The First Gay President

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
You know Republicans are losing the "culture war" because they're now calling it a "diversion"... It wasn't a diversion when they were winning elections with it.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
You are right, it is insulting to call him the first gay president...just like it was insulting to call Cinton the first black president. I know they meant it in a way to say they were the first to back them (Obama supporting gays and Clinton supporting blacks) but to say they are what they support is stupid. You have it absolutely correct in saying it is just to sell magazines.
So Clinton was the first president to support blacks is why he was called that? I always thought it was a joke about him having "soul" and playing the sax...and I could have sworn there were one or two other presidents in history that supported blacks, maybe somebody else can remember who they were:hmm:
 
Last edited:

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
So Clinton was the first president to support blacks is why he was called that? I always thought it was a joke about him having "soul" and playing the sax...and I could have sworn there were one or two other presidents in history that supported blacks, maybe somebody else can remember who they were:hmm:

TJ "kept" a few around. Does that mean he supported them? :hmm:
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
You are right, it is insulting to call him the first gay president...just like it was insulting to call Cinton the first black president.

Not really.

There is still more of a stigma attached to "Gay", and calling a white man "black" is about as obvious as you can be when it comes to contradictory.

I know they meant it in a way to say they were the first to back them (Obama supporting gays and Clinton supporting blacks) but to say they are what they support is stupid. You have it absolutely correct in saying it is just to sell magazines.

Yep.

And what is with the 1980's rainbow head-band/halo? I know that it is supposed to signify a Gay Messiah, but it reminds me of Olivia Newton John FCS (literally).
 

Icepick

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2004
3,663
4
81
This is going to be a boon to the homophobes out there. GWB won the election under the unofficial "God, Guns and Gays" platform. One of the three is now firmly in place. Now I see that the Republicans are going to latch onto this and hope that by mobilizing America against "the scourge of the gay male and his attempt to destroy the institution of mairriage" that they'll somehow score a win in November.

A friend of a friend of mine is a pastor and they posted a Facebook message asking how any Christian can vote for Obama when he supports gay marriage.

Funny. I would expect a Christian to want to promote a marriage under God by making it available to as many people as possible. Extending the service to Homosexual persons seems like what Jesus would want. It promotes monogomy, stability and has health benefits (with limited sexual partners.)

I'd like to know what sort of person would really be against this. Surely not a Christian?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The first gay Prez? Easy- Dubya with his man-ho, Jeff Gannon-

bush_and_gannon.jpg
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
This is going to be a boon to the homophobes out there. GWB won the election under the unofficial "God, Guns and Gays" platform. One of the three is now firmly in place. Now I see that the Republicans are going to latch onto this and hope that by mobilizing America against "the scourge of the gay male and his attempt to destroy the institution of mairriage" that they'll somehow score a win in November.

A friend of a friend of mine is a pastor and they posted a Facebook message asking how any Christian can vote for Obama when he supports gay marriage.

Funny. I would expect a Christian to want to promote a marriage under God by making it available to as many people as possible. Extending the service to Homosexual persons seems like what Jesus would want. It promotes monogomy, stability and has health benefits (with limited sexual partners.)

I'd like to know what sort of person would really be against this. Surely not a Christian?
Wow! That's a lot of extrapolation from a magazine cover. "A boon to the homophobes". Really? Newsweek is as left a publication as one could ever find but somehow it's all a right wing plot? The vast right wing conspiracy is alive and well I guess. Or, the paranoia runs deep on the left.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Wasn't there a story about a gay fling he had with a limo driver or something like that?

I'm sure there were all sorts of stories; it happens to presidential candidates. That there are stories suggests nothing about whether they're true or false.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Wow! That's a lot of extrapolation from a magazine cover. "A boon to the homophobes". Really? Newsweek is as left a publication as one could ever find but somehow it's all a right wing plot? The vast right wing conspiracy is alive and well I guess. Or, the paranoia runs deep on the left.

I really do not hear many people calling this a Right Wing Plot.

More like a Media Exploitation that will] be used as a Right Wing Propagandist attack.

Small, but significant difference. One is Greed, the other Malice.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,513
24
76
sorry. I don't know why it perpetually surprises me that, as a gay man, Sullivan is so intent on sucking Obama's dick all the time.

Do you find it offensive, or perhaps irritating, that Obama is being labeled as the first gay President? Thanks, just curious what you or anyone else of your orientation thinks of this.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Do you find it offensive, or perhaps irritating, that Obama is being labeled as the first gay President? Thanks, just curious what you or anyone else of your orientation thinks of this.
I'm thankful for the things that Obama's done to advance gay rights (and annoyed by the issues he's ignored or punted the ball on), but yeah... I think the term "gay" should only be used when it applies to someone who's sexually attracted to members of the same sex, or as a throwback term for a happy person.

Obama may be happy, but I don't imagine he's the first POTUS ever to experience happiness, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't expressed any sexual attraction for members of his same gender.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,513
24
76
I'm thankful for the things that Obama's done to advance gay rights (and annoyed by the issues he's ignored or punted the ball on), but yeah... I think the term "gay" should only be used when it applies to someone who's sexually attracted to members of the same sex, or as a throwback term for a happy person.

Obama may be happy, but I don't imagine he's the first POTUS ever to experience happiness, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't expressed any sexual attraction for members of his same gender.

Agreed. He should at least have to suck a dick or give a courtesy reach around. :colbert:

Seriously now, thanks for answering.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
The problem here is simple.

"Gay" is still an insult to a large portion of the voting public. Even people who SUPPORT gays will be insulted when called gay w/o being gay.

We are an insecure race of critters, and sex is a very touchy (literally and figuratively) subject. We even use it as a slang insult: "That was so Gay"... not meaning that it bent over and smiled, but that it was "different in a way that was not socially acceptable" or even that it was stereo-typically exaggerated circa 1950's feminine on something that is generally masculine from the same genre.

(BTW, that brings up another question, why do so many gay men seem to think they have to behave like princesses or like 1950's Donna Reeds? Attraction should have little bearing on such affected mannerisms. Lisping? Seriously? >gruff<)

So even if Obama SUPPORTS GAY RIGHTS, which I do as well, labeling him the "Gay President" is not a very complimentary term, especially if it can be taken out of context, as it will be.

This is just a bizarre situation. I do not agree with why being called Gay is considered an insult, but it still is when you have to deal with so many people who still believe that way.

It's all plucked up.
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
You know Republicans are losing the "culture war" because they're now calling it a "diversion"... It wasn't a diversion when they were winning elections with it.

The BBC reposted a commentary regarding this by Rob Dreher. I thought it was an interesting read about how important losing the "culture war" in the media has on an issue like this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18015135
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
part of it is just pedantry.

it also annoys me when Obama is referred to as black when he is biracial.

I just find it Ironic that black traits are (genetically) dominant.

Kind of back-handed. "Well, your genes will express themselves over just about any other cosmetic trait... but society will screw the pooch and relegate most of your societies to the land of subservient stature."

F'd up.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
This is going to be a boon to the homophobes out there. GWB won the election under the unofficial "God, Guns and Gays" platform. One of the three is now firmly in place. Now I see that the Republicans are going to latch onto this and hope that by mobilizing America against "the scourge of the gay male and his attempt to destroy the institution of mairriage" that they'll somehow score a win in November.

A friend of a friend of mine is a pastor and they posted a Facebook message asking how any Christian can vote for Obama when he supports gay marriage.

Funny. I would expect a Christian to want to promote a marriage under God by making it available to as many people as possible. Extending the service to Homosexual persons seems like what Jesus would want. It promotes monogomy, stability and has health benefits (with limited sexual partners.)

I'd like to know what sort of person would really be against this. Surely not a Christian?

I'd really, and sincerely, like to know how you came to that conclusion.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Funny article in Slate. Republicans are now complaining that bringing up gay marriage is divisive. lol.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...s_polls_shift_the_gop_calls_it_divisive_.html

These guys either have no memory or no shame. I guess it could be both.

Funny, I read that article this morning and was just about to post it.

I agree with GLBT's post above that this is all a diversion (as it always has been). Like it or not, I think we all know how history is going to judge this issue. "Wedge" issues FTL.
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
Well we have had all White Presidents prior to Obama, and he is our first Mixed race President...Now we just need to have a Black President, a Hispanic President, a Asian, a Muslim, a Jewish, and a Gay president for everything to be right in the world!

Herman Cain if he didn't drop out and got elected would have been our first Black President, gotta wait abit longer it seems like for that one.