Monday, October 12, 2009

Obama seeks to invoke the blessing of God while at the same time rejecting His standards regarding marriage and human relationships.

President Obama reaffirmed his intention to overall the mores of American society in his address to the Human Rights Campaign Fund event. (You can view it here.) He wants to do so by jettisoning the belief that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and children need a mother and a father.

How so? By his intention to redefine the institution of marriage by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and establish a marital type status under the guise of domestic partnerships.

He also made his purpose clear when he said:
You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.


What he is saying is there really is no difference between the two types of relationships. His view is not only morally wrong but factually wrong from both a health and societal perspective.

I'd be interested in what he grounds his view in. What ethical system he looks to? It's certainly not found in the moral tenets of Christianity or any other major religious system. Nor in the natural law rooted in the nature God has given to us.

Both Christianity and the natural law clearly reject the view that homosexual relationships are on par with those between a man and a woman. From just a biological and health perspective, homosexual behavior violates our natures and what's healthy for the human person.

Obama also sought to invoke God's blessing when he said
, "Thank you for the work you're doing. God bless you. God bless America."

It's also very postmodern, e.g. relativistic that the president would seek to invoke the blessing of God on our nation and those actively seeking to overturn God's moral standards while at the same time stating it's his goal to reject God's standards in practice.

The President would do well to read and take to heart the words of the prophet Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!"



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/obamas-speech-text-transc_n_316844.htmlThe President would do well to read the prophet Jeremiah who sa

3 comments:

mom said...

Again, with the one opinion one way to live.

This is YOUR way to live. You can not say what the person next to you accepts as god, as natural way, or order. To base law on your religion and your law goes against your own views about being indoctrination because its what YOUR doing.

Your bible also condones slavery. and supports how to own a slave. why is slavery wrong now but not then?

Jesus was a liberal said...

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Child, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life"

In Isaiah 56:4-5, the Lord addresses the eunuchs, and those who do not participate in the dominant culture of preserving name and family through children: "For thus says the Lord: to the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast to my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument better than sons and daughters, I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off." Note that eunuchs could not keep the covenant in the same way as heterosexuals - they could not dedicate their first born sons for instance - and so, gay people CAN keep the covenant of the Law of Love - to love the Lord God and ones fellow human beings - but the way they do so might be slightly different from heterosexuals.

The Bible, you see, is full of many wonderful things. You can pull out a few verses here and there that seem, especially in modern translations, to be anti-gay, but this is always a misunderstanding. There are verses, indeed whole books of the Bible which challenge the viewpoint of the fundamentalists who seek to prove their view of the world by selective quotation

Elaine said...

It's also very postmodern, e.g. relativistic that the president would seek to invoke the blessing of God on our nation and those actively seeking to overturn God's moral standards while at the same time stating it's his goal to reject God's standards in practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Such as it is postmodern not to accept slavery?

Or perhaps you still do?