February 27, 2017

July 11, 2012

Lesbian denominational leader says that my marriage is a livestock exchange

One of the LGBTQi etc. now running the Episcopal Church tweeted:

“‘Traditional Marriage’ means giving livestock in return for access to another man’s daughter”

Every so often the LGBTQi etc. subculture opens the closet door wide enough to reveal more than sexual preference.  There’s a whole wardrobe of hate and dysfunction to show off.

My wife and I share a traditional marriage getting close to 25 years.  We raise a disabled child.  We’ve had our share of challenges and by God’s grace continue to love and support each other and, as the Book of Common Prayer puts it, “find such fulfillment of their mutual affection that (we) reach out in love and concern for others.”

What possible kind of pastoral leadership likens that to a “cattle exchange” while celebrating recreational sex and fetishes as holiness?  The leadership of The Episcopal Church.  Maybe not all the bishops or the many other clergy and lay leaders assembled in a show convention this summer, but the sexually disordered activist leaders who tell them what to say, what bathroom to use and how low to grovel.


Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



The gay lobby make a serious fallacy with statements like this. They assume that because things like gifts (dowry, etc.) are involved in traditional marriage, therefore traditional marriage is reducible to a monetary exchange. Or that because people are jealous or possessive, marriage is reducible to “ownership”.

They make the further fallacy that because certain people may in the past have valued traditional marriage for the wrong reasons, therefore traditional marriage is not an ethical standard in itself, and it is OK to redefine it to include immoral activities.

That is as stupid as saying that because in the past people may have wanted children for the wrong reasons (to provide support in old age, to carry on the family name, etc. rather than being an end in themselves) therefore it is OK to redefine child rearing and allow people like Peter Tatchell and Kevin Jennings to discard traditional child rearing, and sexualize it. Or like saying that because there are corrupt judges and policemen, it is OK to legalize theft and murder. It’s a total non sequitur.

So as to: “Traditional Marriage’ means giving livestock in return for access to another man’s daughter”

idiotic statements like this can be answered at their own level with, “and what you say is morally equivalent to marrying those livestock, since whatever urges pop into your head are the ultimate good and must be obeyed at all cost. Is that any better? Is that what you’re trying to sell? No thanks.”

[1] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-11-2012 at 10:27 AM · [top]

The TEC kind of pastorla leaderhsip - that’s what kind! They’re coming out with increasingly outrageous statements. And why not? These people, of course, are feeling pretty strong right now and will undoubtedly come out with more and more outrageous things now that they’re socially and morally acceptable in TEC. Unfortunately, they know that even the clergy who disagree with them are not much of a threat, partly because they don’t want to make a break and will therefor put up with just about anything for the sake of the great god church unity.

[2] Posted by Nellie on 7-11-2012 at 10:31 AM · [top]

They invent fake history to mask their hatred for all things good.

[3] Posted by All-Is-True on 7-11-2012 at 10:33 AM · [top]

They accuse traditionalists of being stuck in antiquity, but keep drawing examples from antiquity to decry the current state of affairs.  When was the last time a man offered cows to a father in order to marry his daughter?  500 years ago?

Hardly anyone even consults a woman’s father before marrying her - it’s so… old fashioned and chauvinistic.  Does she know anyone who’s gotten married lately?  I think she’s a bit out of touch.

Or maybe she needs some cows.

[4] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 7-11-2012 at 10:38 AM · [top]

As I mentioned on T19 and here a few years ago, anyone that thinks this stops with gay bishops and marriage is dreaming.  We’re now seeing the expansion of the lunacy of the pansexualists blossom.  Stay tuned, it’s sure to get “better.”

[5] Posted by Jeffersonian on 7-11-2012 at 10:49 AM · [top]

B-b-but Tim… they’ve done the theology!!!

[6] Posted by Greg Griffith on 7-11-2012 at 11:09 AM · [top]

Two thoughts on this:

1)  What does this viewpoint mean to the metaphor of Christ and his Bride (the church) - and His sacrifice for us?  I guess it means as little as an exchange of livestock?  No wonder many have no concept of (or a good dose of contempt for) what that means. 

2)  If traditional marriage is so icky WHY DO THEY WANT IT SO MUCH!?!

[7] Posted by GillianC on 7-11-2012 at 11:13 AM · [top]

A queer tangent to the shellfish argument. Full of sound and fury.

[8] Posted by Ralph on 7-11-2012 at 11:19 AM · [top]

Pandora’s box is open.  And it’s not a good thing.  Keeping marriage defined as God did, between one woman and one man, kept the lid on the box.  Now - well, homosexual marriage is just step 1 as noted by #5.

Didn’t our good friend, the country Bishop, VGR, state that “we have just begun to explore all the letters in the alphabet” or something like it?

Many of those who choose a homosexual lifestyle are ALL ABOUT SEX - ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYWAY they can get it.  We are justifying their deviant behavior.  And there is NO END to what this entails.

And I agree, there is a lot of real serious hate coming from that camp.  There are some videos on YouTube of late during the gay pride parades where folks preaching the Gospel were attacked using incredibly foul and hateful language.

2 Timothy 4:3 “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

[9] Posted by B. Hunter on 7-11-2012 at 11:21 AM · [top]

Once again y’all are being divisive. If someone values marriage as an exchange of cattle, who are we to judge her? That we may have a more elevated view of the sacrament of marriage does not invalidate her own, lesser paradigm. If the good reverend feels slighted by the paucity of livestock offered for her, then we should commiserate rather than condemn.

[10] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 7-11-2012 at 11:25 AM · [top]

#7, 1) excellent point.

Or take Genesis/Mt 19: “He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh”.

So the “reducibility” argument is utterly dishonest, and cheapens marriage (“it was just a commercial exchange, so we can now arbitrarily re-define it”).

#6 You mean this? That’s good reading before a workout. The stupidity really raises the adrenaline levels.

[11] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-11-2012 at 11:26 AM · [top]

We live in a society where the FDIC protects what we save and we have IRAs and accountants who take care to protect the small amount of wealth we accumulate in order to pass on to our children and grandchildren. For thousands of years, people didn’t have this…marriage contracts were one of the few legal resources in which common people could ensure that what little wealth they had put away didn’t get gobbled up by pirates, robber barons (the old ones…not the 19th century guys), or royal bureaucrats. Now, I prefer the financial system we have now to the old system, but the old system was hardly this whole ‘trading a woman for a cow’ thing…that is largely a modern (and self-serving for those who use it) myth.

[12] Posted by All-Is-True on 7-11-2012 at 11:40 AM · [top]

If anyone needs a rebuttal, try “So ‘family values’ means sacrificing your children to Molech huh?”

[13] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 7-11-2012 at 11:41 AM · [top]

The Episcopal church has set very low standards for their women.

Men shouldn’t marry Episcopal women, but rather just pick one to sleep with out of wedlock. Ha, now they can do it with the bishop’s blessing or those bishops are bigots and sexist.  That’s how we got to this point and we are to breathe deeply the equality of some spirit they love. Anyone who disagrees, just remind them of shellfish.

Hey, they might pull in all those redneck families from the apartments who have kids from several relationships. Bless ‘em and get ‘em on more gubment programs.

Sounds good for men too - eliminates the cost of a divorce, child support, etc. New freedom, just like that for gay guys. Also, kids are disease and can be aborted for convenience. The church will provide condums, advocate for gubment paid birth control and abortions, and will bless it all.

You women got your justice big time. You can thank your Episcopal church.

My prayers for you.

[14] Posted by Dr. N. on 7-11-2012 at 11:45 AM · [top]

Tim - congratulations on your 25 years together AND your success story in raising two sons - BOTH of whom - give you and Melissa reasons to be proud.

[15] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 7-11-2012 at 12:11 PM · [top]

Sounds like the tweeter is having a cow rather than getting one.

[16] Posted by Milton on 7-11-2012 at 12:38 PM · [top]

Does this mean that if I rejoin TEC, David Booth Beers will go get that herd of cattle promised by my son-in-law’s parents?  ACNA has been no help on that at all, even though I had to put up untold talents of silver as dowry.

[17] Posted by tjmcmahon on 7-11-2012 at 12:44 PM · [top]

In order for the pig to feel less ashamed, it needs to try to splatter mud on everything that reminds it of its own filth. It’s called “rationalization”.

[18] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-11-2012 at 12:57 PM · [top]

Does anyone else feel inclined to deliver some bulls to her front yard with a note attached to the biggest stating, “For your dowry, Hon. Hope it helps!” :D

[19] Posted by Teatime2 on 7-11-2012 at 01:56 PM · [top]

#8, Ralph wrote: A queer tangent to the shellfish argument. Full of sound and fury.

continue on….... signifying NOTHING!.

[20] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-11-2012 at 02:06 PM · [top]

#20, what comes before it?

What would be an appropriate dowry for a female homosexual “wedding”?

[21] Posted by Ralph on 7-11-2012 at 02:22 PM · [top]

Ralph, it all depends on what you are marrying and what it was before. There, I used neutral pronouns as is expected of me to be politically correct.

I pray for them, since they want to be treated like heterosexuals in this church. Just wait until they loose their buildings because they can’t pay the bills from low numbers.

[22] Posted by Dr. N. on 7-11-2012 at 02:44 PM · [top]

. . .while TEC marriage is the exchange of rings by a couple of cows?

[23] Posted by paradoxymoron on 7-11-2012 at 03:36 PM · [top]

And trad marriage is the exchange of cows for a couple of rings.

[24] Posted by paradoxymoron on 7-11-2012 at 03:37 PM · [top]

As a straight man, I have to say now that the cow’s jumped the fence that this is exactly how it works for me.  I used to go to bars to flirt with the little ladies, you know get ‘em a little drunk before the slaughter, try to learn the first letter of their names before branding them,  then close the deal in the secret, smoke filled room for fathers and bidders behind every bar in the world.  But now, I just cut to the chase and go straight to the most erotic place in all the world—the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

We’ve come so far from the bad old days when single men had to pay sub rosa dowries to their pimps-in-law, so that the patriarchs could then afford to pay the official dowry to the couple over the table.  The vigorish on those transactions was brutal.  Thank goodness the true prophets are courageously bringing this into the light.  Of course, the luxury goods, auto, restaurant, hospitality, and entertainment industries will be bankrupted now that men can finally drop the massive charade of “seducing women,” but such is progress.  We can only hope that the sector at the heart of holy matrimony won’t be far behind.  MOOOOOOOOO!

[25] Posted by The Plantagenets on 7-11-2012 at 04:52 PM · [top]

She fancies herself a wit.

[26] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 7-11-2012 at 05:14 PM · [top]

I don’t want to make an ad bovinem argument, but with many of these elderly lesbians in TEO, it’s probably bitterness. Someone looked at them and at the livestock and decided to keep the livestock!

[27] Posted by Doug Stein on 7-11-2012 at 05:19 PM · [top]

B Hunter @#9 - “Pandora’s box is open. “
Really? Really??

[28] Posted by Festivus on 7-11-2012 at 05:36 PM · [top]

#27, I hope the bloggers let that one stand firm, so to speak.

#22, being an XY male, secure in a male gender-sex identity, I chose to marry an XX female, likewise secure in her gender-sex identity. When I serve in church, I do get nervous in that slinky, basic black cassock, afraid someone’s gonna shout, “Bloke in a dress!!!”

I’ve thought more about what would be an appropriate dowry for a female homosexual couple. Something they don’t have, but really need.

And, it’s On Topic. Well, more or less.

[29] Posted by Ralph on 7-11-2012 at 05:53 PM · [top]

That being the case, why don’t they all go “live into their own higher callings,” and leave marriage alone? 

(sorry about the obscenity)

[30] Posted by J Eppinga on 7-11-2012 at 05:58 PM · [top]

It’s late, it’s been along GC and the toxicity of the LGBTQi is manifest.  Humor is a good pressure release sometimes, but we’re starting to go over the top.

Let’s steer (ha ha, I call dibs on final pun) this back toward critique of the LGBTQi mythology rather than mocking the assorted personalities and perversions.

[31] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 7-11-2012 at 06:06 PM · [top]

In the words of the sexually liberated, why ever buy the cow when you can just have the milk for free?

[32] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 7-11-2012 at 06:09 PM · [top]

Jim #32, you raise an interesting point with that old saying.

They started out telling us that this was for “lifelong, monagamous same sex couples.”  They were lying.

From VGR’s consecration, to his proclamation of “exploring all the letters of the (sexual) alphabet,” to the transsexual ordination in CA, to the grotesqueries of this GC, there is manifest contempt for anything remotely approaching “traditional” standards.

For just a moment, I wondered if Russell was mocking even same-sex monogamy.  Glasspool’s weird rhapsodizing about “disorder” came to mind.  These folks appear to hate anything that distracts from their acting out.

I don’t for a moment think that these folks are “sexually liberated,” though.  I’m not joking or snarking when I point out the age and general unattractiveness of this crowd.  As one journalist wrote after another GenCon, “I’ve never had so much sex (meaning words about it) and enjoyed it less.”  People with healthy, fulfilling sex lives would not be as unhappy as these folks, or as turned on by the drudgery of church meetings.  In most ways, they come across as miserable people who want everybody else to be miserable with them.

[33] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 7-11-2012 at 06:27 PM · [top]

29 Ralph - “When I serve in church, I do get nervous in that slinky, basic black cassock, afraid someone’s gonna shout, “Bloke in a dress!!!”

Heh.  At GC I hear the recessional is going to be Aerosmith’s “Dude Looks Like A Lady!”

[34] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 7-11-2012 at 06:33 PM · [top]

Tim (#31),

Point taken. However, there is something about the LBGTQi mythology that’s deeply related to spiritual damage and psychological slights (whether self-imposed or suffered because of the actions of others). Something deeply offends them about normal relationships as God intended for us (and as Jesus - God the Son - confirmed more than once).

Outbursts like the tweet in question seek to divert everyone’s attention from God- given and God-directed sexuality and point at older forms of transgression by fallen man. The next slight-of-hand is to say that “X was once acceptable and now isn’t” = “things change” = “therefore Y was once unacceptable and now is”.

In the end, Man is capable of all sorts of logical contortions to self-justify any sin. The sad thing is that the closer a sin is to someone’s core self-image the more vigorously s/he will defend it against all challenges based on revelation and reason.

[35] Posted by Doug Stein on 7-11-2012 at 08:21 PM · [top]

The sad thing is that the closer a sin is to someone’s core self-image the more vigorously s/he will defend it against all challenges based on revelation and reason.

#35 Doug Stein that’s the truth, and explains all the appeals to “a new thing of the Spirit.”  Revelation and reason simply don’t affirm the sin that this faction celebrates.

[36] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 7-11-2012 at 08:26 PM · [top]

I hate to say it but it was close contact with gay people and their worldview that made me realize that there was something seriously wrong going on in their heads, that it was not normal and never could be considered something wholesome and good.

I pray all the time for my friends and acquaintances who think that they are defined by their sexual temptations and that their abnormal sexual behavior is key to their personal identity. May the Lord have mercy on them and on us all.

[37] Posted by StayinAnglican on 7-11-2012 at 11:02 PM · [top]

Timothy Fountain wrote, “I don’t for a moment think that these folks are “sexually liberated,” though.”

What strikes me is they are so far from liberated - they are held captive by their sexuality.

[38] Posted by oscewicee on 7-12-2012 at 08:15 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.