TO TAKE ON THE IMPOSSIBLE.

OBAMA IN A QUANDARY.

If there was anyone ever missing a point, it was President Barack Obama; and also my friend "mikelong", who blogged on Hubpages online.

Both of them think that homosexuality happens to be a good thing, while others are seriously asking about its purpose, because they see none.

However, that is where the difference lies, that heterosexual life has an ordained purpose and that is to give life; pro-creation it is called. Homosexuality completely lacks any moral objective.

Even, that is not the point. The point is equating it with heterosexual life style, when the two are diametrically and morally opposite each other.

The other point is the excuse that same-sex marriage will extend rights to all people, irrespective of the fact that it is not an issue of one section of society depriving another section of its civil rights.

"I want everyone treated fairly in this country. We have never gone wrong when we've extended rights and responsibilities to everybody," and "....that he believes marriage equality "strengthens families." " (CNN, 5/15/12).

If all that isn't hogwash, nothing is. That is insulting people's intelligence.

He goes farther to insinuate that one of his goals under a second term will include the repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act, a statute that has been put in place to protect society and the family; but why?

It is almost like saying that he does not want a second term, because when it comes to homosexual "marriage", 80% of Americans are against it; and will vote to overthrow it. If so, how does he get around that to win his reelection bid?

What the first African American president is setting before the country now is not a political issue. It is a moral issue; and because of that he will lose the support of those on the side of morality.

Nobody is impinging on the rights of anybody; and he must be the first to know that; acknowledging that he has been able to become the president of the United States. No one can do so, if one is not smart.

However, to morally transform America is "biting off more than he could chew." and it is very disappointing to see him strain under such a heavy burden. It is just like taking on the impossible.

Many Americans will refuse to take the same stance as he on the issue in question; that redefining marriage must not be part of his agenda. It will divide the country, rather than uniting it.

This blog has supported Obama to the hilt. Yet, when it came to the destruction of the institution of marriage, that support has to be withdrawn.

Homosexuals can do whatever they like; but the perversion of marriage will not, and must not, be allowed; because that is what it amounts to. It is not that anyone wants to restrain them from enjoying their life style(s).

P.S. Staying at home in protest on election day, 2012, will be the best and the right thing to do. Just mark it on the wall.

Comments 6 comments

Mtbailz 4 years ago

First of all, your number of 80% is completely wrong. It's somewhere near the 50% mark. Secondly, if the difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples is purely procreation, then what do you have to say about heterosexual couples that can't have children due to genetic or disease related reasons? Should they not be allowed to marry because it would, "lack any moral objective."?


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

You cannot use isolated cases to equate people, who are not able to have children to homosexuals.

You will become an object of derision wherever you raise such an argument to defend a deviant life style, as homosexuality is.

I was asking about the purpose of it (homosexuality).

Is there any?

I for one am not against anything that homosexuals do; they can live together and socialize in any way they want.

What they cannot do, in my humble opinion, is to force others to accept them for who and what they are.

No culture on earth has ever favored homosexual conduct as being normal; because it has no objectivity.

Some societies even see it as a psychological disease and device a cure for it.

Such instances, with the methodology to deal with it, is very common in the Arab world and in many parts of Africa.

There are "domestic partnership" and "civil union", and homosexuals can go for any of those. Marriage is not for them.

That is what a majority of the American people are saying.


Mtbailz 4 years ago

I really don't know where to begin here. First, once again, a majority of Americans aren't actually saying anything you have just said. The insinuation you have made is that marriage is determined by its purpose, and for your case that would be having children. As much as that can be a part of the relationship, there must be more to marriage than that. At least I would hope so. And if this was the case, the question you dodged from my last comment would still be a fair example of how your ideas don't fit together nicely.

As to your example of all cultures finding the idea of homosexuality unorthodox; this is simply not the case. Ancient western culture (Rome and Greece specifically) had institutionalized homosexual relationships until the arrival of Christianity. You are correct that some societies believe it to be a disease of sorts, but their evidence is nonexistent. Homosexuality is actually quite common, not only in humans, but in mammals as a whole. This is actual scientific fact.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Name just one mammal type that has the practice of the males chasing after each other for sex?

There is no such thing. It is only "man" that does that.

That is why it is called "homosexuality".

In other words, Homo sapiens, (The primate species to which modern humans belong), is the only type with that aberrant behavior.

We, men, must respect "nature", with us going after females only, for the purpose of reproduction.

That is how all human beings have come to be here on planet Earth.


Mtbailz 4 years ago

Homosexuality comes from the words "homo" (meaning same) and "sexuality" (which I'm sure you know). When it comes to other mammals, we find homosexuality in other primates and even in dolphins. A simple search in Youtube will even show you videos of such homoerotic mammalian expressions of love.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

There is no way to tell whether two dolphins are siblings or lovers. Besides, animal instincts are totally different, and nobody knows exactly what their emotional feelings are from one moment to another.

The gumption that man has separates him from other mammals. Homo sapiens: meaning "humanity", "wise man", "human beings", etc.; are unique in their behavioral psychology.

In other words, not even other primates, alongside human beings, have the same qualities to think through things, as what they are doing has a purpose and/or a result. Only human beings do.

Youtube will show any video for cash, and that is what it is meant to do; period.

Also, scientific research can be faulty sometimes as well, or it is not always completely reliable.

    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