A gay friend from San Francisco shared some of the photos made in some parades, and frontal nudity was very common in the photos. Having a dignified parade would make a stronger message, but I guess there are different definition of freedom.

IMHO, freedom becomes chaos when ones freedom starts crossing the borders of other people's freedom. Under chaos, values crumble.. Without values, societies crumble.

… and when the extraterrestrials come out of their hiding places and their closets, and we don't know who's who and what or how many sexes and/or genders they have, we will very surely know that, —if our morals and our times permit it, and— if we ever get to "couple/commune/whatever" , with such foreign souls whose origins are so undoubtedly outside of our genetic pools, we will surely know —i was saying—, that it will not be a homosexual relationship… thank God!

In my book (which is not 'a book') immoral='causes suffering', but unfortunately for a lot of people, immoral officially='says so in a book' and so many activities that are genuinely immoral are quite legal, whereas many that are in no way genuinely immoral are quite illegal, or carry the stigma of 'moral outrage'/prejudice.

As KM pointed out, the problem with 'gay marriage' lies not just in the never-ending dispute over the morality of homosexuality, but is inherent in the definition of marriage. For gay marriage to become legal, the legal definition of marriage has to be changed, and changing legal definitions is an uphill marathon, especially when there's a dead weight of conventional 'morality' pulling it back.

Why would a gay couple want to get married? I guess because they want their union accepted in the same way that a heterosexual union is. Etc. etc...

Because we are a label-driven society. The concept of "brand" — whether defined by an actual logo and tag line, or by an attitude and POV — has become the no. one criteria upon which acceptance of virtually everything is accepted (or not). Marriage has become a marketed commodity. A brand. And as such comes with a set of socially acceptable features. Mess with those features and you risk eroding the brand. So, IMHO, if a couple wants their union to be accepted by the society they live in, it must carry the accepted and familiar "logo" and feature set.

Couple to society: We drive a silver-colored Volvo.
Society to couple: Ah... you must be very responsible people. Welcome!

Gay couple to society: We drive a bright orange Volvo.
Society to gay couple: Hmmm, that's a bit off-brand, Wait over there, please.

Seriously, if we could learn to get past the hype, we'd all be better off. And probably a lot less stressed.

I don't think that's a very spot-on analogy, steve. It's more like

Gay couple to society: we also drive a silver-coloured Volvo
Society to gay couple: erm.... no you don't - if you're driving it it's not silver-coloured/not a Volvo/etc.
Gay couple: but it sure looks the same to us - in fact it's cleaner and probably gets way more mileage before the engine needs replacing etc.

Having been married myself, and being more gay than whatever else the options this month are, I've got no personal investment in the 'sanctity of marriage' but at the same time, I can fully understand why folk who are in same-sex relationships are tired of the playground mentality that says 'according to our rules, of course you lose'. Marriage is only 'sacred' if you believe in a religion that says it is - otherwise, in all but name it's a civil union for most people (who are at liberty to choose personally to consider their relationship sacred or not, regardless of whether they're actually married or want to be), and there's no reason to differentiate, apart from precedent and prejudice.

So, you're anti-Volvo, aren't you! I thought so.

Here again, we get into the nuances of perception. Many of the gay couples we've known insist on driving "orange Volvos". Others, in fact, drive silver and don't want to be perceived as "off-brand". I think part of it is one's self-image, and how it's projected outward.

Everyone should just "go steady"

Actually I am anti-Volvo - all of my friends over the last 20 years or so who have been knocked off their motorbikes (and some never got up again) have been knocked off by Volvos - without exception (though one was a Volvo lorry). People who think they're driving in a safe tank take less care about the people outside the tank.

Actually (part 2) you could say the same about some people in marriages - they're in their safe tank and they don't care so much about the folk outside it. And from a certain perspective, gay couples are the ones on the motorbikes.

Stretch that metaphor and win a pony... (but don't have sex with it)

Ok, I think I have this figured out. It's a tricky equation, but I think it works:

If Joe is driving his silver Volvo east at 40mph and he left home wearing orange socks, how many motorbikes would it take to stretch Joe's orange socks over his Volvo?

Oy...

LOL! Yep.

Things that were illegal and or not accepted by society that are now accepted (and vice versa for that matter) are countless. Ever read what a woman is supposed to do during her period according to the Old Testament? It was obviously seen as something very dirty, and only acceptable cuz there was no way to stop it (we have drugs for that now). In many societies, and societies within societies, a man can marry a girl that is near pre-pubescent and expect sex, and it is condoned, and her "consent" is questionable.

Again, the line for me is whether or not one is causing harm to others by his or her actions. And that's it. And if we are going to get religious (where most ambiguous morality comes from), any Book that condemns such things is because the guy (never the girl, eh?) that wrote it turned his nose up at it, and cuz His brain is divinely inspired, it must be Gospel. I say to him - yeah, whatever Dude, write a Psalm instead and stay out of other people's lives. If one chooses to believe in the ambiguous moralities forced upon us by religion, that's fine with Me, but wanting to use it to legislate other people's lives is projection, pure and simple.