PUBLIC OPINION > Newsweek's 'First Gay President' Cover Crossed the Line
SodaHead News
2012/05/15 17:00:00
President Obama's public support of gay marriage was a landmark event for the LGBT community, but Newsweek's latest cover might have taken the praise a little too far: The title story, written by openly gay journalist Andrew Sullivan, was titled, "The First Gay President." Some might say Obama was "coming out of the closet" with his views, but is calling him the "first gay president" a bit of an overstep? We asked the public.
There was a variety of reasons people voted the way they did, but in the end the majority decided it was, in fact, too far. The most obvious argument was that, well... Obama's not gay. Why would they write something like that if it's not tangibly true? Many commenters called it a lapse of journalistic integrity -- "a cheap way to get attention." On the other hand, Pulitzer Prize-winning African-American author Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton the "first Black president" in 1998, so maybe there is some level of historical awareness (and perhaps irony) present in Sullivan's title.
Liberals Don't Like It
We kind of figured this would be a divisive issue based solely on the fact that it had to do with Obama and homosexuality. However, we weren't sure which direction the controversy would go. The actual statement was made by a conservative Catholic homosexual -- an unusual demographic to begin with, and one that's (fortunately) difficult to read into. As it turns out, conservatives had Sullivan's back while liberals shook a finger.
Acceptance From Older Voters
In the same vein, there was a very sharp drop in support under the age of 35. The difference was black-and-white, with every age group below the mark showing about 76% disapproval, and every age group above showing closer to 46%. That's undeniably close to the political breakdown, so a correlation there is pretty much guaranteed. The most interesting thing about this is how quickly and clearly the politics changed at 35.
Homosexuals Won't Have It
In a 1998 issue of the New Yorker, Toni Morrison wrote of Bill Clinton, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas." Does Obama display "every trope of gayness"? That's hard to say objectively, but based on the homosexual vote, the answer seems to be no.
If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about Newsweek's Obama article. We'd love to hear from you!
Top Opinion
-
johnnyg 2012/05/15 18:42:46
A “Celebrating Gay” has a guilty conscious; hence, extraordinary, a great need to "come out" and tell everyone what they do in bed! Personally, I don't want to know!
Ironic how the animals can figure it out - a sense of reproduction, but a small minority of humans can't figure it out, demanding so-called "rights" to their lifestyle and opinion, but denying that same right to a larger majority of people who don't agree with their behaviors.
Obama had to join in on the fallacious argument ad populum in which he rides high on a political band-wagon of liberalism and "Every vote counts..."
Oh, and I'm sure you don't look like this...
billy
and this probably isn't your wedding picture, right?
Not a picture of your sister?
Neighborhood?
Nuff Said..
1. Homosexuality is in now way an addiction, nor is it "based on the flesh alone". Sex addiction (which is a concept which is actually unrelated to this whole article, but one which you seem to use as your definition of "homosexuality") is in fact equally common in people of all sexualities. Further to this, there exist gay virgins - not sure where they fit into your "homosexuals are entirely carnal, sexual and promiscuous" view of the world.....
2. Coming out is actually a very trying and difficult process and causes many people to commit suicide rather than have to go through it. Imagine telling all your friends and family that you were different from them, in a way that they might well view as immoral and just reason to discriminate against you and disown you - not sounding fun to me. The reason nobody comes out as straight is because statistically this is the most common sexual preference and therefore is assumed unless people are specifically told otherwise. It is a burden heterosexuals will never truly understand and should be grateful they won't have to face.
3. Huh?! It is fairly common amongst animals. In fact, hundreds of species of animal have been documented with...
1. Homosexuality is in now way an addiction, nor is it "based on the flesh alone". Sex addiction (which is a concept which is actually unrelated to this whole article, but one which you seem to use as your definition of "homosexuality") is in fact equally common in people of all sexualities. Further to this, there exist gay virgins - not sure where they fit into your "homosexuals are entirely carnal, sexual and promiscuous" view of the world.....
2. Coming out is actually a very trying and difficult process and causes many people to commit suicide rather than have to go through it. Imagine telling all your friends and family that you were different from them, in a way that they might well view as immoral and just reason to discriminate against you and disown you - not sounding fun to me. The reason nobody comes out as straight is because statistically this is the most common sexual preference and therefore is assumed unless people are specifically told otherwise. It is a burden heterosexuals will never truly understand and should be grateful they won't have to face.
3. Huh?! It is fairly common amongst animals. In fact, hundreds of species of animal have been documented with homosexual individuals. Not to mention the fact that if any species were to have to work something out, humans would be one of the most likely to do so, and therefore the argument that there must be a rational objection to homosexuality on the grounds that humans are the only species where it is witnessed (even if that part were true) would be completely invalid.
4: No comment on Obama's sincerity on this issue. He probably doesn't agree with it himself (admittedly, this is based solely on a general disdain at the dishonesty and corruption of politicians). However, his stance would fit in reasonably well with his and his party's attitudes towards other issues, and it is only fair that this side of the debate be supported on the national scale, alongside, and in opposition to, the views expressed by your good self (otherwise, democracy couldn't be seen to be done on this issue - I would support this idea even if I were to object to gay rights myself).
more than political positioning in an election year. He claims the affirmative, Romney claims the negative, and off we go to another senseless issue to distract from the important problems we face as a nation and choose to ignore.
The homosexual movement will not relax their attempts to justify their behavior until they gain control of all sources of political power, pornography, welfare benefits, and,
of course, the media ... all of it "soooo terribly profitable, dearie, don't you agree"?
When the "marriage" thingy is accomplished, some will begin a movement to make "relationships" with pets also qualified to become legally recognized for tax and
other such benefits. They can then "come out of the closet" with the sheep, piggy,
chickens. and calf. Then, no more meat at the counter, as killing the "partners" would be
a sort of genocide.
Isn't this thing of insanity so fascinating?
Ask them to stop it.
All you undecided Americans, this guy and his whole crew are CRIMINALS, for the way they have abused and misused the Constitution!!!
Three years and no BUDGET, AND NOT A WORD from the MAIN STREAM MEDIA OR DEMS., could you imagine this if the we had a Republican (Conservative) in office??
We MUST ALL WAKE UP, and lets get Barry Hussien Obama and his whole crew out of office!!!!
SEMPER FI, PROUD CONSERVATIVE