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'?

[New Judge]

"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."

Fine - then either abolish CPs or make them available to everybody. By your argument there is a difference between the two. Whatever the pros and cons of each form of union at present (or at least when the Same Sex Marriage bill is enacted) Gay people will have a choice which straight people will not. If pension rights is the principle difference it may well be that some straight couples want to form a partnership which encompasses the rights only as laid down in a CP. But they cannot, so how fair is that?

[jim360]

On balance, though, not having access to an equivalent and perhaps even slightly worse method of legally recognising a relationship is not really comparable to bullying, physical and verbal abuse, discrimination at work, etc., etc. ...

[New Judge]

I didn't suggest that it was, jim. I'm simply saying that if civil partnerships are available only for Gay couples whilst marriages are available to all then that is discriminatory. Whether one is more beneficial than the other is not the point.

[jim360]

Well, I mean in the long run I'd agree that Civil Partnerships should either be extended to all, or done away with entirely. But I don't know if it's worth kicking up too much of a fuss about.

[jackthehat]

Perhaps that ought to be the focus for Straight Pride marches?

"What do we want?"
"Civil Partnerships"
"When do we want them?"
"At the same time that Same-sex marriages become legal.....so that we can have another way of formalising our relationships for us to marginalise and roundly ignore, in the same way that we have with marriage over the preceding decades!"

Admittedly, it might need a bit of work..........

[anotheoldgit]

Baldric

/// 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! ///

Well spotted Baldric, but I won't bother to wear that cap because it doesn't suit me, you see my repetition was due to the pitfalls of Copy & Paste, whereas yours was a definite repeat, because you would have had to enter and submit your words twice.

Nice try old man, but completely 'up the shoot' once again.

[Baldric]

I think we've already established that mine was a definite repeat aog,
I said so, that may have given you a clue, yours however was down to carelessness, a failure to check what you had copied and pasted before pressing submit, or just not spotting the glaring error if you did, both signs of aging whichever way you try and dress it up, old man.

[sp1814]

I think civil partnerships should be abolished since the only reason they came I to existence was because gay couples couldn't get married.

However, this alone is scant reason for straight people to form a straight pride march.

How many straight people would this movement attract simply to lobby the government for equal treatment in this one, singular issue.

Frankly the idea that this alone proves that straight people are at a disadvantage to gay people is extremely weak, especially when you consider the issues that gay people face regarding their sexuality.

[FredPuli43]

That, sp, must be the reason why the new Act (section 9) provides that existing civil partnerships may be converted to marriages under a procedure to be set out by the Secretary of State (any excuse to employ more form- checkers!). The previous Act provided a middle course. The results were not wholly satisfactory, but better than nothing. However, the government of the day had to deal with objections to the word 'marriage' and the objections from religious organisations, so avoided the word. One difference of significance illustrates the original problem. The new Act has to deal with all past statutes that mention 'marriage', including the Foreign Marriages Act 1892, because 'marriage' has now been redefined.

[Kromovaracun]

"is there a word that fits those who oppose heterosexuals. "

Yes. Heterophobic. You probably won't have heard it very much, because generally aren't very heterophobic and haven't been historically in the past. The only time I've ever encountered it was other gay teenagers who were going through an awkward "humourless militant" phase in their late teens.

As for discrimination - I believe the law states that nobody can be denied goods/services on grounds of sexual orientation, rather than "because they are gay." This would cover heterosexuals as well, were there ever a case when heterosexuals were discriminated against purely for being heterosexual.

[Kromovaracun]

(I mean, aside from the CP issue being discussed).

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

You ask what advantages do gays have over straight people, well I wonder how many straight people would get to have a private meeting with the Prime Minister in the back room of a pub?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396341/Stephen-Fry-Cameron-hold-secret-summit-gay-hate-Olympics--East-End-pub-Actor-wants-boycott-Winter-games-Russia-rights-abuses.html

[Kromovaracun]

That's Stephen Fry - a high-profile public figure and widely regarded as a national treasure. Everyone with that status enjoys similar privilege.

Not every gay person is able to get the PM's ear...

[sp1814]

AOG

I think you're grasping at straws now.

A quick search shows that this isn't the first time that Cameron has taken part in 'secret' meetings:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-meets-bilderberg-group-1938850

But back to your original question...

Do you think there's a need for a straight pride march, and if so - what are they?

Secondly, do you really think that being heterosexual puts people at a disadvantage?

[FredPuli43]

AOG,which part of one man's, Stephen Fry's, meeting with the PM, do you argue, demonstrates that gays have more rights than heterosexuals?

That they met in the private rooms of a pub? That the Press knew all about it ?

[sp1814]

AOG

Further to FredPuli43's question - do you have any evidence that suggests that prominant heterosexuals would find it impossible to lobby the PM?

Do you think that perhaps the Daily Mail has reported this because it's a big current news story (the ongoing protests over the 2014 Winter Olympics)?

Stephen Fry is a very influential public figure. Did you know that he has six million twitter followers? Perhaps this was a more important consideration than his sexuality.

But leaving that aside - do you support the Straight Pride march, and if so why (I ask because I'm not sure that your examples of gays having the upper hand stand up to much scrutiny).

[sp1814]

Read this post online at The Independent...

[I]At it's route (sic) gay pride is about rejecting the shame that straight people constantly try to foist on us. When you grow up in a world that constantly tells you to keep your head down, to hide, to stay in the closet - that you're dirty and sinful, your relationships are inferior, that your mere presence will traumatise every child in the nation - then having an event to loudly declare "no, this is me and I'm proud - I am not ashamed" is a powerful rejection of everything that tells us to hide and disappear

Which is, ultimately, why straight folks don't NEED Straight Pride - because the world has always been about you and telling you how special and primary and all important you are because you have the Proper Righteous Sex With The Appropriate Genders.[i]