay agenda does not like to be reminded of.


29 posted on 08/05/2012 8:24:40 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: randog

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.


30 posted on 08/05/2012 8:24:46 AM PDT by mission9 (It is by the fruit ye shall know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

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.”


31 posted on 08/05/2012 8:27:22 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

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


32 posted on 08/05/2012 8:27:59 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

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.


33 posted on 08/05/2012 8:29:33 AM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Actually, hell is not for homos.

Hell is for those who refuse mercy.

34 posted on 08/05/2012 8:30:15 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Dies irae, dies illa...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
You do not favors gorgeous anyone by saying things like “Hell is for homos.”

You're not from around here are you? I does appear, however from what I deciphered, that your ox has been gored.

35 posted on 08/05/2012 8:32:29 AM PDT by IbJensen (If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uriah_lost
you can’t reason somebody out of a position reason didn’t get them in to....

Well said!

36 posted on 08/05/2012 8:35:32 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

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.


37 posted on 08/05/2012 8:36:33 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mission9
The objective of gay marriage is to criminalize Christianity.

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??

38 posted on 08/05/2012 8:43:21 AM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I meant to say “you don’t do any favors for anyone” but my stupid auto-correct wasn’t cooperating.


39 posted on 08/05/2012 8:45:02 AM PDT by RightFighter (It was all for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
They will only say, “But we were born with special digestive systems which can only digest pears and not apples.”

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.

40 posted on 08/05/2012 8:51:20 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
“The reason that government got involved in the first place was seemingly legitimate, that society had an interest in promulgating marriage and children, so it should “help them out” married couples with largess. However, overnight this turned into a situation of furthering government power and control.”

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.

41 posted on 08/05/2012 8:54:44 AM PDT by LaserJock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

“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.


42 posted on 08/05/2012 9:02:11 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

Yes, that is true. They do. Very narcissistic of them to do so.


43 posted on 08/05/2012 9:03:43 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: conservative sympathizer

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.


44 posted on 08/05/2012 9:06:08 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

“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.


45 posted on 08/05/2012 9:07:36 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kjo

Yes they did, but something needs to be done. We can’t continue on like this.


46 posted on 08/05/2012 9:07:52 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

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.


47 posted on 08/05/2012 9:11:31 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

“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.


48 posted on 08/05/2012 9:12:53 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: randog

Why only consenting adults? Shouldn’t children have equal rights? And what about animal rights?


49 posted on 08/05/2012 9:17:33 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

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.


50 posted on 08/05/2012 9:18:40 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson