Happy Pride Day!

[xGriffox]

and it's still a very small amount and not representative of a very large amount. The vast majority of folks are very much in favor for it, trying to paint it any other way, isn't really accurate. most people want the option even if they never intend to marry themselves.

It's an issue over the term "gay marriage" and the politics involved in the push for the term "marriage" itself over that of "Civil Union." I know that you never waver in your beliefs on any subject no matter what is said on it so I will suggest a book for you to read if you are at all interested in the topic and wish to understand the politics that surround it.
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Equali...0095087&sr=1-3

If you don't, then let's just agree to disagree.

[straightXed]

It's an issue over the term "gay marriage" and the politics involved in the push for the term "marriage" itself over that of "Civil Union." I know that you never waver in your beliefs on any subject no matter what is said on it so I will suggest a book for you to read if you are at all interested in the topic and wish to understand the politics that surround it.
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Equali...0095087&sr=1-3

If you don't, then let's just agree to disagree.

Personally i can't see why people would want to stick with the word marriage. The reason it isn't attributed to homosexual couples is often sited as being for its connotations to religion, sure thats a bit of a grey area. I don't think its as much about wanting to use the term "marriage" as its about ensuring there is not any segregation for couples based on their sexual preference. I am more for civil partnerships for everyone not just homosexual couples, i would like to see definite segregation from any religious connotations for all, if you ask me it should (and is) be heterosexual couples wanting homosexual couples are being granted. Solidarity!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...il-partnership

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ships-marriage

The root of this whole issue is the church really, and whilst i am not against the term gay marriage i do wonder if the term is really what they want. I should imagine its the desire to be seen equal which means if they don't really want the marriage term and they want equality then its down to heterosexual couples to make more distance from the church and its influence over a term that is used in most of our lives. But then i guess it comes down to the marriage term after all as people like to use that term to describe their relationship and heterosexual couples are able to marry and pretty much ignore religious connotation and that religious connotation has dwindled greatly to the point that there is next to no difference between civil partnerships and marriages.

So i see it all as the church kicking up a big fuss and thinking they are more important than they are and trying to own a word, i see the government at fault for pandering to this in a way that gives the church more weight than it realistically should have although i can see the logical reasons for doing so. The church is a bit of a spoilt brat really. But anyway, for me the term isn't to important...i would root for equality and for the church to get a clue.

[xsecx]

But this inherently assumes that the intended outcome is to be something that isn't a fringe social element. Not all of those within the LGBT community want to be looked at simply as your neighbor. The goal isn't to hide the fact you might be someone's queer neighbor who is different from everybody else, but instead for those differences to be noticed AND accepted. There is a big difference between wanting equal rights and wanting to become assimilated into mainstream culture.

Besides, they have fetish and sex shows all the time with costumes and actions that are a lot more extreme than what we see at pride parades, and nobody really judges people who attend those when they are outside of the show, so why should pride parades be any different? If somebody wants to be a unicock at a pride parade, that should have no bearing on their lives outside of the parade. If that is how my Dr. decides to get down outside of office hours, all the power to him!

for the vast majority, that is in fact the stated intended outcome though.

the problem with your example is that fetish and sex shows are private and behind closed doors. they aren't on the street marching for fetish acceptance. They aren't having sex shows on the corner. It muddies the message of acceptance and shifts focus away from what the vast majority wants. You can't effectively have two disparate conversations at the same time without one having a negative effect on the other. .

[xsecx]

It's an issue over the term "gay marriage" and the politics involved in the push for the term "marriage" itself over that of "Civil Union." I know that you never waver in your beliefs on any subject no matter what is said on it so I will suggest a book for you to read if you are at all interested in the topic and wish to understand the politics that surround it.
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Equali...0095087&sr=1-3

If you don't, then let's just agree to disagree.

that's just bullshit semantics then and not actually being against the concept of gay unions/marriage. It's just arguing over what to call it.


The folks that I know that are against it, are against it completely because of the fear that institutionalized monogamy would have a negative impact on the open and fluid sexuality that some prefer in the gay community.