President Obama Evolved Poorly

With all do respect to President Obama, he is wrong on the matter of homosexual marriages. By finally coming to the end of his so-called “evolution” wherein he has discerned that there is room in our society for homosexual marriages, he aligns himself with three significant threats to society as a whole and personhood in general.

First, homosexual marriage undermines the timeless and transcultural nature of marriage. When one puts forward the idea that marriage can and should be about more than one man in covenant partnership with one woman, then what is the end? Why not have three making up the marriage, such as with the pologymists of old or on the fringe of our day? Why not have three men, or two men and a woman, or four women and a mule? Perhaps commonly understood age expectations should be lifted, so that little girls can be married to grown men, similar to some corners of Muslim society, or little boys to older men, such as is often promoted by the fringe North American Man/Boy Love Association. With few exceptions, marriage has universally been recognized as a sanctioned relationship between one man and one woman. President Obama and those who share his view essentially toss aside a relationship standard that has existed for thousands of years. They may declare all day long that their intention is to stay within the framework of two individuals in love; but when the traditional understanding is altered, the door is thrown open for an increasingly fluid definition and description of marriage.

Not only does the very idea of same-sex marriage shred millenia of standard expectations regarding the true nature of covenant partnership between one man and one woman, but same-sex marriage decimates the sanctity of marriage. In general terms the homosexual community, despite its marketed notions of Rockwellian same-sex homes, is strongly biased toward diminishing marriage sanctity, welcoming as part of its cultural reality extra-marital outlets within the structure of same-sex marriage that are designed to satisfy sexual whims. So committed is the gay community to the idea that there would be these extra-marital outlets within the structure of a same-sex marriage, one cannot help but wonder what the push is for the structure. Perhaps it is primarily because of civil benefits, which, if so, only amplifies the superficiality of a cause largely extrinsic in nature.

Second, homosexual marriage undermines the timeless and transcultural nature of family. Homosexuals can talk all day long about the idea that children raised in same-sex homes are every bit as loved and nurtured as children in heterosexual homes. Yet this simply does not stand to reason. From the earliest days of human history cultures have recognized the necessity and power of children growing up under the auspices of a male parent working in partnership with a female parent. Boys and girls need a man and a woman leading them and shaping them. The very nature of a homosexual marriage does not allow for this. Boys and girls in same-sex scenarios will emerge into adulthood with little or no real understanding of natural personhood and the roles unique to men and women. For these children who will become adults, beyond the assumptions of sophistication and tolerance will be confusion and frustration and intrinsic wounds.

Thirdly, homosexual marriage undermines genuine civil rights. Personhood includes natural elements about a man or a woman, such as skin color or ethnicity or gender. These are things that are reflections of the created order. But contrary to so much of the narrative of the homosexual community, homosexuality is a choice. It is not a natural feature of the created order. “Blackness” cannot be abandoned. Neither can being Asian or Latin. Inherent maleness or femaleness cannot be abandoned, gender transition efforts aside. True civil rights efforts recognize that the fundamental reality of legitimate personhood should always be safeguarded and respected, whereas homosexual civil efforts seek to legitimize function, largely centered around sexual freedom. To elevate function to the same plane as that which is truly fundamental is to water down true personhood. The dignity inherent with skin color or gender or ethnicity gets pulled downward; there is a diminuition of the essense of foundational personhood in an effort to amplify function or choices. Affirming same-sex marriage as a matter of civil rights reduces genuine civil rights efforts.

Beyond these, of course, one can make the case that the majority of Americans strongly oppose same-sex marriage; thus thirty states have passed laws that seek to oppose the legalization of it. And even beyond this is the reality that same-sex marriage sharply departs from what is God’s very best for all people. For more on that, consider these past posts.

One final thought for now. Sharp disagreement with President Obama and those who share his views must not give way to disrespectful exchanges or hatred. There is never room for that. We must not buy the lie that says disagreement with the homosexual agenda equals hate.

The best Obama exposure site on the net:

The Obama File
http://theobamafile.com/

The United States Library of Congress has selected
TheObamaFile.com for inclusion in its historic collection
of Internet materials
http://theobamafile.com/LibraryOfCongress.html

http://theobamafile.com/index_next_politics.html

http://www.theobamafile.com/index_next_personal.html

http://www.theobamafile.com/BarackObama.htm

http://www.theobamafile.com/_family/FamilyPage.htm

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaEducation.htm

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaPsychology.htm

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaReligion.htm

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaWife.htm

http://www.theobamafile.com/_associates/ObamaAssociates.htm

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaIconography.htm

This is a well written article. I still think it is not out of bounds to call him on the whole “evolve” thing, it’s the same position he had in 1996 after all.

I was also surprised that he didn't mention how God looks upon the marriage/union of a man and a woman.

“I was also surprised that he didn’t mention how God looks upon the marriage/union of a man and a woman. “

That would be a different sermon, one that would be discussed into detail.

Socialists chant the word “change” and we are supposed to assume that all change is progress. However, in the case of change integrating the lifestyle and behaviors of homosexuality, we are looking at regression.

History is clear about societies that fall into immorality and chaos. Rome is a great example of a society that imposed sexual immorality and proceeded to fall apart. Like ancient Rome, the road of homosexual integration does include the legalization and “celebration” of man/boy sex. The taboos or rules of sex and marriage accepted in heterosexual society do not apply to homosexual elitist circles. They are promoting man/boy sex. That is why are are in the public schools and so angry about being shut out of the Boy Scouts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.