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

Is the University of Minnesota becoming Kinky U? And what does this say about our society and culture and where are we going?

Katherine Kersten, conservative Star Tribune columnist, pointed out in a recent column what some students and student group are up to at our state's flag ship public institution of higher education, the University of Minnesota -- learning about and promoting all matters of bizarre and deviant sexual practices.

It's just another field of inquiry for the dedicated scholars at "Kinky U," a student fee-supported offshoot of the U of M's Queer Student Cultural Center (QSCC).

QSCC already sponsors groups that journey down every sexual side-road and identity bi-way imaginable. Its 14 member groups range from "Biversity" (for "bisexuals, pansexuals, omnnisexuals, and those who prefer no labels") to "Tranarchy" (for "those who identify as transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, intersex, or gender diverse.")

Yes, you might think there's already something for everyone at our flagship institution of higher learning.

But Kinky U aims to reach out to groups still not fully embraced (so to speak) by the university community. It's "a social and discussion group" for those interested in "all forms of kink, including roleplaying, leather, BDSM [bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism], and much more," according to QSCC's website.

"The term 'kinky' can include anything from biting and scratching, 'which is pretty common,' to power exchanges and bondage," said the Minnesota Daily, quoting Michael Lent, the group's facilitator.

The moral bankruptcy of the University is articulated by comments from the University's vice provost for student affairs Jerry Rinehart who said:

"The purpose of groups funded by student fees, which are decided on by students themselves, is to help encourage a diverse array of ideas and perspectives...As long as the decision process is viewpoint neutral, the U cannot attempt to censor."

The typical bureacratic response. It's fine as long as it's view point neutral and we're here to encourage of "diverse array of ideas and perspectives."


It shows where the sexual revolution is leading us. Down, down, down. Once the Judeo-Christian perspective of sexuality and proper sexual perspective is jettisoned, e.g. sex between a man and a woman inside a marriage relationship, there's no stopping point. Not with cohabiting males and females, not with same sex couples, no it merely spins more and more out of control.

Why is this happening? Because we've lost the courage and the willingness to engage in moral discourse and call behaviors good and bad, right and wrong.

The consequence? Social anarchy. Sure, the actual practitioners of "Kinky U" sex are few in number but they're merely the vanguard the sexual revolution with lots of heterosexual promiscuity following in their wake. They, of course, aren't content to do their thing on their own but want recognition and endorsement of society through legal protection and sanction of their behaviors through anti-discrimination laws, public subsidies (Like student fees programs.) and in some cases redefinition of marriage for homosexuals.

Ultimately, the gold standard of a society and culture -- monogamous man and woman marriage is debased -- and that's the foundation of society. Cohabiting and out of wedlock births help create a social underclass which breeds criminal predators and general lawlessness in society. And of course this also feeds the social welfare system established to deal with all the resulting social problems.

Ultimately, this sort of thing affects us all.

What do the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-condom groups have in common? All proponents of comp sex ed and share a common worldview about sex

A friend recently received in the mail an end of 2007 fundraising letter from SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States). SIECUS is the national organization that has established national guidelines for comprehensive sex education. The letter shows their ideology when it comes to all things involving sex and that includes abortion.

When it comes to presidential candidates, SIECUS believes these individuals "must support five key objectives." And what are these objectives?

1. A comprehensive approach to sexuality education combined with adequate funding to support these programs.

2. Evidence-based programs to prevent HIV infection, unplanned pregnancies and sexuality transmitted diseases.

3. The right of all women to choose when and whether to have children.

4. The right of all individuals and couples to be treated equally, regardless of sexual sexual orientation.

5. International policies that allow medically accurate sexual and reproductive information to be shared and women to receive the reproductive health services they need and deserve."

The letter goes on to say,

"If we make the right decision, in a few short months we can be on our way to seeing the end of a regressive era in American history..."The abstinence-only-until -marriage industry, built in large part by the current administration, has been harming millions of young people in thousands of classrooms around the country for far too long. A woman's right to choose and abortion has never been in greater jeopardy than it is today. And same-sex partnerships are being demonized in the media and in Congress by conservative zealots."

What's interesting is the strong appeal to homosexuality and abortion as key parts of their agenda. Looking at actual comprehensive sex ed curricula, the linkage becomes much clearer; comp sex ed is the vehicle for pushing a pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda in the schools and among our young people.

I was told by an elected official that he was door knocked this past summer by MN NARAL on behalf of comprehensive sex education. And the Minnesota AIDS Project, a key pro-homosexual group in the state, pushed for comprehensive sex ed in the public schools during the last legislative session.

At its core, these interest groups all share a common worldview on sex. It's very much a materialist, self-centered view that sex is first and foremost about the person and whatever that person might want. It's not rooted in the transcendent. Sex isn't the product of a Creator's plan nor does it have a transcendent purpose. And it doesn't fit into the "laws of nature and nature's God" view articulated by the founders.

Those on the cultural left demonize those on the "religious right" for wanting to impose their religious beliefs on others through the abstinence until marriage approach to sex education. Yet cultural left have their own worldview and even religion when it comes to life and sexuality. It's not rooted in the Scripture and Christian tradition but rather in a secular, materialist naturalism which views the material as all that exists. And people decide based on their personal preferences what constitutes the moral and ethical.

One of the ways to resolve who's right is to look at the fruit of the different worldviews. Through the sexual revolution and the "anything goes" mentality towards sex, there's been a steady stream of suffering, disease, and death. Reality has a way of crushing down and exposing false ideas and understandings about life. That's exactly what's happening with a distorted view of sexuality. We can't deny the reality of the fruit of particular worldviews. Eventually, the truth does prevail but often at a terrible human cost.