Never thought of it that way

There is no problem with a straight pride parade, but just don't expect it to be taken seriously by anyone.

Often times straight pride events are used against LGBT. But, in the case of it literally just being happy with yourself with no undertone, I guess? LGBT parades are usually put up because it’s a bold thing to do when they used to hide and be ashamed, straight people never had to hide. But if you want a parade for being yourself, go ahead, but it won’t carry the historical significance

Okay, let me counter this.
.
Often times gay pride events are used to legitimize people acting like complete degenerates in public, performing things that would normally fall under "indecent exposure" three times over. Does the veneer of being disadvantaged in the past now give them license to violate societal norms in ways that would not be accepted if not for their privileged status? The answer is no, but they do anyway.
Literally, I would not have a problem with any of this if LGBTetc pride events were orderly, respectful and not completely fucking weird, bordering on illegal.
.
I'm just going to wait until the straight pride parade happens, the pictures are out on the internet, and just make a side by side comparison of the two. Will make my point clearer than any words.

"societal norms". Never forget there was a time when butt fucking in a public bath was totally acceptable.
You're young. Mark my words... one day the apathy will set in and you really won't give a fuck.

@Vitklim- There’s a lot of history here and a lot of context to unpack. Let’s first start with the idea things happen at a gay pride parade which normally would be considered indecent. That’s somewhat true of most any large event where emotions are high. Large scale sporting events or concerts also commonly involve thins that would be considered indecent. Many events like Cinco Demayo or Carnival or Mardi Gras celebrations are known for nudity and sexual displays. Whole video series and “bucket list” items and more revolve around the sexual aspects of some of these events. Law enforcement in interviews as well as those I’ve known at such events take a lax attitude towards it- often the city too as they are aware its part of the culture that’s developed for the events as well as a draw of tourists. Vegas doesn’t generally prosecute or even arrest for public intoxication because of the fact that it’s part of the “Vegas experience” on the strip.

So what can get you arrested or be considered wholly indecent in one context is fine in another. You can find many videos from festivals of women illegally “flashing” their breasts and or genitals at police without consequences.

Next we need some history as well as context. NYC and SF are near synonymous with gay culture and its infancy in America as well as for their pride parades- with SF being by far the poster child for LGBTQ+ culture. The laws here allowed things like public nudity- and in fact when I was younger there were not only strip clubs across from schools but you’d see workers down on market in nothing but mesh dresses without pasties passing club fliers. So in SF- much of such behavior isn’t illegal or indecent up into the 2010’s. Newer laws curb that a bit. I thank transplants brining their baggage with them and a shift from a blue collar city to what it is today- that’s another story... but much of the culture and even the parades themselves were emulated from these examples.

More so- gay pride is a celebration of open gay sexuality. It’s logical to assume that might involve open expression of gay sexuality. To some extent is it used as an excuse to “go wild”? Well... at least by some yes. But in America, for most college students- and in much of Europe- the term “spring break” is also used as an excuse for wild behavior. A 20yo kid likely won’t get away with murder on spring break- but likely will be given considerably more leniency and latitude in behavior while on spring break than a 40yo on a random Tuesday in December.

People know. People who live in towns that are “spring break” destinations are well aware of both the commerce and congestion, boons and banes that the coming of spring brings. Ever see those pictures where they show the mess left behind after a marathon or a bike tour? All the cups on the ground etc? Wouldn’t that behavior get a person in trouble any other day? Wouldn’t a police officer give them a ticket or someone else confront them? But have you ever seen a marathon runner in first place turn around and chastise the second place runner for throwing a cup on the ground? I’m not saying that’s right- but I’m saying the behavior is allowed or tolerated under certain circumstances. You can’t act the same at work as you can at a sports match an you?

And you’d CERTAINLY be likely to get some flack for having bbq and beer in the parking lot of the funeral parlor or shouting “-GOOOOAAAAL!” And wearing face paint and no shirt to a funeral wouldn’t you? In society- things have context. Things that are sometimes ok aren’t always ok and things that are usually not ok- sometimes are.

But @vitklim- would I support a straight pride parade? Not especially. Every day for the last couple centuries has been straight pride day. Until recently ads have used almost exclusively straight sexuality to sell products. Tits and billboards go together like best friends and everything from shampoo to cereal has been sexualized- most commonly in a “family friendly” way. The restaurant “Hooters” has been billed as family food for decades- and the idea of a man taking his wife and children to eat at a place who’s biggest draws are fried pickles and breasts is considered normal family fare- but would it be a family restaurant to have chippendales in their little shorts and bow ties and nothing else and name the place after a sexualized body part and have them serve food? Likely not. MAYBE you could get away with it in 2019 but not in the past.

Making kids and continuing the species is important. But that’s parents pride- technology allows gay people to make babies too. What expression of straight sexuality needs made that’s been or is repressed? Straights can’t marry, or only recently were allowed to? Straights have to hide their straightness or fave social and even LEGAL punishment? Straights can’t be themselves for fear of being hurt or killed by someone who hates straights?

Being straight is fine. It’s nothing to be ashamed of- I know you’re a black and white thinker- but you don’t have to be either ashamed or proud- those aren’t the only two options- to hide and lurk or to scream at the top of your lungs.

You see- most people on earth are what would be considered “straight.” Most media and society and culture are tailored to that perspective and sold to that market because- well, duh. If 90% of people like something it’s smart to make them happy. But that means gay people don’t get the same representation, the same presence. People often say things under the assumption everyone listening is straight. They do things without thinking “how would this effect a gay person...” because straight people generally don’t walk around making all their decisions based on gay people any more than men make their decisions thinking about women or fish make their decisions thinking about gophers.

So we KNOW there are straight people. We know there are LOTS of straight people. Most people see straight people every day. Most people won’t have trouble finding a straight bar or club, a straight date, most people won’t even wonder if a person they find attractive is straight unless they get rejected or they see something that makes them think they might not be. So people don’t think about gay people so much. And ESPECIALLY when many gays are closeted or discreet people don’t see so many gay people. If nothing else there are just less gay people in the world.

So they have a parade. They come together with other people like them. They remind the world there are other people like them. They stand in for all the people like them pretending to be or trying to be something they aren’t who can’t be there and can’t express themselves.

When you say “it’s not taking anything away from anyone” @vitklim- in theory it’s not. If done in earnest and not as some petulant protest or tantrum such as “well I want a parade too...” or “I’ll do all the stuff they do and you’ll see I’ll get in trouble for it...!” But not taking anything away from anyone else was only ONE qualifier. Before that was quite a bit of general context as to the differences and distinctions in pride as I see them.

When you break it all down- I COULD say I’m proud to be human- but what the hell does that mean? I was born human. It’s what I am. 99.999% of people you meet will likely also be human. What REASON do I have to need to display that I’m human? To shout out I’m human? Perhaps if I were being treated as inhuman- perhaps if aliens conquered us and humans were a minority or repressed- but on earth today where humans are the dominant species, where I can meet humans and be human and human is the default- what motivation would I have to suddenly start a human pride movement?

There is a difference between littering and performing openly sexualized acts. Conflating the two in any manner is utter dishonesty. It is also no less dishonest to conflate advertisements with the same thing. Bitch, if being gay could be openly monetized to sell shit, it would be done at the earliest possible moment. You are simply deflecting from the meat of the argument in order to avoid the discussion. Like you often do.
.
But since I am unlike you, I will in fact do so. Because at the end of the day this just boils down to the question: "does your sexuality define you?". Does your identity, your inherent quality define your views, your worth, your outlook on life?
The answer is no. And by that logic, if one's sexuality is not causal, what makes them qualitatively different from other people? Fucking nothing.

So yes, I would expect them to abide by the same public norms as all others. In private, I don't care. In public, and especially if you have the goddamn privilege of holding an event based on non-causal characteristic of yourself, you have a fucking responsibility. Just like do all other people.
.
And yes, you can keep putting in little jabs in your arguments all you like, but at what point do you finally realise which one of us is arguing for people being treated equally under the law, and not being judged based on immutable characteristics?
.
The issue of LGBT people not having equal rights under the law has been solved in our countries. So if you want to sort the shitty aspects of being gay in a non-western country, you're barking at the wrong crowd. And I will not be guilted by someone I have no control over being horrible to people based on their sexuality. Not my fucking fault.

Littering is far worse than fucking in public.
Anyway, who is it you are claiming is deflecting? Me or @guest_? I think both of us wouldn't mind clarification on that.

And honestly, the straight pride parade is not for pride. Or at least it is not why I support it. There is little pride in inherently being something. But I support it because it will make sjws of all stripes squeal in agony. How many hurt feelings will we rack up I wonder? I'll bet it will be in the tens of thousands.

And that is a good thought in that second/addenum paragraph thing.

That was directed at guest_ since he is the one with the tendency for long-winded discussions, and he conflated the topic in question with sexualized advertising and acts which are permitted on specific occasions, such as littering in some capacity or being loud and disruptive as for sporting events.

Also... I just read through what he wrote again, and I'm just... bewildered I guess?
"So people don’t think about gay people so much." - Why should we? Why the fuck should I busy myself with thinking about a person's sexuality??? How the fuck is that different from thinking about a person's race or sex? You are literally dividing people cased on inherent characteristics, which in the circumstances mentioned above would be racist and sexist respectively. By the definition of the word.
.
We don't treat people based on their race, we don't treat people based on their sex (unless it is causal). We treat people like individuals.

This is a collectivist line of logic. Because what this is, is an argument for group rights. An argument for a group of people to possess a special right based on an immutable characteristic.
This is a cancer for any society that strives for equality under the law, a wrecking ball aimed straight at one of the foundations of the best, most liberal societies of the world.
.
So a right (not in the strictly legal sense), must be universal. Either everyone has it, and everyone can hold whatever pride parade they want, or nobody can.
You have confirmed that you are not against it, yet you defend the exclusivity of such events. Why?

And again, I just... @guest_, what the fuck is this?
"Every day for the last couple centuries has been straight pride day." - How the fuck can you possibly say that? Is there a "straight" community? Do these people share anything, ANYTHING that would make you create a collective out of them? Do they see every day as a straight pride day?
.
With one sentence, you have collectivized an overwhelming majority of the world's population, politicized them, and ascribed an intention to them that you can never prove is true.
So you essentially lied. And my god, you seem like a rabid sjw in this rant. I truly hope this is not what your opinion is.

Oh jimminy Vic. I’m with funk on the littering. If 100,000,000 people all have sex in public and the same number all throw a plastic bottle on the ground- I’ll take the former. It’s related because the CONCEPT. The entire concept that you missed was that the way people behave is dependent upon context. What is acceptable in public depends on CONTEXT. As you tend to do- you cherry picked out what you wanted to seen and ignored the points you can’t argue, and as you tend to do you took a discussion about a topic and made it a discussion about the person speaking- so tell me again who is deflecting the argument? I’d like to get back on track and maybe leave the diagnosis to therapists- so...

What about Mardi Gras etc? What about how people grind and the like when dancing at public events etc? CONTEXT. What lewd acts do you even refer to that a straight parade can’t do? I’ve never seen a float of guys blowing each other. I’ve seen nudity- which as I mentioned and you glossed over isn’t or wasn’t inherently illegal everywhere in public- nor is it inherently lewd. I’ve seen grinding and dancing and sexual imagery which again- isn’t inherently lewd and as you say- if advertisers didn’t think t would off put conservative consumers they would and have done such things.

But to your REAL point- the fact you just like to push peoples buttons and stir things up- that’s quite literally one of the things I mentioned in my original post as a reason I couldn’t support such “pride” parade- if the point of that pride is negative and simply a “counter measure” or troll. That’s what I described as an example of “negative pride.”

Does sexuality define us? No. Of course not. Does nationality? Religion? Politics? Philosophy? Your job? No, no, all no. What defines us as human beings? No one thing does. Our actions and words are what the world can see and know of us, so they tend to define us to others, but as humans we may do the same thing but for different reasons- like one person may want a parade to express themselves and another may want it simply to upset people. Both want the same thing, but those motivations are different and show us two different people. So no single thing or moment defines a person, but a combination of things define us. Sexuality is part of who we are, it’s part of how we see ourselves and how the world sees us.

As for “everyday being straight pride day...” read what’s after that. Straight people are now and have almost always been allowed to be themselves openly and without bias against them. Straight has mostly been and still is the default assumed norm. The majority of movies and media show straight sexuality. Products are sold on straight sexuality, the law has protected straight sexuality and punished gay sexuality, anti gay rallies and gay “cures” and the like have long been a thing- and Turing- a hero of the allies and genius was driven to ruin and self destruction in large part from the shame and treatment he received as a gay man. So yeah- has being ashamed of being straight been a problem in society?

I agree that in general I don’t think being proud of an inherent and in born trait makes sense to me. But as I also said- a large part of gay pride isn’t being proud of being gay- it’s being proud as a member of marginalized group who’s had the strength to endure all that entails and stay true to yourself. I also agree that “straight” people don’t really form a “community” in that the one commonality is being straight- but in a sense many are a community in the sense that the actions of the many individuals form a culture, a majority culture, so when discussing the minority culture of gays the counter balancing entity would be straight culture- defined in general as the “default” culture of the world.

Lastly- to address another thing you brought up- and lord- don’t complain about how long my posts are if you don’t even bother reading them, because most of this also long reply is covered- often in the sentences right before or after the ones you quote- the point of my statement of people not thinking about gays wasn’t that you should have to. It was a factual statement. People don’t. That’s a fact. Because people view the world from their perspective and experience. That’s also a fact. These aren’t incriminations- they’re things we may know but often take for granted or forget because they are just part of our life.

So “people don’t think about gays” is just that- a factual statement. No where did I say you should- I say the opposite. After that I say that fish don’t think about gophers while living their daily lives either or some shit. The whole point is that while that’s fairly natural- the person who isn’t being thought about will also fairly naturally tend to feel left out. They’ll tend to develop a certain relationship and attitude towards a world where they aren’t represented or considered.

Wouldn’t you? If you lived on another planet where the majority of people were lesbian women- ads were all targeted towards lesbian women, laws were made by lesbian women to suit the needs of lesbian women, shoes and movies, every facet of society catered to and showed preference to lesbian women- don’t just retort. Actually envision yourself there and daily life as an “outsider” different from most everyone you meet and that at every turn people tended to forget you existed or assume you were a lesbian woman. How might that make you feel?

Understanding the way people feel about something helps us understand each other. Why we do certain things. Context.

We're going back to the pile? We're going back to the pile! Back to the pile!

The examples of context you have given do not compare. I don't know how I can make this point any clearer. It is morally less acceptable to perfrom sexual acts in public than litter or be loud and disruptive. And under no context of a public event should there be license to break that rule.
.
And again, you have missed my point. Your religion, politics and philosophy do in fact define you. They are what defines how you think, what your opinions are. You motherfucker will accuse me of cherry picking, when my argument was: "your sexuality does not define your views, worth or outlook on life". So what did you do? Pick out "worth" from the sentence, as if my argument was that LGBT people are any less human because of their sexuality. And ignore the rest of the words.
.
So shove your fucking complaints up your fucking arse and answer the questions.

And don't even get started on "oh, but why couldn't the straight pride parade do the same thing and be as bad". Because the people who are going to be attending it aren't degenerates who use it as a cover for exposing themselves in public. Again, let's wait and see, it will only prove my point.
.
Because you seem to be incapable of not derailing the conversation, I will stick to one question at a time.
.
If LGBT people are no less human than others, why should we allow them any exclusive privileges? Sexuality is not causal, and gives us no reason to treat them differently, so why argue for anything else.
.
btw, I will tag some people just to let them see the discussion, because this is way too interesting to pass up. @xvarnah, @firmlee_grasspit, @popsy

There are plenty of other parades that wind up with a bunch of drunk straight people fucking in the middle of the street.
Why "degenerate"? This behavior has been around, literally, for thousands of years. I kinda wanna see how you'd react if you were suddenly transported to an ancient bath house in the middle of Rome.

That does not make it justified. And again, is our morality the same as of ancient Roman Empire? No, so what is your argument.
.
And let me just clarify that I am talking exclusively about public locations. So basically the streets and public use facilities. In any private location (house, hotel, an establishment that allows fucking in front of other people), I don't care what people do.

I can’t really address that first comment because I have no idea what you’re on about. I can’t be sure if you’re saying you believe sexuality defines a person or that it doesn’t? I’m not saying this to be combative or mean- just to try and understand. Is English not your primary language? You seem to be proficient in it- it’s just much of the time you seek to have difficulty with understanding meaning especially the nuance of words. When I say “politics, or, etc...” this are singular articles. Hence OR and not AND. I said that your sexuality doesn’t define you nor does your politics etc ALONE. A combination of these things and how you act on them and interpret them help define you. More accurately- your politics and outlooks on things are an extension of who you are, who you are drones your politics etc.

so I think we agree on the point but you seem to want to disagree on it and I’m rather confused because we appear to be having a conversation where you are talking to what you want me to say and not what am actually saying.

But- to the second post which is much easier to understand- where are you deriving. This universal morality from? Your conflating your feelings as truths. You FEEL that sexual acts in public are worse than littering etc. I do not feel that way. I don’t want to speak for Funk- but funk not seem to feel that way. Regardless- we know that not all people feel the same. What’s worse to you- being lied from or stollen from? Having your home broken into and your computer and several thousand dollars stollen or having you car stollen? People FEEL differently based on their life experiences and other factors.

So there’s not a clear ladder of wrong here. Where I live- the fine for littering is up to $1,000. The fine for public indecency is up to $1,000. Wow. They have the same fine. Both are misdemeanor offenses. Huh. I suppose it isn’t that one is necessarily universally and provably worse since unlike something like littering and murder- one isn’t a higher crime than the other by default nor does one carry a harsher penalty. It’s as if... in a legal system where many people have many perspectives and all must share public spaces that the law can’t and shouldn’t cater to a singular morality but instead view any actual harm of an action and contextualize it in relation to their harms.

I didn't read through all of this yet, and I'm fairly certain I'm woefully unprepared for this topic.
'
but I'm just gonna throw out there: I don't care what your sexuality or gender is, I don't need you making your kid twerk shirtless for your cause, and nobody needs to have their full BDSM gear (if it's indecent) or be wearing strapons or fucking in public. If y'all can have a parade without that, then off you go. Please try not to jam up traffic too much. Then again they've never been able to keep mardis gras under control, although they DO often do arrests for indecent exposure during it. Though mardis gras isn't straight pride, it's more drunk pride

English is not my first language, but as you could probably tell, I am rather proficient in it.
.
So let me break this down. My first point - your sexuality does not define your views. Since the relationship is not causal, and you can clearly have LGBT people with all kinds of political views, you cannot class them as a group. Because there is nothing that their sexuality determines about them as a person. So any time you collectivise those people as a group with set beliefs and wants, it is a false argument, maybe even classing as a fallacy.

Second point - your sexuality does not define your worth or status. Since the relationship is yet again not causal, and we treat LGBT people same as everyone else, they have no exclusive rights. They have the same universal individual rights as everyone else, and nothing more. Which means you can't argue for the exclusivity of pride events to be restricted to them, which you do if not in practice, at least in principle.
And before you try to pull up a different example - sexuality is not causal, so don't even try to bring in a causal relationship as an example.

Third point - where does morality come from. This one is very easy. From Christianity. Whether you like it or not, this is where the moral framework of the western world has originated. And you don't have to believe in a god to see it or follow it. Our laws, our sense of what is right and wrong is based upon the moral foundations of Christianity with the Enlightenment values of individualism and liberty.
If our morality was based purely in logic, with nothing else behind it, there would be no social stigma for doing something that is considered wrong, because there would be no right or wrong. Only methods to get what you want.
I;d like you to go to yourmorals.org take the first test there and post the numerical values you get for your foundations. Because there is one in particular which is relevant to this.

@vitlkim- care 1.6, equality 0.8, equity 0.9, autonomy 1.3, authority 0.6, purity 0.6.
However I do want to point out that due to the nature of the test I could not answer most questions as phrased in any other way than to say that they didn’t apply to me much since most of the questions are phrased poorly or are outright ludicrous. “Should everyone one in the world have the same amount of money” is not a moral question- it’s the kind of question you ask to see if a person has a basic grasp of the fundamental concepts of economics- or common sense. Or it’s incomplete. I mean- if we were able to change a BUNCH of things and most laws- then that might make sense. Another question asked if in your perfect world anyone would have authority over another. In a “perfect” fantasy world no one would have to because everyone would stay out of each other’s way-

but in any conceivable reality some entity has to have authority. But it doesn’t have to be human. What about a machine overlord? You could answer that liberally and actually be a robo fascist. So overall I do not think the views expressed by the test reflect my actual feeling about the nuances of issues. But if you’re curious about my morality on issues of decency you could just ask and I’d answer honestly. But now- onwards-

First and second points: The thing that LGBTQ+ people share is a stigmatization or other issues in society. “We treat them the same...” Dawg- they just got the contentious right to marry, in some places- and in others their very right to exist is still illegal. What makes them a community- and this should make sense to you given your other views on things- is common interest. It is good for all gay people when it isn’t legal to beat gays to death, lock them in jail, ban them from work, etc. the sense of group identity comes from a status as a minority trying to live your life against adversity, so having a strength in numbers to effect change where an individual couldn’t or a minority of individuals couldn’t.

Third point- I can’t argue there is a historic precedent for our laws in the West being largely directed through religion. But I do have to say that while certain values come through “Christian sources” they aren’t Christian in nature. Despite some nuance the morality of a country which never had significant Christian influence like China isn’t so far off from “conservative western” morality.

My country is not a “Christian Nation.” It has no official religion. Christianity is the majority religion, the country is a democracy. If most people are Christians and a country is made up by the will of the people, then yes- those views will be reflected. But the demographics of the nation are changing. The world is changing. A country like America isn’t just Christians- we have atheists and Buddhists and Muslims and Hindu’s and Baha’i and Jewish, and Satanists and Wiccans and Jedi and Druids and... the list goes on. And they are part of our country. They have a voice. They must be considered too in how daily life runs.

Because we are America. Because our founding values and a whole lot of really long really old legal texts from 2019 back to the start all hold our primary guiding light as one of freedom, liberty and justice FOR ALL. Our founding fathers were predominantly Christian. In 1954 our pledge of allegiance added “One nation, under God...” UNDER God. As Abrahamic faith holders would believe all things are. Not a nation OF god or FOR God. There is no seat in the senate nor position in the government which is reserved for God. The clergy is not a branch of the government nor do they have executive powers or judicial or other powers in government not available to anyone else.

The fact that YOU base your morality in Christianity is fine for YOU. I strongly doubt my Muslim neighbors base their morality in Christianity. We do not have a great holy prophet who sits in the Hal’s of law and interprets the word of God. We aren’t Iran. We don’t call the pope whenever we need to make a law to ensure that it pleases God. This is a nation of individual conscience. So I do reject the premise that our laws are or should be laws based in Christian morality. I agree the historical framework of our laws are based largely in Christian morals and that many voices in our democracy are Christian and that informs their views and thus influences their votes.

But the idea the United States should be some religious fundamentalism is repugnant to me and to the very core of the nation. The framework laid out in the founding of the US is one which is designed to separate church and state, to remove religious meddling from government affairs and we literally promise people religious freedom in their lives. The imposition of Christian values of decency on people who could give 2 shits about Christian decency is not freedom from religion.

Took me a while to get back to this, so let's go.
So, I would guess that in the way you answered you received about -0.3 points compared to the average on all of these. My points by comparison are: care 1.5 equality 1.2 equity 2.4 autonomy 2.3 loyalty 2.1 authority 2.0 purity 1.4. So by comparison to average scores that puts me into the center-right quadrant.
.
A quick response to your first retort - currently in the western world gay people have the same human rights as anyone else, so there is no reason for an activist group to still be functioning as they did before that was the case. Simple.

Now, here comes the interesting part.
First off, don't assume that when I am explaining what things are like that I am advocating for it and assuming it is a good thing.
Second, morality and religion are separate. Which means the morality of today was informed by the religious foundation in the past, but it can now exist in a secular form, completely outside the church as an entity.
.
Which is a good thing, mind you. But since the question was "where it came from?", this is the response. And the thing is, the interaction between religion and state is irrelevant. In fact, you're right in that it should not happen. But it does not mean the we do not derive our morality from it, at least in part.
The second part is the Enlightenment, the ideals of liberty, and human rights. But it runs parallel to morality and religion. Both can coexist, and US is living proof of that.

And you bring in a very good comparison with Islam. Their values, their morals, are in fact very different. Islam is not only a religion, it is an ideology, a culture. There can be no law that is not Islamic law. There can be no morality outside of Islam. It is an all-encompassing, ideal fascist theocracy.
.
It is the "ethical state". Which tells you how to live your life, not only in public, but in private too. It is the absolute scourge, the fusion of religious fervor, cast-iron morals, hatred towards the outsiders, and the imperialistic tendencies of old. Islam never went through an Enlightenment, and the values of the Islamic culture - a culture informed first and foremost by religion, never changed.
Their highest value is devotion. Not freedom, equality, or security. Only blind, mad devotion.

And I am sure you can give me plenty of examples of Muslims that are not like what I wrote above. But they are much more like us. They have accepted the Enlightenment values of liberty. They have become apostates in spirit, if not in formality. Because if one agrees that becoming an apostate of Islam should be punishable by death, they are not liberal. They do not hold those same values as we do.

The foundations of Christianity and Islam are not so different. Only one of them went through centuries of evolution, free thought and eventual development of science, and the second one remained as one step above true barbarism.
.
And one more thing. The Christian conservatives of the 1950s US are an atypical phenomenon. Don't judge so much by their standards. They were just as authoritarian as those who we critique and fight now.

" currently in the western world gay people have the same human rights as anyone else, so there is no reason for an activist group to still be functioning as they did before that was the case. "
Technically, in the US, they don't in all states. Sexual orientation isn't covered under the civil rights act. Quite a few states have passed laws that give them those rights, but not all of them.

What rights do they not have, and is there no federal legislation to override it in this particular regard? And if there is actual ongoing discrimination is those states, how come it is not a raging shitstorm online right now?

Beyond the constitution, which is open the interpretation- federal laws don’t outlaw discrimination against LGBTQ+ people- instead specific court rulings and executive orders- most of which having occurred between 1996-2016, address specific cases of discrimination but don’t prevent others or new ones. The age of consent for legal sex in many states is different for gay couples than straight couples- meaning in one state a M/W of 19/16 years of age can legally be sexual partners but a M/M would need to be 18/18 or above to not be statutory rape. 22 and 2 territories states outlaw discrimination on sexual identity or gender identity/expression- the rest allow it under some circumstances.

Military service cannot discriminate on sexual orientation but CAN discriminate on gender identity or expression. LGBTQ+ are also not covered under public accommodations protections. There is no federal protection against housing discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, less than half of states protect against it. At least 12 states have NO protections under law at all against LGBTQ+ discrimination. Federal law protects against discrimination of FEDERAL employees but not against state or private.

Not all prisons allow same sex conjugal visits. LGBTQ+ couples do not have the same blanket protections and rights in matters of medicine, Insursnce, or other areas either. Immigration laws for naturalized citizens do not offer comparable protections and options to gay couples or individuals. No federal law and only some state laws offer LGBTQ+ people the same protections against discrimination in securing goods and services. This includes in health care and insurance. No federal law and only some state laws provide protections against discrimination to LGBTQ+ in education. There are 6US states that completely outlaw the discussion or “promotion” of homosexuality in public schools- meaning it is prohibited to have support groups, advocacy groups, or even teach gay children about their orientations and related things in sex Ed let alone allow them to ask questions as other curious children of different orientations can.

The UK is in many ways better than the Us in its protections under law to the LGBTQ+, but not equal in rights. Northern Ireland still doesn’t recognize same sexual marriages (last I checked but a challenge was pending and expected to be heard by 2019-), lesbians are granted equal “birth parent” status but not male parents in same sex relationships. We can continue from there. But my point is- even in the “enlightened west,” there are still in the law and in the way the law is applied- many examples where the is inequity towards people of various orientations.

It’s also important to note that MANY if not MOST of these changes have happened within a single lifetime, and at that the most sweeping ones have taken place within the last less than a decade or so- with laws or orders and rulings such as same sex marriage, adoption, employment, military service etc. having happened within only the last few years in many cases.

It’s also important to note that the argument for “equality through law” argument is a shadow puppet and a tactic of dismissal. In America for instance- the constitution of the United States makes it clear that most rights within it are to apply equally to all human beings within the jurisdiction of the United States, and a few specific ones to all citizens. Therefore we can say that at any time in history that on paper- women, blacks, gays, etc were “equal in law” at a fundamental level.

So that point is mute since if we had this discussion in 1945 we could argue that blacks were already “equal” by virtue of being human- in practice- they were not treated equally, the law was not applied equally or made equally towards them. They did not have equal protection and regardless of their “tissue paper equality” that did not stop the passage of laws which were blatantly in violation of the spirit of that equality and the fundamental legal instrument of the constitution. Hence equality is more often gained through abolish of law or ruling of law than creation of law- laws like those which prohibit same sex marriage which were struck down. The countermanding of rulings of judges who did not apply equality in their cases as consistent with a spirit of equality.

The removal of racism from our legal institution isn’t even complete as the first 400 parts of this post show- we still have laws on the books that discriminate or that do not afford the same protections to all people equally based on orientation- but EVEN IF we had abolished all such laws and had a true “on paper” equality for all- the ADMINISTRATION and interpretation of those laws is still at the discretion of members of the judicial system.

As late as2018 we’ve had rulings go to higher or even the Supreme Court where lower courts or their judges failed to uphold the administration of equality in law, or outright subverted it to justify a ruling which upheld their own moral convictions. The issue of enforcing “equality through society” is complex and dicey as it infringes on personal rights and gets into questions of the role of society shaping law and law shaping society. But individuals operating in the capacity of administrators of the justice system not only don’t have the luxury- but take paths specifically swearing that while acting on behalf of the system they will uphold the rules and values of that system which have been put in action through democratic process. It is not their place to act out justice as their own proclivities would dictate but in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law.

So there are some examples of the difference in equality. I hope they are helpful to you, and perhaps inspire you to do some research on the matter and form an opinion that incorporates a more well rounded and complete collection of facts.