If you thought Kevin Jennings was an isolated incident; think again.  The Obama administration is on the offensive, and they are placing homosexual movers and shakers in influential positions in order to promote their agenda. 

On September 15, the Bilerico project announced rather proudly that “The White House announced Monday that it will nominate Chai Feldblum, LGBT rights scholar and advocate, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”   Who is Chai Feldblum (besides being a LGBT rights scholar and advocate)?  The article continues, “Chai is a Georgetown Law Professor, former law clerk to former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, a primary mover behind passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a longtime advocate for people with disabilities.”  So what does this have to do with the “Sodomization of America”?  I’m glad you asked. 

Chai Feldblum is a homosexual activist who promotes the argument that homosexual sex is morally good, and the “gay rights” argument should assume the moral high ground in an effort to win the “war right here at home morality demands full equality for gay people.”  In the video below, she goes on to outline a five-step argument that she hopes will turn the tide in the current “war” for the Sodomization of America.  Here is the video.  What follows are her arguments with my comments:

1.Moral values are important to a healthy society.

So far, so good.  However, one would have to determine morality based upon some standard.  Unfortunately, Feldblum does not identify such a standard.

2. Intimate relationships between individuals and in family structures are critical moral and political units that can create a healthy society.

This is a rather convoluted statement even from a grammatical perspective.  “Intimate relationships... are moral and political units”?  What does that mean.    A relationship is not a ‘unit’ of any kind, let alone a political or moral unit.  Where does Feldblum come up with this idea?  Does she mean ‘family’?  If so, there is still the problem of identifying a ‘family’ as a moral/political unit without further definition.

3. It’s the government’s responsibility to nurture these moral and political units.

Says who?  Here Feldblum engages in question-begging logic. It is government’s responsibility to defend boarders, protect (not grant) the God-given rights of it’s citizens, and engage in those practices (and only those practices) which the Constitution permits specifically.  To task the government with “nurturing” is to make an incredible leap in logic.  This is simply indefensible, not only from the Constitution, but from simple reason.

4. People in opposite-sex relationships and people in same-sex relationships equally embody this moral good and equally deserve support from public policies (gay sex is just as good as heterosexual sex)

Again Feldblum begs the question.  Remember, the idea that public policies should support (i.e., nurture in argument 3) was invented out of whole cloth.  Moreover, she assumes (but has not proven) that homosexual sex is morally acceptable.  She has not proven this; she merely assumes it.  Without as much as a single reference, she casts this unbiblical, unnatural, and unhealthy practice in a positive moral light.

5. Our current public policies undermine the moral and political unit of same-sex couples and families and that’s a ‘moral wrong’ that needs to be rectified.

In other words, if you accept her question-begging argument in #3, then allow her to beg the question again in #4 using the moral standard she never proved in the prior point; then you must agree that same-sex marriage is a moral “right”, and the lack thereof is a “moral wrong.”  All of this is fine unless you refuse to allow her to beg the question!

This is the woman president Obama wants to head up the EEOC!  Can you imagine what American companies will face if this kind of warped reasoning was to be applied to the already convoluted “Equal Employment” landscape?  What’s worse, this movement is now treading (and not-so-lightly) on very important territory.  If the Feldblum argument is successful, then those of us who preach the Bible are in for a bumpy ride.  Why?  Because if homosexual sex is the moral equivalent of heterosexual sex, then those of us who preach otherwise are actually immoral.  Moreover, if it is the government’s job to ‘nurture’ this moral enterprise (and the Hate Crimes bill passes the House as it did the Senate... with the help of votes by both Senators from the Republic of Texas!), then what has to be done with us?  I’m sure Feldblum has a few ideas.

For those who still believe the president isn’t promoting a radical homosexual agenda, I’ve got some great Oceanfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell you (pardon the George Strait reference... I couldn’t resist).

VB