Search Box

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Weak argument

Had an acrimonious argument with a friend last weekend about my post on Obama being gay.

First, my friend, a rabid Obama supporter, had badgered me into making a bet on Romney (giving me 2 - 1 odds) and then, after the election, told me that the fact that I had bet on Romney betrayed my "extremism."

I told my friend that the race was considered a tossup by many, that two polls had Romney ahead the day before the race, and that while the electoral college margin wasn't close, the popular vote ended up 50 - 48, which is reasonably close. I reminded him that he had bet on Mondale vs. Reagan at the same 2 - 1 odds and the margin on that popular vote had turned out to be 59 - 41. I asked if that betrayed his extremism, or if that logic only applied to me.

He said that if Obama's gayness was an "open secret" in DC, as I had postulated, some reporter would out him. I said reporters don't do that kind of thing, as they have to worry about their careers and what their editors want. I pointed out that none of the mainstream newspapers breathed word of John Edwards' shenanigans until long after the National Enquirer had reported them, and then only after their noncoverage of the story became a story itself.

My friend suggested that I sounded "unhinged" by having come to the conclusion that Obama was gay. I reminded him that he had been willing to come to the same conclusion about another politician on far less evidence. I then asked if this made him unhinged.

My friend also said that I was wrong about the daughters (he correctly pointed out that I had gotten their names reversed), and that in fact the older one did look like Obama. I disagree: she is better-looking than either parent, and has none of the Alfred E. Neuman-ish cast to her face that Obama has. But I've thought about it, and am going to excise that argument from the post for another reason.

Even if Obama is gay, his children are still most likely going to be his. In most show business marriages (i.e., where the marriage is just for show) the couple will have children, and the couple has no real sexual relationship, the husband still contributes the sperm. I've always wondered with some of these couples if they actually manage to have sex in order to procreate, or if it's all done through artificial insemination.

Either way, my guess is that it's usually done using the husband's sperm, so I will delete that argument, which is weak. The rest of the case stands.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

John--Yeah, it's pretty amazing how people could just assume that he couldn't be gay. I told a few people and most of them all just rejected the idea out of hand. I was surprised. For me, the most convincing evidence is lack of dating history. What actual heterosexual guy hasn't dated a boatload of women in his life-a few of whom would want to talk about it? Well, it's got to come out sometimes. Maybe he'll be known as the first gay president. Thanks, Brian

John Craig said...

Brian --
Most people aren't willing to step outside mainstream thought, which is why if you can't just mention that Obama is gay, but have to make the comprehensive case, with embedded links, as I have. (Even then, a lot of people will just reject the argument, because, hey, he's married.)

I've always found the most interesting things in life to be those that are unexpected -- or taboo. I had never guessed myself that Obama was gay, even when Larry Sinclair first popped up in the news. But putting the entire picture together was a real "aha" moment, and thus fascinating.