I couldn't agree more. Occasionally you'll see "Gay Marches". What the FUCK is wrong with these people. A ton of guys running down the street in black leather and other misc costumes or women dressed as biker looking men. The guys are screaming about how they love dick, and the women are there to hold their "I LOVE PUSSY" signs. More to TP's point...if you don't want to be treated different, sit down...shut the fuck up...and don't act different.
Before anyone brings it up....YES, it would be equally as annoying if straight people marched down the street proclaiming their sexual interests in the other sex. Gay marches ANGER me. It's a demonstration in the streets proclaiming that which should be private...the sexual choices of those marching.
TurkReno raised an interesting point that gays shouldn't be discriminated against based on that which is behind closed doors and private. I think it's worthwhile to note that with all the gay marches going on, many gay people aren't keeping it a private issue. Being "GAY" is NOT a religon, skin color, disability or anything else that should be championed. Being "GAY" is completely based on and about that which is private about a person...their sex life.
So for many gays to make an "event" of "coming out of the closet", or participate in public demonstrations where they proclaim their sexual interests, I think THOSE specific acts are irrational and should be condemned by clear thinking people...including other gays who actually have self respect. Keep in mind I stated those ACTIONS are to be condemned...not being "GAY" itself.
I suppose the last thing to tackle then is the gay marriage issue. First of all, matrimony comes from religion...and religion largely and in most cases, almost entirely condemns homosexuality. Having said that, the government can choose to recognize and respect religion and it's traditions in society, but does not have the authority to change it or force it on anyone. By offering benefits of any kind to a "married" couple, this isn't actually an endorsement of religon in the way that it's really no different than when the government offers certain exclusive benefits to immigrants or minorities. The government evaluates society and many factors and then our elected representatives hash out ideas and "programs" that they feel serve the better good of society. Our government feels that after folks, of their own choice decide marriage and thus the start of a new household in our country...that commitment of stability or the attempt therof is then aided and encoraged.
So, the government isn't wrong to endorse and support "marriage" in it's traditional form, but I think it's an important question to ask: "Has the government taken the time to review the efforts of homosexual people and their wishes to also form peaceful unions whereby they commit to the attempt at making society a bit more stable, and then has the government had any findings as to whether this type of union is deserving of it's own "status" as recognized by the united states government.
As is easily researched, the government has, in fact, reviewed this many times and the government has largely fullfilled it's duties in doing so. The decision to decline the official recognition of homosexual unions has been typically based on a large spread of factors...inclusive is all the irrational public marches by where people gather to proclaim their SEXUAL interests loudly, and of course the countless research studies that support the idea that homosexual relationships are less stable statistically and therefor not as signifigant of a benefit to society as would be a "traditional" marriage. The research studies can be disputed, and rest assured they are daily...the debate rides forward...but these factors are some of the things that have helped us get to where we are on the issue.
OK OK OK....now the conclusion: (Gay people, please pay attention):
When the majority of you stop acting different, the majority of society will be more inclined to stop treating you different." Marriage was endorsed by the government not because of religon, but because the government felt that "married couples" contributed to a more stable society. It's not a givcen right, it was an afforded legal status...just as would be receiving wellfare, unemployement etc...marriage is just a bit more long term lol. If you want your "civil union" recognized...sit down, shut the fuck up and stop all the irrational, different acting bullshit and perhaps you'll be taken seriously. To you gay guys...yes yes...I realize...you love cock...it does wonders for you. And to you gay women...I know, I know...pussy is a gift from god...but by proclaiming what sexually excites you (which is all you do when you proclaim you're gay)...that by itself is not going to make you seem more entitled to any status. When you approach the government seeking recognition of your civil unity, approach them explaining that REGARDLESS of what you do behind closed doors, you're equally entitled to share your life and belongings with another individual as others are entitled to legal marriages.
Go, and base your arguement SOLEY on who you are and what you contribute to society...and your case will gain validity. Until then, you're asking uncle sam to legally acknowledge and grant you some kind of status based on the fact that you love dick or pussy (gay marches, gay pride week, gay prides festivals, gay bars etc)...what a fucking joke.
.
