My position is that people have and will always have legal (or in some countries, moral) freedom to protect their own lives from harm and that legislation won't help Steve Urkle in an Alabama Clan Rally if he doesn't have a .45 on him.
Now I know the point is to be respected as equals and not be discriminated against, but that's the funny thing about respect. You have to earn it. Marching down the street in which you have no legal authority to do so, waving rainbow flags in the air and turning it into a protest when they stop you, REPEATEDLY, is not the way to go about getting it. Just makes you look like outlaws.
The objective is to get straight people to be comfortable around gay people. Breaking the law only gets you bad attention. And while the article makes it seem as though atleast one person understands that laws need to be changed instead of broken, I get the feeling he's the exception and not the rule.
There is no need to have a "Straight Pride" parade. Heterosexuality is the social norm.
It's also aspects of our private lives. Who we screw, when and how is typically kept to ourselves. We don't make it a point to let everyone know.
I have heard heard straight male co-workers describe in detail their sex lives, and yes, I did have a problem with it.
Okay, so someone divulged private information, information better left behind closed doors. And it didn't settle right with you. How is this any different? Because it's a parade and not just an individual? Because it's obstructing traffic instead of in a work setting?
As far as I know, "nerdsex" isn't against the law.
But homosexual sex acts are illegal in some parts of the world (and until recently, were here in the US). People are arrested, jailed and convicted of violating those laws every day.
And just how are people being convicted of these offenses? Are they advertising their bedroom pleasures or have the 'Salem homo trials' started up?