I disagree that I have bashed fags. I have poked fun at them, but the gay people I know poke fun of themselves when they are with people they know have no hatred in their heart for gays. There is no hatred in my heart for gays, there is only the sympathy. They want to be accepted by society for who they are....they love members of their own sex, and naturally they want to share all the same things that heteros want to share, and for some reason, the heteros want to keep that from them. I see no logic in this at all, as I see no threat to our society or civilization allowing gays to marry. If and when I see there is evidence to support that threat, then I would change my mind, but I know that alcohol and drugs, poverty and poor nutrition, infidelity, messy divorces and a host of other issues among adults harms children more than a gay married couple who would love their children and provide a positive environment to grow up in is a much better option. I am not avoiding any real questions except personal questions. I have never spent much time answering them...because they are personal questions, and this is a public message board. The two don't mix, and in all the time here at ET, I have only met a few people who I would trust with personal information. That's what PM's are for... You may be right about the 2%, but I also know that the world of trading is kind of a macho arena. Do you know that there has never been an NFL player who came out as gay while they were playing? Why is that? If you can figure out the reason, then you know why so few people if any would ever come out as gay here at ET. I am pretty confident that there are more gays here than you could imagine, and I would never reveal any PM's I have gotten to verify that confidence. Homophobia is just that, a phobia, a baseless and groundless fear of the unknown. Chit chat is a show, and the show is the macho manly show....and I will continue to do what I have always done, so don't expect your comments to have any impact on what I do here. Your own denial of the level of hypocrisy and hatred that comes from many white Christians says all that I need to hear about where you are really coming from jem.
SAN FRANCISCO â The state attorney general and sponsors of the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California urged its Supreme Court to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban, saying the matter is too urgent to be unsettled. "The petitions raise issues of statewide importance, implicating not only California's marriage laws but also the initiative process and the Constitution itself," Attorney General Jerry Brown argued in his filing. "This court can provide certainty and finality in this matter," he said. Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote earlier this month, overturned the high court's May decision legalizing gay marriage in California. The measure inserts language into the constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Gay and civil rights groups, the city of San Francisco and other plaintiffs have asked the court to void the measure on the grounds that voters did not have the authority to make, what they say, is a fundamental constitutional change. There is no deadline for the justices to decide whether they'll take the cases. The litigation has made unwitting allies of supporters of the same-sex marriage ban and the attorney general, who voted against the proposition. Over the summer, anti-gay marriage groups sued Brown after his office changed the measure's wording to reflect that it would take away a right that same-sex couples then had. Brown has since said that in his role as California's top public lawyer, he will fight to uphold Proposition 8 as an expression of public sentiment on same-sex marriage. The preliminary documents he filed Monday did not address that issue. Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Yes on 8 campaign, said the measure's supporters are so confident the Supreme Court would uphold the initiative they want the court to take the cases and resolve the question quickly. "There is no question Proposition 8 is exactly the type of amendment the framers of the Constitution envisioned for the people to be able to enact," Pugno said. The Protect Marriage coalition is less confident about Brown's sincere interest in defending the gay marriage ban in court, according to Pugno. That's why the coalition asked the court for permission to intervene in the cases Monday. "Everyone knows the AG opposed Proposition 8, did everything he could to undermine it and it still passed anyway," he said. "There is little hope he would make much effort at all to defend Prop. 8." Both the attorney general and Protect Marriage asked the court to reject a request from gay marriage supporters for a stay that would allow same-sex couples to resume marrying in California until the broader legal issues are addressed. Meanwhile, the interfaith California Council of Churches and the Episcopal bishops of Northern California and Los Angeles added their petition Monday to those asking the high court to invalidate Proposition 8. They argue that if voters are permitted to take away rights from a group based on sexual orientation, the same could happen to religious minorities.
Actually some white racists committed racist acts after Obama's win. Democracy allows oppression of individual and minority rights by the majority, there are numerous examples of this throughout history. That's the problem with it, hence the existence of constitutions and human rights legislation designed to protect minority rights. For example, what if someone proposed a referendum to inter Muslims in concentration camps, as happened to US citizens with Japanese background in WWII, and that passed? Would that be a nice example of democracy in action?
Yes, but you could say the same thing about straight married people. They want "approval" for being married, and getting the various legal and tax advantages from that. Marriage is unnatural. With a 60% infidelity rate in marriage, humans prove by their conduct that monogamy is not the normal state of affairs. With a 50% divorce rate, and many of the "successful" 50% of marriages being violent, unhappy, and/or sexless/adulterous, facts show that lifelong marriage is simply a sham for the majority of people who engage in it. Successfully married, monogamous, happy lifelong family couples are the minority in today's society. Yet they engage in special pleading to be given financial, social, reputational and legal benefits. It is high time that unmarried straight people clamped down on this brazen bastion of privilege and hypocrisy.
What makes you think all people of one group have the same views? I'm quite sure that numerous gay people think polygamy should be tolerated.
Some black people use the word nigger in the same way. Does that mean its ok for other races to call black people niggers? Generally not IMO. It's pretty clear you were using "fag" in the derogatory sense.
I agree. So why are there any laws about straight marriage? You can make any kind of social/religious partnerships you want, but the moment you start begging for special legal status and laws to favour you over unmarried/single people, you are stealing their money by force and getting unfair privilege over the rest of society. I agree it is ridiculous that some gay people are also campaigning to get their hand in the till and take advantage of those sensible people who are not stupid enough to naively marry. But the problem is, the reasons it's bad are exactly the same as the reasons that your marriage is bad - it's been elevated from what it should be, a voluntary social agreement, into a tax on the rest of unmarried society. Statistics say that you will most likely either cheat on or be cheated by your wife at some point in your marriage, that your sex life will dwindle, and there's a 50/50 chance you'll get divorced and end up getting hammered by child support & alimony payments. Feel free to take those risks, but the moment you try to get others to help pay for it, you are out of line.