America’s Homosexual Evolution

President Obama has certainly made his mark on the history of the United States.  Our children will one day read about him in American History books as the first black president, the first foreign born president and the first president to play 150 rounds of golf in one term.  Now, after the completion of Obama’s ‘evolution’, he has become the first president to support homosexual marriage.  But even those in the homosexual community are questioning his motives.  They realize that his support on this issue, just like every other issue in the life of the Narcissist in Chief, centers on himself. 

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post epitomized the pressure from the left for Obama to step out of the closet regarding the homosexual issue.  Marcus proceeded to pommel the president with a series of punches:  “Same-sex marriage is turning into a test of character and leadership for President Obama,” she wrote. “Does he favor it, or doesn’t he? In the wake of Vice President Biden’s remarks supportive of marriage equality, the continued presidential equivocation makes Obama look weak and evasive”. 

The greatest fear of this president is that his façade of strength will be melted away by the heated disapproval of his own supporters to reveal just how weak he really is.  Marcus’ uppercut was followed by this gut punch, “The longer Obama waits, the worse he looks. The President’s first stall tactic, that he is ‘evolving’ on the issue, doesn’t cut it anymore.”  She finally throws the knock-out punch:  “…doesn’t evolution imply change? And if you think perhaps he’s still conflicted — well, that’s hardly an advertisement to be leader of the free world. At this point, Obama’s reticence is looking cowardly.”  Being criticized by Fox News is one thing, being pummeled by fellow liberals is more than the president can endure.  It’s like learning your wife is seeing another man.

So, just what is it that Obama supports?  Homosexuality is an act of immorality.  It is immoral by the standard of natural law, “men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another”,  (Romans 1:27) and it violates God’s moral law.  The Apostle Paul lists the offenses that will earn eternal separation from God.  “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.”  (1 Cor. 6:9) If the leader of the free world will step out and support the immoral behavior of homosexuality, is he also willing to support adultery, fornication, and polygamy? 

These forms of immorality will eventually destroy a family, a church and finally a nation.  Any president who would promote that which would destroy us has no right to be the leader.  This utterly contradicts the intent of our founding fathers who founded this country on Christian principles.  We’ve had many presidents who participated in immoral behavior, from lying to staining a blue dress, but we have had none to blatantly verbalize that such immoral behavior should be accepted as the norm.  The president’s evolution on the immoral practice of homosexuality simply mirrors the evolution in our society toward sexual depravity.  We must ask ourselves the question:  Does the president’s evolution toward the acceptance of homosexuality indicate that our society’s evolutionary slide to Gomorrah is complete?

Why does God condemn adultery?  Why does he condemn homosexuality?  Why did the original marriage plan of God include one man and one woman, one husband and one wife?  It is because the institution of marriage is sacred.  The primary purpose of the marriage relationship is to portray the relationship Christ has to the church.  “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”  (Eph. 5:25)  God provides us with the wonderful opportunity to have a personal relationship with him but there are conditions we must meet.  He demands fidelity, just as any decent husband would demand of his wife or any wife her husband.  When we pursue other gods, when we worship other idols, our relationship with Christ becomes unsustainable.  The marriage relationship between a man and a woman is an earthly reflection of a spiritual relationship that can become eternal.

The effort to destroy marriage, to muck up the pure waters of something so sacred, is satanic.  How better to besmirch the purity and sacredness of marriage than to assault the institution with pornography, with adultery, with infidelity and most definitely, with homosexuality.  These sins cannot be participated in without consequences.  The sexual revolution of the last fifty years has reaped fatherless children, orphans, broken homes, innumerable divorces, rampant diseases, depression and suicides. 

God’s primary purpose for sexual relations between a man and a woman was to procreate.  God was so pleased and blessed to see his creation expand that he determined to make the experience of procreating extremely pleasurable as a demonstration of his favor.  Procreation has now become something to avoid like a plague.   The pleasure of sexual relations has been so dulled by our willingness to overindulge that we have stepped out of what God originally intended into that which is twisted and unnatural in a vain attempt to overcome our desensitization to pleasure.

There is a horrible plague of blindness that now pervades throughout American society.  In an attempt to find and experience freedom it was proclaimed loud and clear that ‘anything goes’, all sexual restraints were lifted to try to satisfy the deep emptiness of godless souls.  We became a society of moral zombies, proclaiming that all was well, while we pretended a lie to our friends and neighbors that we had finally found the secret to happiness.  But the freedom we proclaimed was not real, it was a fatal fantasy.  The smile on our faces was a failed attempt to hide the frown in our souls. 

We put up a ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign to keep God from intruding in our society.  In our churches we replaced him with a cotton-candy prosperity gospel that was too anemic to save and too empty to satisfy the needs of the hungry.  So, they have fled from the church in search of another savior.  The blinded sexual libertarian cannot see that sexual depravity is not freedom, it is bondage.  It does not lead to happiness, it leads to emptiness.  It does not build relationships, it destroys them.  Discovering why they think they are free when they are actually slaves to the bondage of sexual immorality is a mystery for the ages.

We are living among “a rebellious people.  They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but they do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.”  (Ezekiel 12:2)  It is most troubling that we are now assured that the one who leads us is blinded as well.  It is fearful to think of what our destiny will be when the blind is indeed, leading the blind.

Kevin Probst - Teaches History, Government and Apologetics at the high school level in Columbus Georgia.

Obama Tramples Traditional Marriage

           

           It has been framed as a shocking event.  The President supports gay marriage!!  This is not a shock.  This is the same president who repealed the military's ban on openly gay service members.  This is the same president who ordered his lap dog Attorney General to stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act.  (DOPA)  How could anyone be surprised?  We were served appetizers before the main course when Vice President Foot-in-his-Mouth came out with a statement affirming gay marriage earlier in the week.  The following day, Secretary of Indoctrination, Arne Duncan, made bold statements supporting homosexuality. 

            Informed Americans were not surprised at all when Obama finally evolved into a full-blown supporter of homosexuality.  The real surprise is how far we have slid toward Gomorrah in so short a time.  The evolution is now complete. It took 42 presidents to finally 'evolve' toward acceptance of homosexual marriage.  All 42 previous presidents opposed gay marriage.  Obama's opinion that he is the only president to finally get this issue right matches his arrogant, messianic attitude.

            A recent ABC opinion poll claims that 52% of Americans think gay marriage should be legal and 43% think not.  Those numbers may be accurate if this poll was conducted in San Francisco.  That poll was not conducted here in rural, southern Georgia, that's for sure.  The poll also proclaimed that 54% of Democrats support gay marriage (is that all?) and 39% of Republicans support it (are you kidding?)  How do you justify these poll numbers with the fact that 31 states have already added amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman?  North Carolina most recently took steps to boldly protect the foundational institution of any civilization, marriage.

            Some of my younger friends who lean toward the libertarian banner would defend Obama's stance on gay marriage because they oppose the fact that government is too large and too intrusive in the lives of common citizens.  Many are willing to march in step to the beat of this drum.  But for those who are evangelical Christians, gay marriage isn't just a political issue, it’s a moral issue.  Those who claim to be genuine followers of Jesus Christ are more interested in taking a stance that reflects a Christian worldview rather than a political worldview.  Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."  (John 14:15)   He has commanded purity of heart and mind.  One of God's commands is found in Leviticus 18:22:  'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" 

            Thousands of blogs and website articles have been written in an attempt to dilute the importance of this command.  The common argument goes like this:  If we are to submit to this law regarding homosexuality, what other frivolous laws are we to submit to?  Are we to not "wear clothes made of more than one fabric?"  (Leviticus 19:19)  Are we to not shave or cut our hair?  (Leviticus 19:27)  Few seem to understand that the laws given to the ancient Israelites were categorized.  Some laws were temporary and localized for the purpose of keeping God's chosen people from intermingling and losing their identity with neighboring pagans.  Other laws were universal and eternal.  The purpose of universal laws was to promote righteousness and purity and prevent the type of behaviors (disobedience) that would sever relationship with God.  "If you love me, keep my commandments." 

            Some Christians will offer weak support to the gay marriage movement by declaring that "you can't legislate morality."  I agree that it is certainly not primarily the government's job to determine ethics and morality.  That would be the job of the church, although it seems to be failing miserably on most counts.  But the declaration that government should refrain from legislating morality is nonsense.  It is the government's responsibility to prevent chaos and tyranny by establishing and enforcing laws that control behavior.  If you take an oath in court and lie you have committed a federal crime, unless you are a former president trying to determine what the definition of "is" is.  There are and should be consequences for committing murder or abusing a child. 

            Christians are fighting hard against their government sanctioning a behavior that is clearly condemned in the word of God.  They don't want homosexuality to be stamped with government approval any more than they want to see murder, adultery, burglary or any other sinful behavior sanctioned.  Christians believe that America's slide toward Gomorrah is a consequence of their government sanctioning the murder of unborn children (Roe vs. Wade, 1973).  No society can escape the judgment of a pure and holy God when it allows for homosexual behavior that is clearly condemned in the word of God.  (Lawrence vs. Texas, 2003)

            When God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden he stepped back and said, "This is good, this is very good."  (Gen. 1:31)  God's desire is always to promote and expand that which is good.  When he mandated that man should multiply and replenish the earth (Gen. 1:28) he was commanding that the good in his creation be magnified throughout generations to come.  A Christian's belief in the existence of God is matched by the assurance that Satan is real.  Satan's goal is to disrupt the plan of God in any way possible.  He is very active in these days because …"He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short." (Rev. 12:12)  If God loves life, Satan loves death.  If God smiles on the reproduction of the crowning achievement of his creation, Satan is determined to destroy man.

            Satan's plan of destruction involves stirring men to such hatred they would choose to murder each other.  He also uses more efficient methods in destroy the apple of God's eye through abortion and homosexuality.  Fifty million unborn American children have been murdered since 1973.  Homosexuality prevents reproduction and reduces population.  Ironically, the only way a homosexual couple can rear children is to depend on the traditional institution they aim to destroy, traditional marriage.

            The impetus for Christian opposition to homosexuality is not political, it is scriptural.  Christians know that this sin, like any other sin, hurts the heart of a God they love deeply.  Their strong desire to defend the Rock of Their Salvation is often misinterpreted as a hatred for homosexuals.  Unfortunately, this is accurate in some cases, but not so among genuine Christians.  True followers of Christ are taught to love and to cease hating.  The only hatred found in the heart of a genuine Christian is hatred for sin.  This hatred runs as deeply in one direction as our love for Christ runs in the other.

            Blandina, the early Christian martyr who was sexually abused and then murdered left these dying words, `I am a Christian, and there is no evil done amongst us."    Let the evil of hatred never be found in the heart of the genuine Christian.  Christians are characterized by their love.  "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35)

Kevin Probst - Teaches History, Government and Apologetics at the high school level in Columbus Georgia.

Moral and Logical Deficits in California’s Ninth Circuit

If you are have forgotten or are unaware of what all the talk of Proposition 8 is about, be reminded that this California law was passed in 2008 to satisfy the will of the majority who wanted to define  marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman.  On February 7^th of 2012, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to strike down Proposition 8 by declaring it unconstitutional. 

The rulings against Proposition 8 are characterized by the biased presuppositions of activist judges.  The function of these judges should be to simply interpret existing law and determine if concurs with the constitution.  Unfortunately, most judges, even and perhaps especially Supreme Court Justices, are willing to prostitute their positions to advance their own personal political and social agendas.  Was this not blatantly obvious when Judge Vaughn Walker, who is openly homosexual and sports a homosexual partner, ruled against Proposition 8 in his “love letter to homosexuals” where he declared that the proposition “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation” in a lower district court in 2010?

The Judges of the 9^th District Court had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with any justification to oppose Proposition 8.  The best they could do was voiced by Judge Stephen Reinhart, “Absent any legitimate purpose for Proposition 8, we are left with ‘the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward,’ or as is more likely with respect to Californians who voted for the proposition, mere disapproval of, ‘the class of persons affected.’”  This judge effectively spit in the face of California voters who voted Proposition 8 into existence by declaring that their desire to sustain the definition of marriage that has worked so well for millenniums previous and their desire to preserve an institution that preserves opportunities for procreation are illegitimate desires concocted to cover up a bigoted hatred for homosexuals.

Bobble heads have emerged to offer their two cents and shamelessly promote themselves and their irreverent agenda.  Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, represents the plaintiffs in Proposition 8.  He declared the recent decision to be a first step in ending discrimination. "Today we are more American because of this decision".  May we request a definition for ‘American’?

Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential candidate spoke for conservatives when he promised to appoint judges who would oppose same-sex marriages, “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage.”  Please notice he also put a negative slant on the fact that these judges were not elected, but appointed, and then promised to do more of the same.

President Obama played his typical part as a non-player too weak and timid to choose sides.  He declared that his opinion on the issue is still “evolving”. 

The rationale of the court is that the state of California is violating the constitution by denying a right afforded to one group (heterosexuals) from another. (homosexuals)  It seems the real question here is what is the difference between a right and a privilege?  The constitution was written to protect our rights, not privileges.  In order for a certain thing to have a right that certain thing must be defined.  Opponents of marriage for homosexuals have defined marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman.  You cannot grant this same right to any couple other than one that meets the definition.  If the definition is corrupted there is no obligation to grant the right.  The claim from proponents of gay marriage that they are not trying to redefine marriage is absurd.  They must redefine it in order to qualify for the rights they demand.  There has been no definition of marriage forthcoming from that side of the aisle.

The fact is, they are not redefining marriage.  They are undefining it.  (See How to Win the Marriage Debate, Selwyn Duke) The practice of declaring undeserved rights has become all too common in our modern society.  Homosexuals in undefined relationships clamor for rights that are preserved for traditional married couples. Likewise, illegal immigrants expect to be treated as if they were legal, legitimate citizens of the U.S.  Our youthful, dead-beat dropouts expect to be treated in the same way as the hard working, non-partying college grad that chose a different and more difficult path.   There is a prevailing belief system that attempts to eliminate consequences for poor decisions and bad behavior.  The majority of pre-birth murders are committed in an attempt to escape consequences for a decision regretted.

If the left wing of this issue (gay marriage) cannot specifically define marriage, how can they specify what marriage “is not”?  If marriage IS between two people of the same gender, could marriage also not be between three people of the same gender?  Is marriage deemed legitimate if it is between a single person of one gender and multiple persons of another gender?  Is it necessary for marriage to include only human beings?  Do we really want to open that can of worms?  The 9^th Circuit ruled on the ‘rights’ to marriage but did they even bother to define what it was they were supposedly protecting?  How can you grant rights to something undefined?

It is for this reason most reasonable citizens believe the movement to legalized gay marriage is actually an attempt to destroy the traditional, time-honored institution that was clearly sanctioned by God.  When men begin to devise their own plans as substitutes to God’s plan it doesn’t go well for man.  God’s plan was to “multiply and replenish” the earth.  His plan makes wonderful provision for the care of the elderly who are loved and cherished by their many offspring.  When we oppose this plan by reducing our number of offspring through abortion and homosexual unions we bring confusion, poverty and destruction upon society. 

God never sanctioned marriage between same gendered individuals.  In fact, he clearly condemned such a thing.  (See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27)  The absurdity of it all is that the 9th Circuit Court is trying to protect and preserve a ‘right’ to something that has not been defined and does not actually exist.

Kevin Probst - Teaches History, Government and Apologetics at the high school level in Columbus Georgia.