OBAMA & SAME SEX "MARRIAGE".

COULDN'T HE ENDURE THE PRESSURE?

Obama backing homosexual marriage has not only taken the wind out of many sails; the enthusiasm to support him by a whole lot of people has vanished into thin air, as far as taking him to be a really serious person was concerned.

His campaign has been criticising his probable Republican Party candidate, Mitt Romney, in the 2012 presidential election, as a flip flop on many issues; but his own decision to accept that kind of arrangement made him into a complete weathervane.

He would go wherever the wind blew, as he has not shown that he could withstand pressure from a special interest group, especially if the price was right. There were political contributions to be made, and they have mainly come from these special interest groups; and no one could ignore them.

From the very start of his administration, many of these special interest groups have forced themselves to be part of his ensemble; and they had professionals that would work for him both in the White House and on the outside.

They worked for him, but at the same time they worked with him to farther their causes at the highest level. It was like being trapped, as he was very much aware of what was transpiring around him, but there happened to no way to control all the numerous circumstances that they surrounded him with.

He had advisers for all kinds of things, apart from his official cabinet and even what was known as "the kitchen cabinet"; however, some of them (advisers) were like lobbyists, whose real occupation was to get him to focus on their specific interests.

He had mentioned in his ABC interview, of how he felt about "some of my own staff members", who were committed to each other as homosexual couples. Practically, he was a captive audience for them, and they would take advantage of the situation. So, if they were that close to him, they were gradually promoting their life style as being "normal"; and as any human being would do, he would have sympathy for their nature, whether it was depraved or not.

They were building him up to accept them for who they were; and with that having gone on for so long, he had to emotionally give in to their request of a "man marrying another man" portrayal; a spectacle that he knew to be a taboo.

Hence his shocking admittance that homosexuals "can get married", and thus making homosexuality a political issue by moving it from the cultural realm and into the open.

By the way, no culture in whole world has ever accepted it, and although its been around for centuries, even before Christ Jesus, they (cultures) would never allow two men to "marry".

Even in this era, when the subject has become a "hot potato" as a score of politicians and judicial judges, with some being homosexuals themselves, were advocating for its recognition in society, same-sex couples were denied acceptance in so many circles, and they were marginalized by many organizations.

It was not that anybody hated them, as they could do whatever they wanted behind the walls of their homes, as personal privacy was regarded in the United States Constitution; but the idea of men coupling with men and women cohabiting with other women tend to disrespect nature itself. That was what many people disagreed with.

Put two male dogs or two female cats in the same pen and they would never have sex; yet, on the other hand, a male dog and a female dog would produce a litter of puppies; and the same would apply for two cats of the opposite gender, with kittens being produced.

Demonstrating that the act of having a sexual relationship in the natural realm had a purpose; and as in humans, it was for pro-creation.

Obama knew that he was taking an enormous political risk to come out and announce that he was for that kind of marriage, when he knew in his heart that whether it was morally wrong or not, it was not "marriage" in the right sense of the word.

However, he has made his bed, and he must lay in it; but he should remember that his support has waned considerably, especially by those opposed to "men marrying men, and women marrying women" to be comfortable from their perspective. (Thanks to Mr. Joe B.).

Whether he has accepted same sex marriage or not, the feelings of those, who were opposed to it happened to be perpetual.

Comments 8 comments

Anne Pettit profile image

Anne Pettit 4 years ago from North Carolina

Historically, many cultures have had same sex marriages for centuries. There are not as many as hetero because gays and lesbians represent only 10% of the adult population globally.

Obama is right to support civil rights for gay people.


Jean Bakula profile image

Jean Bakula 4 years ago from New Jersey

Civil Rights belong to everyone. When I was a child, black people did not have the right to vote. Before that, women did not have rights. Gay people are real, whole, people, and deserve the same rights for their real contributions to society that anyone else has. You don't have to agree with their orientation, to agree they should be treated with fairness. I am pleased that our country is moving forward and evolving. I am not gay myself, but that does not matter. Our Constitution in America says all people are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe President Obama's move is what our Founding Fathers would have wanted. Whether he feels it in his heart or made his statement for political reasons is not my place to judge.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Jean and Anne,

Homosexual "marriage" is not, and has never been, a civil rights issue.

Everyone has the same rights as your blogs have espoused; however, real marriage happened to be a sacred institution and it should be left alone.

Homosexuals and people like them could do whatever they chose to do with their lives, and I for one couldn't care less about that.

However, to force their life styles on other people, and furthermore to ask for their relationships to be recognized as "marriage" would be nothing less than egregious.

Consider the confusion that would come about for society to deal with. That would certainly be a violation of other peoples' rights.

Both of you seem to be very well informed, and so you are liable to read any book; therefore, I will advise you to pick up the Bible and read it, and you will discover where such a life style and its other variations will lead humanity.

They (life styles) spell the end of human existence.

Is that what you want?


Anne Pettit profile image

Anne Pettit 4 years ago from North Carolina

There were valuable texts published before and after the Bible. The Bible does not support equality for women, or gays so it is not my favorite book. An important book, but not one I always agree with, and not my favorite. Since there is proof that gays have been around as long as civilization, it is obvious that the life styles do not spell the end of human existence.

Just relax, and let others have their civil and human rights. You will be fine.


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 4 years ago from Sunny California

I enjoyed reading your Hub because it is always refreshing to read a point of view that I not only disagree with but one that causes me to think about why I disagree.

There are a couple of points I would like to make. The Greek culture and religion that pervaded eastern Europe 2,000 years ago and before actively encouraged homosexuality. Alexander the great declared he would build an army of lovers. History did prove to the Greeks and Romans that lovers would fight harder to protect their partners than they would for themselves.

The Jewish proscriptions against homosexuality were more of a nationalistic resistance to being drawn into the Hellenic culture than any inspired doctrine. The Greeks performed sporting events naked, there is reason to believe that Jewish circumcision was established as another way to mark themselves as separate.

There has to be a separation between religious statements and cultural ones. Not every verse in the Bible has equal weight.


Jean Bakula profile image

Jean Bakula 4 years ago from New Jersey

It appears many are informed. I do disagree about the matter NOT being a Civil Rights issue. I have heard and known of cases where one partner willed property to another and family found ways not to honor the couple's wishes. As iantoPF points out, Greek mentors often had homosexual relations with their pupils. I don't see why this change in law would be the end of civilization. Gays are not forcing straights to marry or not, or have children or not. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :).


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

mikelong,

Why the name change? People who are heterosexual will not change that name for anything else. Why not? Because they are proud of who and what they are.

Calling yourselves "gay" means that you are hiding something. In the English language, the word "gay" means "happy"; and so, if you are a homosexual, you must be proud of your life style and therefore call yourself a "homosexual". Period.

The change of name is deceptive, to say the least; because they (homosexuals) cannot claim it exclusively for themselves. Their lives can be as happy or as miserable, just like other people.

Again, mikelong, it seems that you are hiding behind a word that does not mean "homosexual".

Show your face in public and tell everybody that you are a homosexual. You must be able to do so in broad daylight; otherwise, where is your pride to be one?

In this world, every important and meaningful thing has a purpose. That includes any kind of life style.

I have told my readers about what the purpose of real marriage was (and still is). It is for pro-creation.

Homosexuality has no purpose.

If you doubt me, tell the world what that purpose is.

I have also told my readers that I have nothing against homosexuals, per se; but their insistence on ruining marriage, as I have been brought up to know it, was what drove me up the wall.

Obama has tricked his homosexual friends. He has separated them from society. What he said was,

"I think same sex couples can get married," (ABC interview, taped 5/09/12, and appearing on national TV the following day).

That makes it clear that, with homosexual community, wanting the kind of relationship they are advocating, one that will be equal to or to equate traditional marriage with, and for that to be accepted by society, it (relationship) has been given a new name as, "same sex marriage"; thus setting it apart from traditional marriage.

That goes to show that the two institutions are still not equal or not the same. They are as different from each other as night and day. If so, where is the equality or civil rights issue here?

He was able to fool the whole nation by his statement. So, please, don't get upset. He was directing it (statement) to heterosexuals too.

P.S. By the way, mikelong, be careful of what you say about the Bible.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

mikelong,

Why the name change? People who are heterosexual will not change that name for anything else. Why not? Because they are proud of who and what they are.

Calling yourselves "gay" means that you are hiding something. In the English language, the word "gay" means "happy"; and so, if you are a homosexual, you must be proud of your life style and therefore call yourself a "homosexual". Period.

The change of name is deceptive, to say the least; because they (homosexuals) cannot claim it exclusively for themselves. Their lives can be as happy or as miserable, just like other people.

Again, mikelong, it seems that you are hiding behind a word that does not mean "homosexual".

Show your face in public and tell everybody that you are a homosexual. You must be able to do so in broad daylight; otherwise, where is your pride to be one?

In this world, every important and meaningful thing has a purpose. That includes any kind of life style.

I have told my readers about what the purpose of real marriage was (and still is). It is for pro-creation.

Homosexuality has no purpose.

If you doubt me, tell the world what that purpose is.

I have also told my readers that I have nothing against homosexuals, per se; but their insistence on ruining marriage, as I have been brought up to know it, was what drove me up the wall.

Obama has tricked his homosexual friends. He has separated them from society. What he said was,

"I think same sex couples can get married," (ABC interview, taped 5/09/12, and appearing on national TV the following day).

That makes it clear that, with the homosexual community, wanting the kind of relationship they are advocating, one that will be equal to or to equate traditional marriage with, and for that to be accepted by society, it (relationship) has been given a new name as, "same sex marriage"; thus setting it apart from traditional marriage.

That goes to show that the two institutions are still not equal or not the same. They are as different from each other as night and day. If so, where is the equality or civil rights issue here?

To many people, what he said achieved nothing.

He was able to fool the whole nation by his statement. So, please, don't get upset. He was directing it (statement) to heterosexuals too.

P.S. By the way, mikelong, be careful of what you say about the Bible.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working