Skip to comments.Praising the play while ignoring the performance: Obama’s misguided support for gay ‘marriage’
Posted on 05/23/2012 5:50:49 AM PDT by ReformationFan
May 22, 2012 (HLIAmerica.org) - The May 11, 2012 editorial of the Toronto Star offers high praise for President Obamas endorsement of same-sex marriage. The editor credits the U.S. president with showing rare courage, while at the same time advancing the cause for civil rights. In approving the legalization of marriage between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, according to the editorial, Obama is affirming the full humanity of gays and lesbians. He is weighing in on the side of compassion, inclusion and equal rights for all. How could millennia of diverse cultures, until recently, have missed issues of such fundamental importance? Has society now undergone a quantum leap of moral courage and perspicacity?
The editorial serves as a text-book example of how a rhetorician can maintain his ground while blithely ignoring the issue, ignoring the facts, and ignoring the consequences of the position he is advocating. Platos Gorgias comes to mind in which sophists seek to persuade others without giving them a basis or justification for their being persuaded. For Socrates, these sophists are manipulators, not educators.
Ignoring the Issue
The issue in question is marriage, the nature of which places definable limits on its personal and social expressions. Marriage is not a political issue, like civil rights. The traditions of virtually every culture in history has recognized that marriage is an institution based on the union of a man and a woman who are not married to another and not blood-related to each other, ordered by the very nature of the spouses to the begetting and rearing of children.
Is Obama being courageous or iconoclastic?
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
"Obama seems to think that the right to marry (which is conditional) is unconditional, whereas the right to life (which is unconditional) is conditional, as conditioned by the mothers choice."
And this very good rebuttal of those who claim this is about "equality" and "inclusiveness":
"The Star editorials use of compassion and inclusion and equal is purely rhetorical. Compassion shares anothers pain, but by no means does it justify same-sex marriage. Inclusion is much too vague to have any moral significance. It does not denote what is included. A punch bowl that includes a frog is both inclusive and revolting at the same time. The union of male and female has a procreative potential that same-sex relations do not have at all. The former ensures the continuation of the species; the latter is a genetic dead end. In this regard there is no equality."
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
Odumb0 has set himself directly opposed to Lord God Almighty. I believe he is certainly demonically possessed, if not possessed directly by Satan himself, just as Judas was. May 0dumb0 roast for eternity in Hell.
The editorial serves as a text-book example of how a rhetorician can maintain his ground while blithely ignoring the issue, ignoring the facts, and ignoring the consequences of the position he is advocating. Plato's Gorgias comes to mind in which sophists seek to persuade others without giving them a basis or justification for their being persuaded. For Socrates, these sophists are manipulators, not educators.