Tuesday, May 15, 2012

The First Gay President. Hah!


"I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts." ~ John Locke

The news is out! Barack Hussein Obama is a homo! Newsweek has outed the President.

I think this is hilarious!

I wonder if Obama approves of being known as a Homosexual. Considering his tender sensibilities, he might be offended. I know I would, and I'm not easily offended.

 If I were married to Michele, I'd probably turn gay, too.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. People who have psychological disorders often manifest several at once, so, along with being a pathological narcissist, and a compulsive liar, and a megalomaniac, we can throw in homosexuality.

I always thought he walked a little funny.

Those late night meetings with Barney Frank take on a whole new meaning, don't they?

62 comments:

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Thanks for the laugh!

Mark said...

You're quite welcome, Glenn, and before Liberal Jim makes his comments, let me just say, in my defense, I didn't say it. Newsweek did.

Z said...

Mark, Newsweek had fun with this....I'm surprised the WH isn't mad, joking or not joking!... I haven't heard a thing.

Always On Watch said...

I don't have many male friends who are gay. But the few that are have said over and over again, "Something about Obama tells me that he's gay."

Over the weekend, one of my gay acquaintances said, "I wonder if Obama has a thing going with George Clooney."

I do find it interesting that Obama is okay with Newsweek's announcement.

Mark said...

Seriously, Z, I understand Newsweek's intent, but, they must have had Obama's permission to publish such a cover. By now, all media must know their boundaries.

Mark said...

AOW, I never really thought Obama was a homosexual, but who am I to argue with Newsweek? They are in a much better position to judge then I.

Parklife said...

.. heh..

The Atlantic Wire points out that this is hardly the first time that Obama has been called the first something president (apart from, obviously, the first black one): The Washington Post's Kathleen Parker called Obama "the first female president" in 2010, and in 2009, Geraldo Rivera called Obama the "first Hispanic president" and the AFP called him the "first Asian-American president." New York itself put a quote proclaiming Obama "the first Jewish president" on its cover last September.

Mark said...

Yes, Parkie, Rush Limbaugh pointed out the same thing on his show on Monday. You may want to go kill yourself now that you know you and Rush think the same way.

Trader Rick said...

The first Marxist President, the first hipster president, the first coke head president, the first foreign born president, the first muslim president, The first president since Jimmah Cottah to be in so way over his head, and worst of all, the first Heinekin-drinking president.

Parklife said...

"may want to kill yourself"?

Stay classy Mark.. stay classy.

The first _______ President...

Yes Traitor Rick.. it loses its meaning at some point. Thank you for this insight.

Marshall Art said...

Irony: Low class Parkie telling Mark to "stay classy".

In the first place, there's nothing classless about Mark's remark to Parkie. Parkie has demonstrated disdain, if not outright hatred, for Rush Limbaugh. It is a common sentiment for one to express one's own shortcomings when finding agreement with another with whom one is normally in opposition. It is equally common for someone to suppose that another in that situation might experience cranial explosion or some other hyperbolic possibility. Hardly an issue of "classiness" unless the suggestion is used by a low class individual to demonize. That's Parkie.

Mark said...

Still, it is funny that Obama is being called a homo by one of his staunchest allies.

Parklife said...

"homo"

ahh.. yes.. Thank you for reminding me Mark. Yesterday was International day against homophobia.

Go on.. check it out: www.homophobiaday.org/

Marshall Art said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art said...

Imagine that: a day set aside to fight against something that doesn't exist!

Parklife said...

Yea.. where would we find that. Certainly no evidence of gay hate around here.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parklife,

Explain how it is "hate" to speak truth.

Ducky's here said...

Chatsworth starting to act butch?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky, when are you going to grow up? You are such an ass.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Parklife said...

"Explain how it is "hate" to speak truth."

Glenny.. Wait.. You are a dude?

No matter. I said there was no homophobia here. This is a hate-free zone. Dont be so disagreeable.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parklife,
It seemed sarcastic to me. Also, there is no such thing as "homophobia" - that is a made up word to attack anyone who says homosexual behavior is wrong.

Jim said...

Also, there is no such thing as "homophobia" - that is a made up word to attack anyone who says homosexual behavior is wrong.

You can believe all you want that homosexual behavior is wrong. That's not homophobia.

BUT, homophobia is NOT a made up word and it clearly exists. Phobia is fear. You may not fear homosexuals, but many people do.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Homophobia is a nonsense word meaning fear of sameness and I have never known anyone to be afraid of sameness, let alone afraid of homosexuality.

Trader Rick said...

Literally homophobia would mean fear of man in Latin. It IS a "made-up" word, first used in the 1980's. Originally it meant the fear that gays felt when they thought they may be outed, now it means anything you want it to, I guess, but clearly anti-homosexual. Wrong again, "jim".

Parklife said...

Literally.. homophobia is in the dictionary. So yeah.. it is a made up word.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

It isn't in the old dictionary. But liberal put all their made-up words in the new dictionary to give them credence. It is an asinine and non-sensical word.

Marshall Art said...

I guess all words are, to some extent, "made up" words. What is the real point here is that this one was coined for a purpose and whatever originally intended is used to falsely label those who understand the immoral and abnormal character of homosexual attractions and behaviors. It is used to demonize. A better word for such people would merely reflect their traditional and morally correct understanding of sexual behavior, such as "rational" or "Christian" or "honest".

Parklife said...

Excellent point.

So.. what should we call people that hate homosexuals? You know.. people that use this form of bigotry in a way that dehumanizes a group of people.

Parklife said...

Wishing everybody a happy Harvey Milk Day!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parklife,
I have never known or read of anyone who "hates" homosexuals only. People like Fred Phelps hates homosexuals, blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc equally.

Why does there need to be a special name for someone who "hates" homosexuals? Do we have special names for those who "hate" pedophiles, or prostitutes, or adulterers or fornicators? What makes homosexuals so unique as to require special treatment based on their perverse sexual behavior?

Mark said...

"...what should we call people that hate homosexuals?"

Glenn nailed it. Why does there have to be a word that defines people who hate Homosexuals?

Here's my answer:

We call them "Liberals", or "Democrats".

One has to hate someone to just enable them in their aberrant lifestyle instead of trying to help them.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Mark,
You hit THAT nail right on the proverbial head!!! Just like it is the liberals who really hate blacks and women.

Anonymous said...

Wow! I think I've stumbled on the Mad Hatter's tea party here. You folks are really queer.

Trader Rick said...

Anonymous has hit the nail on the head. Mark's followers ARE "Queer" when you realize they go against the grain of this increasingly bizarre upside down society . A country that could elect a foreign born Marxist anti-American with no experience at anything other than organizing radicals is surely on the decline in terms of rationality, morals, intelligence and insight. The absurdity of what our government and its minions do on a daily basis blows the minds of normal people. No wonder we're Queer--Strangers in a
Srange Land...

Parklife said...

Looks like you guys all nailed each other.

Parklife said...

Heh.. Colon Powell just jumped your sinking ship.

Anonymous said...

A country that could elect a foreign born Marxist anti-American with no experience at anything

Holy carp!

rationality, morals, intelligence and insight

None of these in your wheelhouse.

Parklife said...

Oh my.. the end is near!

"A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples, a ruling all but certain to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Notice the appeals court was a liberal Massachusetts one. I still want to know how you can discriminate against same-sex unions by denying them the right to change the definition of the word "marriage."

Parklife said...

I can see how you are left with that impression being that 3 of the judges were appointed by conservatives. Even the decision was authored by Michael Boudin, appointed by GW. Justice Boudin pointed out that this will.. obviously.. be decided by the liberal judges on the Supreme Court.

Sadly, The Defense of Marriage Act denies gay spouses Social Security survivor benefits, the ability to file joint tax returns and health insurance rights enjoyed by straight married couples.

I think we are all striving for equality. Good Luck my mustachioed friend.

Mark said...

What's the matter, Parkie? Are you afraid when your partner dies you won't inherit his vast fortune?

Parklife said...

?

So.. Marky Mark... you agree that separate is not equal.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Even conservative presidents screw up.

They deny benefits because they aren't married. You have to be married to get spousal benefits. Denying spousal benefits to unmarried couples is not discriminatory.

There is no such thing as "gay spouse" because marriage is only between opposite gender people.

DUH!!!

Parklife said...

I think you mean ugh..

You would rather have a phony marriage between two people with the only purpose to gain benefits? Thats kind of messed up mustache man.

Side point, Justice Boudin was nominated by both Bush presidents for judicial positions.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You can't prove that they marry only for benefits. Perhaps they see a benefit in having moral sex! And perhaps raising children.

Parklife said...

Gay / Straight people raise children. You dont have to be married to do that.

I have read comments in news articles about people being married only for these benefits. I dont think its far fetched to think people marry for different reasons besides love or the bible.

As for sex, I dont really have any desire to be in somebody else's bedroom. Im not sure about the "morality" of sex. But I think having whips, handcuffs or furry sex is weird and none of this bothers you. It just has to be straight sex between married people?

Not to mention that many couples dont have sex. And, I imagine most couples didnt marry just to have sex.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parky,
Everyone grants that some people marry for wrong reasons, and abuse the institution. But the vast majority marry for the same reason people have married forever - to join in a unit to raise a family. The fact that a minority of people abuse an institution does not disprove the rule. Marriage is an institution which is the foundation of society, for procreating and raising children in a stable environment. No same-sex union can ever do that - it is impossible for them to even have children without outside help!

Parklife said...

Glenny,

Yes. Same-sex couples need "help" to have kids. So do some straight couples.

I am happy to let you know that kids raised by homosexual couples are better off. Gay parents tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average. After all they have to choose to be parents. Please, consider the children.

Again, you dont have to be married to have kids.

.. and.. marriage is not the foundation of society. Sadly, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

People marry for many different reasons. This has been going on for some time and I suspect will continue.

Further we are talking about "marriage" in the form that is recognized by the state, not your community church.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parky,

Same-sex couples can NEVER have kids who are "better off," because their kids will not have correct guidance about human sexuality. Two fathers can not give a girl what a mother can, nor can two mothers give a boy what a father can.

The "state" recognized slavery, recognizes abortion, and a host of other immoral acts. Sanctioning that which is an abomination does not thereby change the abomination into something good.

Parklife said...

Agreed that the State can do some pretty messed up things. Im not speaking of a specific State. But, the hypothetical one. And how that one should interact with all its members.

While you may think kids can not be better off, studies have shown different. Just saying two mothers or two fathers can never have kids better off does not make it true.

Plus, if you think guidance on human sexuality can not be given by a parent of the opposite sex, or that this is the criteria for being a successful parent, then I feel bad for you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

No studies have proven same-sex parents to be better. NONE. It is impossible.

Same-sex "parents" will never teach a proper view of human sexuality, because by virtue of their relationship they are teaching homosexuality as something good an normal, when only 2% of the population is of that deviant lifestyle. and that lifestyle is medically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritual harmful.

Parklife said...

Sorry Glenny, but you should do some research. Not only are there studies that show same-sex parents are better, their "lifestyle" is not considered medically, emotionally or psychologically.. or spiritually harmful. They just dont fit your description, but (correct me if I'm wrong) you are not a part of the medical community and do not speak for any part of it.

Its unfortunate that you are factually wrong.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parky,
Demonstate a study, peer reviewed, which shows that same-sex "parents" are more beneficial. And it has to compare apples to apples.

Homosexual behavior definitely is medically harmful, especially male same-sex activity. There are many, many studies to prove that, as well as common sense. Many testimonies by ex-homosexuals prove it is psychologically harmful, and it is spiritually harmful because it is rebellion against God. Those are facts. And if I was home with my desktop where my "favorites" are bookmarked, I'd give you links for the medical evidence. But I'm out of town today and tomorrow.

Parklife said...

lol.. sorry Glenny.. Try to use the google. These studies are everywhere.

Spirituality might be your worst argument. But, this is also a discussion for another day.

Meanwhile.. Prop. 8 took another hit in the courts. I cant even remember the last time homophobics won.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parklife,

The only so-called studies were done with little information and by homosexualists promoting their agenda. Again, no peer-reviewed study has ever shown that queer parents are better than real ones.

Parklife said...

lol.. Glenny.. Sorry, but large studies have been done by respectable groups and universities proving how wrong you are. The studies show that kids, raised by same-sex couples, are "at least" as well off as mixed couples. All other things being equal, of course. But, think about it, same-sex couples really have to want a child. Typically, they are overqualified to have a kid. Its not like they are going to have a kid on accident.

But, this is why I love conservatives. Kids are adopted out of an unstable foster environment. Only to have conservatives deny their new parents the benefits of marriage. Creating more instability in this new family. For once.. just one time.. please think of the kids.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parky,

The only studies done have NOT been peer reviewed, and have been done to promote an agenda. That is the fact.

And and has been demonstrated, no two men can give a girl what she needs and no two women can give a boy what he needs while growing up. And a child raised by queers will never know what normal human sexuality is, and will be raised to be brainwashed to think homosexual behavior is okay. Just those issues alone prove that children raised by queers cannot be as well off as normal children. All other things being equal.

Parklife said...

umm.. Glenny.. Better start over. Studies have been completed since the 1950s. They are peer-reviewed. That is a fact. Please, use the google. The articles are everywhere.

It has been demonstrated that parents are what kids need. Even better, two good parents. Gender and sexual orientation does not matter.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parky,

Guess again. I've read many of the so-called studies. Always by psychobabblers and other homosexualists promoting the queer agenda.

A child needs a mother and a father for proper upbringing. Two persons of the same sex CANNOT provide the same needs as a normal couple can. In fact, children in opposite sex unmarried households suffer when compared to married couples, but even they have an advantage over those raised by queer couples.

Common sense tells anyone with any ounce of it, that kids raised by queers cannot be as stable as those who aren't

Get of of denial and quit drinking the queer kool-aid.

Mark said...

Allowing Homosexuals to adopt and/or raise children is child abuse.

Parkie, How many of your "studies" (that you have no links for) report on the number of children who have been sexually abused by homosexual "parents"?

Bob said...

What's the betting M is transgender & the children adopted.

It could ONLY happen in the Good OLd USA