"Homosexual Marriage" is an Oxymoron by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

From: 

Sent: May 2, 2012

To: undisclosed recipients

Subject: Fw: 

oxymoron: a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect. Examples of oxymoron’s, would be (and there are literally thousands) – almost pregnant; awful (nice, good or pretty); boneless ribs; California expressway; Congressional wisdom; casual (dress, sex, concern); Dry (ice, beer, creek, snow, wine); easy problem; future history; jumbo shrimp; and on and on we continue to use them.

The part that really gets me is the portion I have highlighted. I hope the Colonel doesn’t mind my adding my two cents to his very well written article.

“Homosexual Marriage” is an Oxymoron by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired


Another major facet of the real Obama has come to light, the final turn in his “evolving” view to full support of homosexual “marriage.” As partial justification Obama claims that his children and Republican college students have no problem with homosexual marriage as though, “adults” that they are, their thinking is mature enough to make a judgment for him and the nation to follow. At the same time, state after state renounces homosexual marriage, North Carolina and Colorado being the most recent; and in a number of states some judge, as in California it was a homosexual judge, overturned the will of the people---again. It wasn’t the first time that the people’s will was overturned by a judge and likely will not be the last as long as liberals are empowered to appoint them. (All the more reason to elect Romney, who will undoubtedly appoint more conservative judges than Obama would have.)

Obama made his politically calculated decision because homosexual rights activists and homosexuals who had planned to support his super PAC had put their contributions on ice, a rather powerful tool that “pushed him over the edge.” As his pastor of 20 years America hating, the “Very Reverend” Jeremiah Wright said during the last election cycle, “Barack has to say whatever it takes to get elected.” I know Americans are tolerant, they are magnanimous, but there comes a point where if the nation is to survive the Godless onslaught now including the President, it will have to “grow a set” and draw the line between destructive liberalism and genuinely compassionate (not the G.W. Bush socialist variety) conservatism.

As noted in an earlier essay, we wrote:
“What is behind the push for homosexuals to serve openly in the military? Their bottom line is complete equality (despite the fact that it is literally unachievable); and that includes among other things, marriage. So far even Obama, arguably the most liberal President in history resists the notion of marriage for homosexuals although he has it under active consideration, taking the traditional position that “marriage is between one man and one woman;” but on the other hand hypocritically and for political expediency does not enforce the Federal “Defense of Marriage Act.” With the passage of time and the idea of homosexuals serving openly in the military becomes passé, a cry will no doubt arise, “If they can serve and die for our country, they should be allowed to ‘marry.’

It didn’t take long for the real Obama to come out when on May 9, 2012 Obama stated, “when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

Repeated here from the same earlier essay:
“If marriage is a contract between two people, “to have and to hold, to love and to cherish, till death do us part,” then there is an element of logic to their demand. But if marriage is a sacred institution (oh, oh, here comes the “G” word) ordained of God, there is zero indication in primary Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or Mormon literature and doctrinal writings that would sanctify the unity of same sex couples. A survey of the world’s other major religions reveals general proscriptions against homosexual conduct with minor exceptions, which automatically excludes homosexual marriage. Homosexual advocates know all of this and that is the reason they enlist atheists’ help to remove the religious factor, and rogue religious operatives to subvert from within. .” In short homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. All the while most Americans, out of an abundance of naïve magnanimity accept their arguments, hopefully that will now begin to change.

We’ll see which is more important to the Black and Latino communities, eternal spiritual and moral values, or political expediency in the perverted name of social justice? The Catholic Church went down the expediency road for too many years and finally awakened to the reality that government liberalism takes away freedom, in the Catholic Church’s religious freedom. Yesterday it was, “you will provide contraception;” today it is, “you will perform marriage rites for all couples and animals;” tomorrow it will be, “you will ordain homosexual and women priests.” I thought the Pope who resides in the Vatican made major decision in the Catholic religion and not the guy who resides in the White House.

Here is a man who requires registration of unborn babies who visit the White House in their mothers’ wombs, but when he was an Illinois Senator voted in favor of killing any baby who survived a botched abortion. This same man that today embraces a form of marital union, “…it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married… despite its proscription by every major religion in the world, by abrogating his earlier statement, “I'm a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” For my Hispanic and black friends, is your religious faith genuine or for Sunday entertainment?!

It is well known that the Obama campaign is actively using diversionary tactics---this as another diversion from his intentions as caught on an open microphone with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, “after the elections I will have more flexibility.” Although in a different setting his comment is every bit applicable to what he intends to do to the United States of America if re-elected. This is a man who now informs Americans that he had made up his mind to support homosexual marriage even before the Democrat Convention of 2008. What else is he not telling the American people?

Like the left said about his homosexual stance, “it’s time to man up,” but in this case throw out the liberal minority and take the country back for the conservative majority and have wholesome change.
Semper Fidelis
Bob Pappas