How President Obama’s Support of Gay Marriage Signals the Decline of Homophobia in America

@LaureGT

He's using a good technique to gain votes. With this he's turning the balance to his side.

It's a bonehead move on O'Bama's part. The most adament homophobes I know were either witness to or victims of homosexual sexual assault. Like that coach at Penn State with those little boys. Takes a thick rug indeed to hide that much dirt.

I applaud this announcement, it was too long in coming. I don't think it will damage his chances in the next election, but I hope the reason for the announcement is not for political gain, but a genuine evolution of opinion and change of heart as the president has stated.

I am so happy to hear that President Obama suopports the rights of all and is willing to say so. LBJ did so and won reelection. I'm happy to be living in a country where people are not afraid to speak up for what is right

LBJ advocated for civil rights in the 60s and instigated the civil rights bill. It changed my political persuasion (I wrote a Hub about this), and took courage on his part. This announcement by President Obama feels much the same to me. Both may have been somewhat politically motivated, but they still did the right thing.

Great Hub!! Thanks.

Great article LauraGT. The more I read, the more I realize that gay people like you should be tolerated as long as they behave properly.

Don't worry Laura. It's a little tough when you first come out of the closet, but it gets easier with time.

You're right Laura. Things really have changed. When I was a young gay woman like you in the 1960's, I would of never thought about making my choice public. Your lucky to be a gay woman living in today's society.

What a pity. She doesn't look like a homosexual in the picture, but it's hard to tell these days.

This is a well written article that was well thought out. I don't support gay marriage, but some of the comments are mean. Why? People are entitled to their views and we have to agree to disagree.

Glad you have written a well thought out hub.

I agree with BJC. Some of the comments are indeed mean. At least BJC is kind enough to understand and state that everyone has a right to their own opinion. As for the negative comments, there are many people who are afraid of the unknown. Ignorance can be a scary thing. LauraGT is open enough to allow all comments on her hubs. If it were me though, I wouldn't give some of these people the attention they so desperately desire.

LauraGT, you are most welcome. I saw that flaxseed comment as well. I think you hit the nail on the head. Some people lack the maturity required to be accepting of those with differing views and lifestyles. I feel sorry for people who prefer to spend their time in such an unproductive manner. Keep up the good work!

You just can't change some people.

Thanks for the well written and fair article, Laura. I write about Metaphysical topics and many "guests" write to tell me I'm possessed by the devil, am going to hell (which I don't believe in) and such. HP is a nice community, don't let a few bad apples spoil your experience, or supress that topics you wish to write on.

I really don't understand why President Obama made his statements concerning gay marriage during an election year. It's not like the gay population was going to vote for Romney. Maybe President Obama is a gay man. That's ok if he is, but if his marriage is a sham, maybe he really wasn't born in the United States. It really makes you think.

I could not disagree with you more. Obama threw Blacks and Hispanics under the bus with this announcement. I voted for Obama but will not this November. Many people who supported him will just stay home.

I don't equate disagreeing with same-sex marriage as homophobia. I have many friends who are homosexual, some lifelong friends. I believe homosexuals can enter a civil union, but I believe marriage is between a man and woman.

Homophobia is fear of homosexuals and is a term thrown about much too loosely, IMO.

I do not much care for many of Obama's politics - his runaway Executive Orders, his light esteem for the military, the endless appointment of czars, his following Bush policy after winning an election by landblasting it... oh, there's more. Anywho.

I do enjoy your writing style, however. I'm sure you are aware that you write effectively. Kudos.

According to the ADL, homophobia is defined as a hatred or fear of homosexuals and lesbians. I believe it is this hatred and fear that drives people to resist accepting the gay lifestyle, including the right to marry. I challenge anyone to give just ONE intelligent, non-emotional, non-religious reason why same sex marriage is wrong.

Right and wrong are a non-issue. The definition of marriage for centuries has been "lifelong commitment between man and woman". I think civil-unions provide this same commitment level, but between same gender couples. As far as legal ramification, grant civil union partners the same rights at hospitals, taxes, etc. as married. Re-defining marriage doesn't change the history of marriage.

I neither hate nor fear homosexuals - just clarifying because you replied to my earlier comment on "homophobia" with an extended definition.

I beg to differ. So, because it's been defined in a particular manner for centuries means it can never be changed? I think you should consider that statement very carefully. I shudder to think what kind of world we'd be living in if people centuries ago were content with the way things were. My own parents had an extremely difficult time finding someone who would marry them. Why? Because my dad is white and my mom is Mexican. Thank God things have changed since then.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I honestly have to wonder how you can say you have gay friends and don't consider yourself homophobic, yet you want to limit the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

Again, I see marriage as a definition of a type of relationship, not a "right", per se. A man does not have the right to be a mother. He can be a father - which is gender specific to parenthood.

I believe civil unions afford the legal acknowledgment/protection of a lifelong commitment between same sex partners.

Your argument is illogical "if people people centuries ago were content with the way things were." We are discussing a definition, not stagnate complacancy. Our forefathers, who were not happy with the governing system from which their parents came, didn't re-define England's government, they chose a different government - a democratic republic. Both a Parliamentary Monarchy and a Democratic Republic are forms of government, with an objective to administrate a government, and different bodies being a part of the other. A marriage - its earliest definition is "1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." Regarding your parents, ethnicity neither fulfills or annul the prerequisite of marriage. Even in biblical times there was interracial marriage - way back when.

I am not against the rights of anyone. But let's be clear on what a "right" is. Marriage is a specific type of relationship, "husband and wife", and, simply, "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" is not in that definition.

:)

Straight vs Gay = Black vs White = ???

- Divide and conquer. Did you feel that? You are being mind controlled. Even the "Awake" are susceptible to such well laid traps.

What do you guys think will be the next major story pushed by the MSM?

- Probably Man vs Woman. Sprinkle in a little abortion here or maybe a rape there. Maybe another kidnapped little girl. That'll stir up some deep emotional energy for the vampires to feed off of.

Does anyone else feel like all these stories are just made up? Am I the only one living in the twilight zone?

- Be aware of the thoughts you let into yourself. Most of them are not your own.

The real question is.... what are we being distracted away from?

Charles, you hit that nail right on the head. The media controls so much of what we see and hear. They tell you only what they want you to know and spin it to their own advantage. All you have to do is dig deeper into any of today's big headlines to see that what you are saying is not a conspiracy theory. Excellent points!

Thanks so much for your thoughtful, mature input as usual LauraGT. As the target of some of those insults I appreciate it :)

The other day a man of another color rode his bike past my house; I was outside and he asked if I had an air pump. I said I had something that might help. Minutes later I had fix-a-flat exploding all over; I told let me do it for I didn't want him smelling like the cursed chemical. As he rode off, thanking me, I though 50 years ago his color would have prevented him to even be free. How silly of a society are we to judge another over color or any other free choice.

I tell this story for it was no long ago we raged against a man for his skin, now we are angry for another civil right and choice. so my hope is not to long from now we will shake our judgmental minds in shame to have repeated history once again.

Whether this is a ploy for votes; it simply is the right thing to do.

Wonderful hub Laura.

It's easy to look as if you are doing the right thing. Coming out blatantly in support of Gay Marriage is a popular stance. However, it seems that if people are uncomfortable, perhaps from the point of view of their religion, with Gay Marriage, and express that view, they are almost always deemed to be 'homophobic'. I would encourage open debate where people are enabled and empowered to express their views honestly without being judged in terms such as 'homophobic' - a lazy criticism that often negates some valid opinions, ideas and questions.

It was not what homosexuals and lesbians wanted to do with their lives that bothered many people. They could co-habit, they could swim and dance; and nobody would give a damn.

They could come together in any way they chose; but not to "marry". "Marriage" should be an entirely different kettle of fish. It was designed by whoever put humans down on planet earth.

The rights of homosexuals and others like them would not be abrogated, if they decided to fight for those rights as normal couples have, but in different way.

Form an entity; like "domestic partnership" or "civil union", and nobody would object to any of those.

However, whatever they did, the word "marriage" did not fit their lifestyles.

By the way, "phobia" meant inexplicable fear; and so when it should be attached to "homo", it should mean the fear of "men".

Yet, people were not afraid of men per se; they were afraid of aberrant behavior of any kind, sexual or otherwise.

LauraGT,

I made it quite clear that whoever was responsible for placing humans on earth designed marriage for procreation.

In other words, marriage has a specific purpose.

It is not just an institution; it is the foundation of family life or existence.

Nobody can ever change that.

Have another name for your lifestyle, if you are going to pair up; but that will not be marriage, because such a relationship will only exist in a vacuum. Nothing can ever come out of it. Besides, that name (marriage) has already been taken.

Sir/Madam,

Sorry to say this, but your way will not work.

Nature has its own rules and nothing can ever change them.

In other words, if you cannot comply with the rules set by "Mother nature", that will be your problem and nobody else's.

You are interested in isolated cases. I am not.

Generally speaking, the theory of life is for couples to copulate for the purpose of having children.

Do not waste your time, trying to make excuses by using people who are unable to reproduce.

In so many of those lives, there is only regret and self flagellation in the end.

However, you may not believe this, but it is always the end that matters.

LauraGT,

I agree that there is no room for compromise on this issue; but do you see how shallow your argument is?

You say that my beliefs are "based in a religious/traditional framework," and "mine in equal rights for all living human being." (Your own words; and not mine). Meaning that those are the basis of your convictions.

However, where do "rights" and "all living human beings" come from?

Out of nothing? Is that what you and your friends are telling or teaching to the children that you are adopting?

Aren't you misleading them; and if not, how do you know you are right?

Now, I know that I have given another person plenty of food for thought; and that makes me very happy.

I can only wish you the same kind of happiness, in your own life's pursuits; and hope that your personal outlook on life in general will evolve in a positive direction.

That is only how you will find your real self.

By the way, what is "positive" to one person can be "negative" to another. Think about that.

Is it possible to honestly disagree with the gay aganda without being labeled a homophobe? While there have been despicable intances of vilence and prejudice toward homosexuals, fact is that most of us who disagree on principle do not fear you. We just think you're wrong.

Thanks, LauraGT, a reasonable answer indeed, and graciously put. It's my opinion that homosexuals should have all the rights available to hetersexuals. However marriage is in a different category altogether. This seems self-evident to me for if we all were married to somone of the same gender the human race would cease to exist, unless of course, we separated marriage from procreation. That's already been done to a huge degree, but that's just as destructive. Again that's my opinion. It doesn't mean I'm afraid of homosexuals. In fact I work of Home Depot, an outfit known for supporting homosexual rights. It does me that I am one who would oppose laws legalizing same-sex marriage.

Oh, I'm not saying that procreation is the only reason for marriage. Only that if we all were in same sex marriages there would be no procreation. It seems to me that any position which logically leads to humanity's demise is patently wrong. I say logically, bacause I don't expect that to happen in reality. Still in principle same sex marriage leads to the extinction of the human race and must be considered antithetical to human well-being.

LauraGT,

You still do not understand. The existence of human beings is through an inter relationship between a man and a woman. That is how people are born on this earth or into this world.

Two men or two women having the same relationship will not be able to reproduce. It will not work.

When that happens, there will be no more human births, and that will spell the end of the human race.

Looking at the issue another way, homosexuals want to adopt children, but they are throwing their sperms away. What sense do you see in that? They like to have children, but they cannot do so using their method.

Who must then have children for them to adopt?

That means that they do not really know what life really is.

If their behavior is not the height of hypocrisy, and outright selfishness on their part, then nothing else will ever be.

Besides, marriage is not a right. Originally, it is an institution for birthing. So, if they do not subscribe to the idea of birthing or having children, why must they interfere with a special institution deliberately set aside for the purpose of birthing or procreation?

They can have "sex" and call their relationship or life style any other name, but "marriage".

There is "domestic partnership" or "civil union". They can go for any of those nomenclatures.

I completely agree with "liftandsoar".

Homosexuals must leave marriage alone; because the name "marriage" is not synonymous with their character. Or it does not fit the way that they want to live their lives.

Precisely, their mindset is characterized by nothing less than a venue that leads to the extinction of humanity.

You're not daft. We're just coming at this from different worlds. An analogy. When our kids were small we lived in a home where railroad tracks ran just behind our back yard. A train went by only once in a blue moon. Of course our kids wanted to play down by the tracks. We forbade it as I'm sure you would. Would you now say that because of the theoretical possibility of their being run over by a train we were unjustly denying them their right to have fun? I doubt it.

Thanks! I'll take anything I can get. Both the points and the blow off! :-)

LauraGT,

Nobody is asking you to change anything about yourself.

Just use your own extensive gumption, as many can tell that you possess, to sort things out for yourself.

In other words, always choose what you THINK is right or good for you, with respect to your way of life, and in dealing with other people's opinions on any topic.

We must all try to be sensitive to other people's feelings or sentiments; but we must not attempt to sensitize anything that is true; because it is true, whether we agree with it or not.

For example, birthing that has brought us all here on earth, can only come between a man and a woman copulating.

There are no two ways about that; and that is where marriage comes or fits in, to cement a relationship and generally assist the connection between two persons devoted to each other to start a FAMILY; which is the nucleus or the basis of society.

The continuation, or the "CONTINUUM" of human existence, solely depends on that connection or contact.

The nucleus can only come about, when an "egg" in a female individual combines with "the sperm" in a male person to form "the fetus", from which a baby, and therefore a human being, is reproduced.

Without the two coming together, there will be no procreation; but an emptiness, bereft of human beings, in a vacuum, commonly referred to as the Universe.

That is what, in my humble opinion, "liftandsoar" and I are talking about.

Well, LauraGT, what can I tell you? I think that I have said enough already; and so have some other people.

However, the fact remains that you can change the truth about something to suit your own psyche or ego, but the truth itself never changes.

Society may metamorphose as much as it wants; but the debate about whether the meaning of "marriage" will change in any way, shape or form will still remain a question for you and many people; including myself, of course.

Obama's public support of Gay marriage is just about the best thing he has been able to achieve during his presidency (I know there is a lot more he would like to do but with a republican majority in the senate he is blocked at every turn - isn't democracy depressing?!)

I read just yesterday that his outspokenness on this point has led to a measurable shift in public opinion - especially in the 'black' community. I wish he would stick his neck out more on other issues. I think he'd find that if he were to take a stronger lead, many would follow.

Obama has definitely done more for LGBT rights then most other Presidents have done, which includes the repeal of DADT. Homophobia is silly and it just reminds me of how far behind our country always is when it comes to social issues, i.e. slavery, civil rights, women's rights, and how hypocritical of a society we live in!