Gay Activists Angry Over Roman Catholic Bishop Comparison of Incest and Bigamy to Same Sex Marriage
Puzzle me this. That’s an expression I learned in Scotland years ago. It really seems to perfectly suit the LGBT debate. As quoted in the Scotmans, a Roman Catholic Bishop made the following statement that has set the LGBT crowd all atwitter.
Gilbert, the first bishop to be appointed in Scotland by Pope Benedict, said: “The truth is that a government can pass any legislation it likes. 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?”
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.”
A local director of a LGBT group was very disappointed in the bishop.
Tim Hopkins, director of Equality Network, said: “We are very disappointed the Bishop of Aberdeen should choose to compare same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest. That is offensive and uncalled for.”
My question - or puzzle - is why is it offensive? Even the acornym includes the “B” crowd. By definition, bi-sexual means attraction to both sexes. An early hero and champion of the pro-gay crowd is Patricia Ireland, the openly bi-sexual feminist.
The activists have taken one letter at a time (L&G being consider one context). They began their campaign decades ago advocating to normalize the concept of same sex relationships. Once that line was crossed, they began the march for the transgendered. What brain dead idiot actually believes they will suddenly put down their signs and give up on normalizing every form of sexual preference? They are counting on us believing they are outraged at such statements. Bravo to the bishop that had the courage to speak honestly.
When you click on the article, be sure to read the comments. They call the argument for incest “stupid” because of inbreeding, genetics, etc. Last time I checked two brothers in a sexual relationship with one another could not reproduce. However, my favorite is a statement that the bishop’s statement about a man marrying two women showed how he really felt about women. Rich. You really can’t make this stuff up, people.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- Sweet lyrics and you can goose step to it!
- America’s Coming Demographic Disaster
- You win or you die
- Shiny Red Balls & Red Herrings in Upper South Carolina: Three Notes on Bishop Waldo’s Clergy Email
- Waldo To Approve Same Sex Blessings: Truth & Consequences in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina
- A Glance At the 59 Congregations of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina
- Legalism overpowers grace in women’s “choices”
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
13 comments
Indeed. The arguments that justify gay sex and gay marriage justify any form of sexual depravity that you can think off. Why can’t homosexual brothers, sisters, brothers and sisters marry under their arguments? They can’t reproduce and in the case of brother and sister the abortionists come into play.
[1] Posted by Br. Michael on 8-5-2012 at 11:42 AM · [top]
Using Holy Scripture, one can make a case (albeit weak) for both bigamy (e.g., the Patriarchs) and incest (e.g., the daughters of Lot). (No, I’m not advocating either.)
There’s no support whatsoever in all of Holy Scripture for homosexual practice, or for same-sex marriage. Nada. Zip. Null.
While the bishop’s remarks might well offend some, they are certainly called-for.
Jesus had a way of ticking people off, too.
[2] Posted by Ralph on 8-5-2012 at 12:11 PM · [top]
Jackie:
The best one so far:
Then there’s the guy who reasons that the bishop should have cited the example of nephews marrying their uncles. He’s clearly thinking ahead.
I hope the supporters of gay marriage enjoy their newly acquired status as right wing extremists who are standing in the way of human progress. As we all know, you can only do that for just so long.
When those knuckle draggers have been swept into the dustbin of history, then the polygamists can have a turn at shoring up the ramparts on what’s left of Western civilization’s right flank . . . followed by those who really believe in brotherly love . . . followed by those whose marriage certificates have to be cleared with PETA . . . followed by those whose partnerships keep our cemeteries from becoming overcrowded . . . you get the idea!
Those pro-GLBT folks need to take a course in introductory logic, or at least learn how to use their imaginations. Isn’t that what sexual liberation is all about?
[3] Posted by episcopalienated on 8-5-2012 at 12:48 PM · [top]
Episcopalienated, Have you not learned by now? It is NOT about logic, it IS all about FEELINGS!! Feelings are the *noveau logic*!
[4] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 8-5-2012 at 01:45 PM · [top]
Why do the bigots in TEo insist that gay relationships be monogamous? Isn’t that forcing the mentalities and structures of breeders on our GLBTQXYZ friends? That sounds an awful lot like heterosexism to me.
GET WITH THE PROGRAM TEo! Your sexual prophet, Vicki Gene Robinson has shown the way when he said there are alot more letters in the sexual alphabet we need to explore and endorse.
[5] Posted by Bill2 on 8-5-2012 at 03:06 PM · [top]
Bill2, that territory has been well-traveled already. Homosexual activists have a different definition of “monogamy” that allows for some (uhhhh…) variety.
Dirt, Greed, and Sex, by L. William Countryman.
For a summary (if you have the stomach for it), see:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/bible/dgs.html
And from here:
http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm
we have the quote,“In response to a question about how the Church should respond to nonmonogamous homosexual relationships, Countryman has said: ‘I would be distressed if the drive toward blessing gay unions merely applied Reformation understandings of heterosexual unions to gay unions.’”
One cannot in any way sugarcoat the homosexual activist movement, either in TEC or anywhere else.
[6] Posted by Ralph on 8-5-2012 at 04:25 PM · [top]
I am confused. Is it not about loving consensual relationships? Vote for love! Who are you to say who I can love?
[7] Posted by robroy on 8-5-2012 at 08:22 PM · [top]
#7 or what or how many either.
[8] Posted by Bill2 on 8-6-2012 at 03:26 PM · [top]
Gay activists have been saying “only so far, and no further” since the beginning of their movement. It started with We just want to be left alone. We would NEVER ask to be married! The it was We just want civil unions…. and so on and so forth. I believe at one time they were saying that they would never dream of forcing anyone to go against their beliefs. How many lawsuits are their now suing Christians?? Why on earth should anyone believe a word that comes from that camp. They domt know when to stop and never will. In fact, I have heard gay oeople describing their open “sexually liberated” gender busting relationships as something superior to the old worn out models. You can see where that is going, right? Superiority not equality!!
[9] Posted by StayinAnglican on 8-7-2012 at 12:15 AM · [top]
Ahem. Please excuse my typing post Black Russian. Heh heh
[10] Posted by StayinAnglican on 8-7-2012 at 12:17 AM · [top]
Why do the bigots in TEo insist that gay relationships be monogamous?
Under the “slow-boil the frog” strategy, each new step forward is accompanied by a strident statement that “this is it, this is all we want.” They will repent of the monogamy soon, and claim again “this is it, this is all we want.”
[11] Posted by Michael D on 8-7-2012 at 08:09 AM · [top]
Sorry once you decide that a line is there to be crossed you don’t get to complain when others move the line. The line is now a social construct.
[12] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 8-7-2012 at 08:33 AM · [top]
Yeah, watching the homosexual leadership agenda unfold is a great study in “civil rights”, in that it starts with social acceptance, then legal acceptance, and finally (as we see in Europe and starting to see in the US) zero tolerance of speaking out against homosexuality, legally enforced.
Just another way satan is trying to destroy the church.
And if you think about it, we are the bride of Christ; marriage is a reflection of this relationship, so of course satan will try to destroy it by “reforming it” in man’s unholy image.
[13] Posted by B. Hunter on 8-7-2012 at 10:03 AM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.