Reader comments · Gay mayor of Paris appalled at ‘ugly’ anti-gay comments of Catholic bishop · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay mayor of Paris appalled at ‘ugly’ anti-gay comments of Catholic bishop

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Does the bible actually use the term “marriage”?

    Here they go again saying by allowing same sex marriage it will cause a breakdown in society and yet again they cannot provide one scrap of evidence to back it up. More hot air from the awful religious lot!

    1. For a head honcho of the church, he appears to have very little intimate knowledge of the texts upon which his religion is based.

      There is not a word about marriage in the first page, even less the first chapter, of the bible.

      1. Amazing, isn’t it? Even with extra-large pages …!

        Indeed, God’s intentions appear to have been far more focused on fruitfulness and multiplication and subduing the earth than any nuptial contract.

      2. It also says that the first woman was made out of the first man’s rib. Obviously a reliable source of social policy.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Sep 2012, 1:36pm

      No it doesn’t mention the word at all. What we should demand is irrefutable proof, factual evidence from the opposition to substantiate their spurious claims. The Netherlands has had equal marriage for over eleven years. You would think that would be sufficient time for incest, polygamy and other aberrant relationships to take root. It amazes me that nobody ever counters these vile bigots with the facts.

      1. It amazes me that nobody ever counters these vile bigots with the facts.

        People like this individual are seldom swayed by facts.

      2. John Jones 19 Sep 2012, 1:17am

        “No it doesn’t mention the word at all.”

        Just a couple of examples: Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Heb 13:4)

        But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done. (Lk 3:19)

        I rest my case…

        And although the specific word ‘marriage’ was not used in the Creation myths — religious allegories meant to emphasise basic truths about human nature — in relation to Adam and Eve (‘Man’ / ‘earth’ and ‘Mother’ / ‘Life’), it is obvious that their (re)union leading to life is a ‘marriage’ of the two primary aspects of humanity. In fact, Jesus confirms this in his own teachings on marriage, in which he refers back to Genesis — and therefore the natural law (of which the book seems to be an allegory).

        1. Kindly specify the point at which the Creation ‘myth’ (as you so rightly call it) was generally understood to be an allegory. As you will be aware, there are people even today who accept it as literal truth.

          And would you say the patriarch Jacob is a useful model for the biblical understanding of the purity of marriage?

      3. John Jones 19 Sep 2012, 1:25am

        “The Netherlands has had equal marriage for over eleven years.

        ?? LOL.

        “It amazes me that nobody ever counters these vile bigots with the facts.”

        a) It is a fact that, in Brazil for example, ‘equal marriage’ has led to polygamous relationships recognised in law as quasi-marriages.
        b) It is a fact that the Bible talks about marriage, and that a bishop in the Church would have studied the Bible for at least 6 years in seminary, and reads it at least 8 times a day (Mass and the 7 offices of the day).
        c) Read the comments below and you will see that it is already a fact that some people are following the logical conclusion of ‘equal marriage’ to ask, “why not incest marriage?”
        d) What is the argument for branding polygamy and incest ‘aberrant’, when understood in the context of ‘equal marriage’? Surely, most people on the planet and human history would have viewed gay marriage as aberrant?

        1. Most people on the planet and human history would have viewed living in peace with neighbouring communities of a different race or ethnicity as aberrant: do you therefore believe that war is desirable?

        2. You tell us what is the reason for branding polygamy and incest “aberrant.” After all, the Bible is full of Hebrew patriarchs and kings marrying many women. And they have time for concubines too! And not to tell you to open the Bible, but it does say that Abraham was married to his sister (yes, even if she was only a half-sister). And God didn’t really care about those incestuous and polygamous marriages. He was perfectly fine with them.

        3. bobbleobble 19 Sep 2012, 9:42am

          I’m not sure what the LOL is for in relation to the Netherlands, every couple that can legally exist in the Netherlands is now treated equally.

          a) If the Brazilians wish to legalise polygamy then that’s up to them. However, you would be hard pressed to prove that the introduction of gay marriage in Brazil caused polygamy since Brazil doesn’t allow gay people to marry as such. In none of the other states that have introduced same sex marriage has polygamy become legal. But even if it had, so what? What business is it of yours?
          b) The BIble does talk about marriage in translation, are you sure it talked about it in the original? And just because he’s studied the BIble doesn’t mean he understands it.
          c) So? I personally do not believe incest should be made legal because I think genuine consent would be impossible to prove. Incest by and large involves abuse of a younger or weaker family member. But why is it wrong to ask those questions?

        4. bobbleobble 19 Sep 2012, 9:46am

          d) The problem here is that you’re failing to appreciate that whilst arguments in favour may appear similar the arguments against same sex marriage are different to those of incest and polygamy. The granting of a right has to be based on a balance of both arguments in favour and against. So in the context of equal marriage you need to look at both and if the reasons against outwiegh the reasons in favour then you don’t grant the right. At this moment in our society the reasons against incest and polygamy outwiegh the right for practitioners of those lifestyles to marry. THat may change but it will not be as a result of legalising same sex marriage.

          I would also point out that polygamy is practiced today in countries which are virulently anti-gay so you can hardly link the two now can you?

    3. John Jones 19 Sep 2012, 1:05am

      Yes, it does…

      The New International Version’s English translation contains about 40 verses with the specific word ‘marriage’ in them. More references occur for words such as ‘wedding’, ‘betrothal’, etc

      1. “The first page of the bible, which says that marriage unites a man and a woman, has more force and truth…”

        It does not.

      2. In translation, the Bible does talk about incestuos and polygamous marriages too.
        If we are going to take the Bible as law, we should take it all and not only the parts that are convenient to us.

  2. “primate” says it all.

  3. What is actually wrong with incest anyway? Most men don’t want to marry their sister, just like most people aren’t gay. But is there anything actually ‘wrong’ with marrying your sibling??

    1. Well, I understand your point. But there IS a risk – minimal as it might be in certain cases – of genetic issues with offspring. In a sense, that possibility could be seen as a “wrong”, no?

      But that issue aside: the way I see it (and this is only my own interpretation of what marriage means to me), marriage is between two unrelated (by blood) individuals. Brother and sister are related by birth. There is already a familial relationship that exists there. If the goal of matrimony is to strengthen community through the recognition of unions, then for society nothing is really gained from an incestuous relationship.

      I don’t know, I’m not the greatest thinker.

      1. I think these issues are worth exploring. This article gives reasons why incest has become taboo, yes for biological reasons but also social. I’m not so sure in the 21st century we should be continuing to proscribe who others should marry. Yes, most of us don’t want to marry a sibling but then most people don’t want to marry someone of the same sex!

        1. bobbleobble 19 Sep 2012, 9:50am

          I don’t think you’re wrong that we should explore the issue rather than just dismissing it. But i do think that apart from biological reasons I think in cases of incest there is very often abuse involved. How many cases of incest can you genuinely think of that are totally consensual? It’s almost always an older or more dominant family member taking advantage of a younger or more submissive one. Even in cases where it appears that consent is given it can often be a kind of Stockholm Syndrome where someone has been convinced to consent rather than actually does.

  4. Garry Cassell 18 Sep 2012, 1:29pm

    Just another so-called religious person so ready to explode with hate…just afraid if gayness becomes too open they (priest) won’t be able to use fear to silence their sexual victims..They(priest) always need a fresh supply of boys…

  5. The hypocrisy is breathtaking! You’d think he might have some awareness of the damage his organisation’s abuses and cover-ups have done to various societies worldwide over the centuries, and learn to moderate his remarks accordingly.

  6. Mumbo Jumbo 18 Sep 2012, 1:41pm

    If he wants to see a complete breakdown in society he only has to go to Ireland and see the effect of the child rape scandal perpetrated by his own church.

  7. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Sep 2012, 1:41pm

    If you look at the creationist fairy tale in Genesis, the coming together of Adam and Eve, you will not that Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs. A talking snake (the devil I suppose) tempted them to taste of the forbidden fruit (an apple) and Eve was cursed to bring forth children in pain.

    I don’t see any connection to marriage in that. It’s all a man-made invention. Traditional biblical marriage that opponents of equal marriage believe to be the only kind of marriage, consisted of polygamous hetero marriages. Solomon is purported to have had 300 wives and concubines. Women were stoned to death for adultery, a practice still in existence in several Islamic countries. Heterosexual Incest was also mentioned but was never condemned. Go figure.

    1. and technically speaking, if Eve was created from Adam’s rib… um… wouldn’t that de facto make their relationship incestuous?
      So the Bible is ok with incest, unless it’s somehow brought about by gay marriage?

      Come to think of it, the Bible has many examples of polygamy.. so that’s ok in the Bible too… except when gay marriage leads to polygamy, then it’s bad?

      It is SOOO hard to keep all of their horsepucky straight!!!

      1. John Jones 19 Sep 2012, 1:00am

        “Bible has many examples of polygamy.. so that’s ok in the Bible too…”.

        Contrary to what many think, the books of the Bible constantly reveal flawed characters, reflecting human life. Its heroes are far from perfect. God did not want a King of Israel, but the people just went and ignored Him anyway, resulting in complex men like David (adulterer and murderer) and Solomon (with is many mistresses). But the fact that they lived peculiar lives does not mean that the Bible ‘condones’ this behviour. Far from it; somethings in the Bible are there as means of showing us how not to live. Even the Laws need interpreting: some are moral, others ritual, and yet others pertain to time and place. The New Testament is clear in stating (Vision of Peter) that Christians Hebraic ritual laws, only the laws that set us free: i.e. the moral law, known to all humans in the laws of nature and through highly developed consciences.

        1. bobbleobble 19 Sep 2012, 10:00am

          Can you perhaps point out where in the Bible David and Solomon were condemned for the lifestyles they led?

          I also don’t agree that the New Testament is in any way clear and there will be as many people disagreeing with your interpretation of what the Vision of Peter says as agreeing with it. And that’s ultimately the point. It’s all interpretation, nothing is certain, nothing is clear, you take a passage of the Bible and make it fit what you want it to say. And yet we’re supposed to lead our lives in accordance with this?!

      2. No, it would not be incest. It would be masturbation :)

  8. Cardinal Capone 18 Sep 2012, 2:08pm

    Inciting animosity against the gay community is a tactic we have seen used in the marriage debate again and again across America, believed to be funded by the Vatican and Mormon churches, the same is happening here, and now in France.

    It is so obvious that otherwise reasonable clerics are responding to orders from above when they make some of these outrageous statements.

    1. John Jones 19 Sep 2012, 1:30am

      How is what he said ‘inciting animosity against the gay community’?

      a) what is inciting animosity?
      b) what is the ‘gay community’?

      ‘Funded by the Vatican’ — what does that statement mean? How can a tiny state which is often in deficit though sometimes makes about $1million annually fund campaigns outside its borders?

      1. Heh – you seriously believe the Roman Catholic Church (colloquially referred to as The Vatican, as that territory is the seat of its CEO) has an annual turnover of $1m, do you? Bless.

  9. Cardinal Capone 18 Sep 2012, 2:13pm

    It”s slightly remarkable that he relies on a series of incestuous relationships to populate the earth ( that has no mention of marriage), and then complains that marriage for gay people will somehow lead to incest.

    Apart from that I thought official Catholic dogma accepted evolution, and was anti creationism, which is more the evangelical line.

    1. John Jones 19 Sep 2012, 1:41am

      a) in its basic form, marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the intended purpose of creating new life and forming a unified human unit out of the two different forms of being human. That is why marriages are consummated — fulfilled — through the sexual (vaginal) act. In that sense, marriage would have happened naturally when primitive man and primitive woman ‘got it on’. It is the basic human ‘rite of passage’.

      b) The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution as a biological theory, which is a good way of explaining the origin of our species. But the Church has only ever declared ‘dogmas’ in relation to matters of faith. Those who misunderstand the Bible, and distort its meaning because of their doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’, probably do believe in ‘Creationism’ — but the Church teaches that those people are in error and are misinterpreting the divinely ordained purpose of scripture. Until Protestantism came on the scene, understanding the Bible was a nuanced affiar.

      1. How many people were in the “new unified human unit” of Abraham and Sarah and Hagar? How many were in the unified human unit of Jacob and Rachel and Leah and the two slave women? How many were in the unit of kings David and Solomon and their numerous wives?

      2. bobbleobble 19 Sep 2012, 9:56am

        Actually marriage in its basic form was about uniting families and tribes with fathers essentially selling their daughters to other men.. The religious gubbins was added much later. Marriage is now about the uniting of two people on a contractual basis unless you want added religious gubbins on top.

        And in any event none of this explains why this particular priest feels the Catholic Church should have the right to dictate the policies of the secular French government.

  10. Cardinal Capone 18 Sep 2012, 2:17pm

    And another thing. If he really valued marriage as much as we do, he’d be married.

  11. Cardinal Capone 18 Sep 2012, 2:49pm

    Oh, and another one. Since they are so keen to be able to decide if we can get married or not, how about we have a convention/petition to decide whether Catholic priests can get married? None of our business right?

    But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

  12. That There Other David 18 Sep 2012, 2:56pm

    “He went on to say: “This could have innumerable consequences. Afterwards they will want to create couples with three or four members. And after that, perhaps one day the taboo of incest will fall”.”

    Both of which goes on throughout the Old Testament. And since when does Genesis 1 define marriage as between one man and one woman??? Has this Bishop ever actually opened a Bible and read it?

  13. Mr Religion wants to take France’s secular republic government, and replace it with an oppressive theocracy pledging total allegiance to imperial catholicism under the Pope.

    1. de Villiers 19 Sep 2012, 1:58am

      I think that your comment is wrong – he does not want a theocracy pleading allegiance to Rome. That is a silly suggestion. However, the archevêque should stay out of the politics. There is the laïcité in France – the archevêque cannot behave as if the Revolution never happened.

  14. Ok so have some folk forgotten that the bible we have to read is only part of the bible that was created. Books and chapters were taken out if a pope disagreed with what it said, and it was then burned.
    If you ask me the catholic church is so backwards they would struggle to find the way forewards and if the Church of England arent carefull they to will fall foul of the same thing.
    The Bishop can comment on things but should get his facts correct before airing his veiw, but then again you cant tell some people if they think there way is right then you’ll never get through to them no matter how hard you try.
    Personally should it matter who we marry as marriage is an act of commitment between two people who love and care about each other. I still think incest is wrong but then again as a gay man who am I to judge the only one who can judge is god. I havent yet heard his/her views and I’m still waiting lol

  15. There are a number of references to marriage in the New Testament (the Old Testament does not apply to Christians)
    KJV, Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all,.etc……… as an example. There is no direct mention of same sex marriage in the New Testament. However there is a reference in the Old Testament to David and Jonathan where Saul calls David his son-in-law (translated from ancient Hebrew). This is an inference to same sex marriage.

    1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman..

    There are numerous examples of same sex marriages conducted by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The Vatican archives is one of the sources.
    So there is a lot of hypocrisy, deception and double standards in the RCC. The fly in the ointment is the present Pope and the Cardinals who put out directives that their yes men must follow .

    1. If the OT does not apply to Christians, why does this archbishop refer to the importance of the first page of it?

  16. He’s catholic and a bishop! This is what you get from religion that is so far removed from modern day life its little wonder people are leaving all religions in droves.Verbal and physical outrages from all religious sectors say far more about their own faith than they do about the material that proports to offend them.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.