OK, so I just read about the latest vomiting issued by arch-bishop of Glasgow Mario
Cunti Conti. He is weighing in, with his usual balanced and not at all bigoted effluence, to the Scottish Government’s consultation on gay marriage. This is pretty much what we’ve come to expect from this waste of perfectly good flesh but I did think his argument would be a little bit more refined than it was.
He claims that gay marriage would be meaningless as gay couples can not reproduce. Seriously? This guy is the arch-bishop of Glasgow and the best he can come up with is the same argument that is wheeled out by every ‘too much lead in the drinking water’ inbred piece of shit ignorant homophobe?
Then there were the letters to the Herald, the rag in which he made his views clear, supporting the odious little creep.
Archbishop Mario Conti is right to state: “The term ‘civil partnership’ describes what such unions are. ‘Marriage’ does not – it describes a different reality” (Letters September 9).
Marriage is a union between a male and a female – a women and a man. A civil partnership between two persons of same sex, on the other hand, is a negation of marriage.
Marriage is not only for love between two people but more importantly for procreation and the continuation of the human race.
Since when was there a fertility test before getting married? If marriage is for the purpose of getting pregnant then are childless couples in ‘civil partnerships’ rather than marriages? Dick.
Marriage makes a family– and the family unit is the rock on which a society or civilization stands. Thus, without the institution of marriage – the union of a man and a woman – there would be no society and no civilization.
8 Riverview Gardens,
The family unit is the rock upon which a society or civilisation stands? Well I think you will find that there are as many types of marriage as there are societies Bashir. You will find societies where are many husbands for a single wife, where there are many wives for a single husband. You will also find that in most, if not all, of these societies the arrangement is to the detriment of the woman or women involved.
So if what you say is true, that our society is built on the foundation of marriage then we need to ask what sort of society it is that we wish to live in. Do we wish to live in a society that is fair, loving and caring and that treats all members of it as equal, to be respected? Or do we wish to build a society where whole swathes of society are excluded and discriminated against. Not for views they hold, or ideologies they wish to push upon other. Merely because of who they are.
Marriage is a union between people who love each other. It matters not a jot their gender, sex or even how many of them there are. So long as they are in love and there is no coercion involved then a marriage between two men, two women, a dozen men and women and a bunch of folk who don’t consider themselves to be either ‘man’ or ‘woman’ or a man and a woman are all equally as valid.
If you think other wise then you’re just a wrong ‘un.