Straight Pride March

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/whats-the-point-of-straight-pride-8763519.html

It seems that most group such as the EDL has an opposition group, in this case the Anti Fascist group.

Bearing this in mind, is there a place for a 'Straight Pride March' to oppose the 'Gay Pride March'?

[Kromovaracun]

I was once at a (gay) pride march in Norwich a few years ago... Peter Tatchell was present, and was there to give a speech. In the speech I distinctly remember him calling on the government to allow heterosexual couples access to civil partnerships, and receiving a loud cheer and round of applause from his audience. He's given the same speech at numerous Pride rallies (including London), with the same response. So equal access to CPs has long been a normal part of the Pride platform.

As for Straight Pride - they're not breaking any laws, so it's not really any of my concern. What I would say though is that for a long time "Gay Pride" has NOT just been for the LGBT community - it is not really about celebrating being gay so much as rejoicing in the fact that our society is one of those in the world that no longer persecutes consenting adults for falling in love or having sex.

If you think that's a good thing, then you're welcome at Pride - no matter what your orientation. Every Pride celebration I've been too has attracted huge numbers of heterosexual friends and supporters. Conversely, I'm not entirely sure what "Straight Pride" stands for, but if anyone would like to tell me I'm willing to listen.

As for the old arguments.... I give an old response: something being "unnatural" is not the same as something being morally wrong.

And something being unpleasant to you personally is also not the same as something being morally wrong. This is not a hard distinction to make.

[New Judge]

Yes, Kromo, I know of Mr Tatchell's views.

Fortunately Mr Tatchell is not part of the government and I have no argument with him. The person who annoys me in this matter is Mr Cameron. He devoted large amounts of time to the issue of Gay marriages (which was not in the Conservative manifesto, nor was it in the Coalition agreement). He made it his personal crusade despite there being no great clamour for it, whilst being unwilling or unable to implement measures which were in the manifesto. (So great is his crusade that he now wishes to spread Gay marriage world wide. And I wish him every success with that, especially in places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

But not content with that he has stated categorically that Civil Partnerships will certainly not be made available to straight couples, nor will they be abolished, leaving two options open to Gay couples but only one to straights.

[ummmm]

Does that really bother you?

Gay people are still discriminated against. There is still a phobia about them and you care about a civil partnership?

[Kromovaracun]

I agree NJ. It's a silly imbalance and it deserves correction.

[FredPuli43]

NJ there is no difference between civil partnership and the 'gay marriage' under the new Act, except the new Act makes a big issue of the rights of religious organisations and it amends the Foreign Marriages Act 1892. And the new Act says that people in an existing civil partnership may change it to marriage.

You may have a different reading of the two Acts, but I fail to see how homosexuals are getting more rights than the rest of us have.

So what extra rights are you saying homosexuals have

[FredPuli43]

NJ, what does it matter that a subject is not in the manifesto of the winning party or parties? Clearly it does if the proposed legislation is contrary to what is in the manifesto or otherwise will come as an unpleasant and wholly unexpected surprise to the electors. But this Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 falls into neither category.

Manifestos are usually vague and do not specify exact legislation, save for one or two bills. There's a convention that the House of Lords cannot reject any bill specified in the manifesto, just as it can't reject finance bills, but this fact doesn't persuade parties to set out all, or much, of any bills that it would submit. We have to wait for each Queen's Speech for those and have an annual novelty and surprise.

[sp1814]

NJ

Having the choice of going into a civil partnership or getting married isn't really an advantage, because civil partnerships do not confer exactly the same rights as marriages. The glaring difference is pension rights.

If a gay couple have been together for 30 years, and entered into a civil partnership on the day it was introduced, and one of the couple died today, the surviving partner would only be eligible for pension contributions since 2005.

So the question is - why would straight couple want 'second best'?

Also, I think the only people who spent any real time on this issue were the right wing press, advocates of the bill and the CofE.

I can't recall there being that much time spent on it in Parliament.

[anotheoldgit]

Baldric
Baldric

/// Oppose what? /// Are you saying that a 'Gay Pride March' opposes Straight peoples lifestyle? ///

Yes for a start they have altered the meaning of our language.

In so much that a straight person cannot say he or she feels 'GAY' or that they are having 'A GAY OLD TIME' in case they are misunderstood. :0)

GAY

*** Having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe. ***

[Baldric]

Unless they are well and truly in their Dotage
I can't imagine anyone today saying they are having 'A GAY OLD TIME'

[Baldric]

Unless they are well and truly in their Dotage
I can't imagine anyone today saying they are having 'A GAY OLD TIME'

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// They object to the fact that homosexuals “have more rights then [sic] any sector of society”. ///

/// Do you know the ways that homosexuals have more rights than straight people? ///

Well for starters it is an offence to discriminate against them because they are gay, example is the couple who were charged because they refused two gay people admission into their guest house.

One can be said to be Homophobic if they oppose homosexuals, is there a word that fits those who oppose heterosexuals.

And then there is this proposed Straight Pride March, just look at the opposition this has just on AB?

[anotheoldgit]

Baldric

/// I can't imagine anyone today saying they are having 'A GAY OLD TIME' ///

Perhaps not, but they should still have a right to say it without being misunderstood.

Could you be well and truly in your Dotage Baldric, since you seem to be repeating yourself?

[jim360]

That's just called evolution of language, and there's no point in complaining about it or trying to fight it. You might just as well complain over all sorts of other words that have had their meaning changed, warped, twisted over the years...

[ummmm]

Seriously? You think people are so thick they wouldn't understand a word used in the correct context?

[jackthehat]

The word Gay has meant Homosexual for far longer than Homosexual has mean Gay.......:o)

[Baldric]

///Could you be well and truly in your Dotage Baldric, since you seem to be repeating yourself? ///

That was of course in response to your
Baldric
Baldric
repetition in your 09:43 post, perhaps you should take a good look in a mirror AOg, then if the cap fits, wear it!

[sp1814]

AOG

So I assume that you are equally unhappy about the changing of the meaning of the word 'straight' right.

Because no-one called themselves 'straight' before the 1970s.

Furthermore this statement is not correct:

"it is an offence to discriminate against them because they are gay".

It's also an offence to discriminate against straight people:

"Sexual orientation is a ‘protected characteristic’ under the Act, alongside race, sex, gender reassignment, disability, age, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity and religion and belief. This means everyone, whether they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or heterosexual, is protected from discrimination because of their sexual orientation. Some of the protections in the Act already existed, in employment and the provision of services for example, but some protections are new."

That's from the 2010 Equality act. A gay-run guest house could be sued under the provisions of the Act if they turned away a straight couple.

[sp1814]

Child: "But mummy, why do you get to have a Mother's Day? Why don't I get to have a Children's Day?" Mummy: "Because it's your day every other day, my son...."

[FredPuli43]

AOG, following your logic, do blacks,Jews and women have more rights than the rest of us because it is illegal to discriminate against them ? That is a curious interpretation of " more rights". It sounds more like wishing to be treated equally to the rest of us and not subject to abuse. What do you think?

And your reading of the law is flawed. It is quite possible for a heterosexual to be discriminated against illegally as , for example, in the situation sp sets out

[LazyGun]

@AoG I do not get your logic, I really do not. As SP has already pointed out, it would be an offence if someone was to overtly discriminate against someone specifically because they were straight. This is principally about levelling the playing field for all, regardless of sex, gender or creed.

@Baz Do you actually understand Darwins theory of evolution? You do understand that science has moved on, and that Darwins theory has been modified, right? You are also, I trust, fully aware that arguments about evolution apply to a species, not individuals of that species? And finally - you would I am sure, educated scientific person that you are, be fully aware that homosexuality is observed in almost all mammals, and most certainly in cetaceans and primates?

You are going to have to do better than that if you wish to somehow argue that homesexuality is unnatural or ant-evolutionary.