ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on May 14, 2012

Who would or should win?

Yesterday, Sunday, the media were exerting a great deal of pressure on African American religious leaders, and basically asking them to consider first and foremost the separation of Church and State and politically throw their weight behind President Barack Obama's decision to support homosexual "marriage".

The president had derived over 80% of the African American vote in 2008, but that community was vehemently against his decision by 9 out of 10 on religious grounds, and the idea was to get pastors and church leaders to change their response to be in favor of the president's opinion on the issue.

As congregants were opposed to same sex marriage, they would be compelled to stay at home during the 2012 November election, or even vote against Obama's reelection and second term bid. Making that determination by the African American electorate to oppose one of their own would rather be unfortunate, particularly, as he happened to be the first African American president, and he needed their help to remain in the White House.

The direction of the media pressure was such that it was tilted toward urging them to approve the president's decision; as there was so much effort to place the matter squarely in the political arena and making it into a civil rather than a religious altercation. The inference was that they, the media, were interested for the pastors to leave God out of a civil rights issue.

However, if they (pastors) were willing to do so, then they would be regarded as being modern or abreast with present day thinking. Yet, based on biblical theology, Christians could not part with their faith, when making a decision on homosexuality, which came under condemnation through what the Bible taught. Besides, religious influence ran side by side with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and that it was impossible to separate one from the other.

If ever the religious leaders would do so, then they could not call themselves true Christians under any circumstance; because their life style (with no "s") should be in agreement with what "Marriage" has been biblically defined.

That it should be a union between one man and one woman, and whose nature should be strictly monogamous.

Thus Christians abhor polygamy, and also until now, any other form of sexual relationships that the world or society would device were condemned. Marriage therefore should be viewed as an institution based on Christian sacramental law that could never be broken.

If people allowed their children to influence their decision making processes, then parents would be seen as negating their responsibility to younger family members, or relegating it to those having no moral authority of any kind, and with no decision making ability. They would tend to arrive at a conclusion, fervently using their emotions, sometimes cued from outside forces. Thus it would be more like "casting your pearls before swine,"

The world would have been gone to destruction by now, if the human race would have adopted such a premise. Meaning good advise mostly came from experience and maturity in life; and those were qualities that younger people did not have so much of, and to be regarded as being capable of giving out of.

However, back to the subject of same-sex marriage of which the media have managed to turn into a round about or a reversal of the Spanish inquisition, with pastors and church leaders finding themselves at the end of the whip.

It was all due to the fact that President Barack Obama has made an announcement that, in his view "same sex couples can get married," as it appeared in an ABC news interview on national TV a few days back.

Despite the fact that the president had help from his daughters to arrive at his decision, Marriage, as stipulated in the Bible, could not be overturned, or even overlooked by an adult. Therefore if one allowed one's children to tell one to "forget about God" in reaching a decision on something as important as Marriage, then one could not be deemed as God fearing. (....and nobody was being judgmental of Obama here).

The force on the pastors by the media was to give in to something that they did not subscribe to; and it was more sacrilegious than just "the press ordinarily doing its job". That the pastors should break God's law, because even children were in sympathy with the notion of two men or two women coming together as "man and wife", respectively.

In other words, the teachings of the Bible, from which they as pastors derived their faith, should be neglected; which would be impossible for them to do. Why? Because they knew their spiritual future depended on the faith they had as Christians.

Therefore it would be absurd to say of Christians that their family made them change a portion of their faith. Any such person would only be a "weathervane Christian"; or he or she did not take the Christian faith seriously.

Moreover, the homosexual "marriage" question was never a civil rights issue anywhere in the world or in any culture; otherwise it would have been resolved several thousands of years before.

It was the institution of marriage, being the nucleus of the family, as well as the foundation of society, that has come under attack; and it would be destroyed, at the most, or its meaning would change, at the least, for no good reason at all; and that was what many people, especially Christians, were worried about.

The advocates of homosexual "marriage" could have settled for any other name, and there would not have been any frenzy going on about them becoming couples. The general public would not have taken any notice of their intentions; but they made it a choice to bring their problem into the open and to solve it in a way that would only counterfeit the meaning of Marriage.

In the process, they (homosexuals), with the support of the president, literally defecated a monolithic institution, as Marriage was, and should be for now and throughout eternity, and tore it up into different pieces. To many people the damage was incomprehensible.

They (people) thought of it as the president making a political decision to benefit him in the 2012 election, as that would invigorate a section of his base; yet, as far as faith was concerned many Christians would never abandon their stance on homosexual "marriage", as it went against their core belief; that true Marriage would always be interpreted as they saw in the Bible; no matter how much pressure the media would bring to bear on them to change their attitude toward any other kind of relationship, as homosexual "marriage" projected.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.