In 1977, Harvey Milk challenged Gilbert Baker, a veteran who taught himself to sew, to come up with a symbol of pride for the gay community. His response? The original Pride flag. Inspired by Judy Garland's "Over the Rainbow," these colors flew at the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade celebration on June 25, 1978. Though some dispute whether Baker was the sole creator of the flag that started it all, its symbolism remains. Each color celebrates an aspect of queer Pride:
Male bisexuality is particularly presumed to be non-existent,[70] with sexual fluidity studies adding to the debate. In 2005, researchers Gerulf Rieger, Meredith L. Chivers, and J. Michael Bailey used penile plethysmography to measure the arousal of self-identified bisexual men to pornography involving only men and pornography involving only women. Participants were recruited via advertisements in gay-oriented magazines and an alternative paper. They found that the self-identified bisexual men in their sample had genital arousal patterns similar to either homosexual or heterosexual men. The authors concluded that "in terms of behavior and identity, bisexual men clearly exist", but that male bisexuality had not been shown to exist with respect to arousal or attraction.[74] The assertion of Bailey that "for men arousal is orientation" was criticized by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) as a simplification which neglects to account for behavior and self-identification.[75] Further, some researchers hold that the technique used in the study to measure genital arousal is too crude to capture the richness (erotic sensations, affection, admiration) that constitutes sexual attraction.[30] The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the study and The New York Times coverage of it flawed and biphobic.[76]
Cannabis rights Equality before the law Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention Freedom of assembly Freedom of association Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment Freedom from discrimination Freedom from exile Freedom of information Freedom of movement Freedom of religion Freedom from slavery Freedom of speech Freedom of thought Freedom from torture Legal aid Liberty LGBT rights Nationality Personhood Presumption of innocence Right of asylum Right to die Right to a fair trial Right to family life Right to keep and bear arms Right to life Right to petition Right to privacy Right to protest Right to refuse medical treatment Right of self-defense Security of person Universal suffrage

Legal procedures exist in some jurisdictions which allow individuals to change their legal gender or name to reflect their gender identity. Requirements for these procedures vary from an explicit formal diagnosis of transsexualism, to a diagnosis of gender identity disorder, to a letter from a physician that attests the individual's gender transition or having established a different gender role.[96] In 1994, the DSM IV entry was changed from "Transsexual" to "Gender Identity Disorder". In many places, transgender people are not legally protected from discrimination in the workplace or in public accommodations.[20] A report released in February 2011 found that 90% of transgender people faced discrimination at work and were unemployed at double the rate of the general population,[18] and over half had been harassed or turned away when attempting to access public services.[18] Members of the transgender community also encounter high levels of discrimination in health care.[97]

So it is very important that the Trans Community understand that the term "Transgendered", while not perfect, is the term most people within and outside of our Community understands and identifies with. How you identify personally is another thing all together. So, if there are "Transsexuals" who get upset that they are included under the umbrella term "Transgendered", they either need to come up with a term that better identifies EVERYONE in the Trans Community or just get over it. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to be under our umbrella when it rains even though there is no other, but they still don't want to get wet. :-)

Civil rights campaigning in support of marriage without distinction as to sex or sexual orientation began in the 1970s.[358] In 1972, the now overturned Baker v. Nelson saw the Supreme Court of the United States decline to become involved.[359] The issue became prominent from around 1993, when the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in Baehr v. Lewin that it was unconstitutional under the state constitution for the state to abridge marriage on the basis of sex. That ruling led to federal and state actions to explicitly abridge marriage on the basis of sex in order to prevent the marriages of same-sex couples from being recognized by law, the most prominent of which was the 1996 federal DOMA. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the state constitution for the state to abridge marriage on the basis of sex. From 2004 through to 2015, as the tide of public opinion continued to move towards support of same-sex marriage, various state court rulings, state legislation, direct popular votes (referendums and initiatives), and federal court rulings established same-sex marriage in thirty-six of the fifty states.


Legalizing gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage, and same-sex marriages may even be more stable than heterosexual marriages. A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock." [48] A Nov. 2011 study by UCLA's Williams Institute reported that the rate at which legally recognized same-sex couples (in marriages or civil unions, etc.) end their relationships is 1.1% on average, while 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually. [115] The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association found that more than a century of research has shown "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." [8]
In the sci-fi television series Babylon 5, characters including Susan Ivanova and Talia Winters are portrayed as bisexual or pansexual. There seems to be a general feeling in the show that it is accepted and common for people to follow their hearts wherever they may take them, ignoring sex. Other examples include the characters Marcus Cole and Stephen Franklin posing as a married couple, and series creator J. Michael Straczynski indicating that the station commander John Sheridan would have been propositioned by the male Lumati ambassador if Susan Ivanova had not been handling those negotiations.
Different religions have their own views about transgender and transsexual individuals, and not all religions are tolerant toward this community. There is no clear distinction of the two terms in religious texts, and, though most religions have condemned trans behavior, there are cultures and traditions that promote acceptance in some parts of the world, religion notwithstanding.

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT rights organization in the United States, states that "many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love — many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person — and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings."[88]
State same-sex marriage laws raise the question of whether state parliaments have the power to pass such laws. According to constitutional lawyer, Anne Twomey, the short answer is yes; the more difficult question is whether that law will be effective or whether it will be inoperative because it is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, namely the Marriage Act. Twomey argues that the answer to this question is unclear and unknowable until the High Court decides. Furthermore, she argues that even if operative, a state marriage law would do little more than facilitate the holding of a ceremony. It might confer on the parties to a same-sex marriage the status of ‘married’ for the purposes of a specific state, but it is most unlikely that the parties would be regarded as legally ‘married’ for the purposes of Commonwealth law, or under the law of any other state. It would therefore not attract any legal benefits or status accorded to a married couple.
Over time the historical and traditional cultures originally recorded by the likes of Bachofen and Morgan slowly succumbed to the homogenization imposed by colonialism. Although a multiplicity of marriage practices once existed, conquering nations typically forced local cultures to conform to colonial belief and administrative systems. Whether Egyptian, Vijayanagaran, Roman, Ottoman, Mongol, Chinese, European, or other, empires have long fostered (or, in some cases, imposed) the widespread adoption of a relatively small number of religious and legal systems. By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the perspectives of one or more of the world religions—Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity—and their associated civil practices were often invoked during national discussions of same-sex marriage.
A person is a combination of all these four factors. You can be born female, identify as a female, express you way in a feminine way, and like men. That's the ideal picture of a female in most cultures. But you could also be born female, identify female, express your your self in a masculine way, and be bisexual or gay or straight. Or be born female, identify as a male, express androgynously, and like men. Or any other possible combinations of all these four factors. The point is that human behavior is more complex than black and white or yes and no.

The plaintiffs argued that it was unconstitutional to deny same sex couples the right to marry and enjoy marital benefits. In 2002, a Suffolk County judge ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that, because the central purpose of marriage is for procreation, it is rational for the legislature to limit the right to marry to opposite sex couples. The court went on to say, “… because same-sex couples are unable to procreate on their own and therefore must rely on inherently more cumbersome means of having children, it is also rational to assume that same-sex couples are less likely to have children or, at least, to have as many children as opposite-sex couples.” The decision was appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003, which ruled in a 4 to 3 decision, that banning marriage to any couple, regardless of sex, is in violation of the state’s constitution.

Interestingly—and perhaps as a reflection of tensions between the marriage-for-procreation and marriage-for-community-good positions discussed above—many European countries initially prevented same-sex couples from adoption and artificial insemination; by 2007, however, most of these restrictions had been removed. Outside Europe, some jurisdictions also adopted some form of same-sex partnership rights; Israel recognized common-law same-sex marriage in the mid-1990s (the Israeli Supreme Court further ruled in 2006 that same-sex marriages performed abroad should be recognized), and same-sex civil unions went into effect in New Zealand (2005) and in parts of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Mexico in the early 21st century. In 2007 Uruguay became the first Latin American country to legalize same-sex civil unions nationwide; the legislation became effective the following year.


American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, National Association of Social Workers, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Academy of Family Physicians; et al. "Brief of [medical organizations] as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved April 5, 2018.


In 1993, former legislator Anna Wu proposed an Equal Opportunities Bill through a private member's bill to outlaw discrimination on a variety of grounds, including sex, disability, age, race, and sexuality. Her effort didn't yield any result until 1995 when equal opportunities law was enacted. However, sexuality was not included in the passage of the bill.[6][7][8]
Transgender is an umbrella term that includes people whose gender identity or gender expression does not match their assigned birth sex. Such as transvestites, those that are drag queens / kings who cross-dress, as well as transsexuals. It is not a sexual orientation. A transsexual is someone whose gender identity doesn't match their assigned sex. Someone who was born in the wrong body in a sense.
Scherpe JM, ed. (2016). European Family Law Volume III: Family Law in a European Perspective Family. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 121. ISBN 9781785363047. Constitutional bans on same-sex marriage are now applicable in ten European countries: Article 32, Belarus Constitution; Article 46 Bulgarian Constitution; Article L Hungarian Constitution, Article 110, Latvian Constitution; Article 38.3 Lithuanian Constitution; Article 48 Moldovan Constitution; Article 71 Montenegrin Constitution; Article 18 Polish Constitution; Article 62 Serbian Constitution; and Article 51 Ukrainian Constitution.
According to Aristotle, although most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, the Celts were unusual because their men openly preferred male lovers (Politics II 1269b).[7][8] H. D. Rankin in Celts and the Classical World notes that "Athenaeus echoes this comment (603a) and so does Ammianus (30.9). It seems to be the general opinion of antiquity."[8] In book XIII of his Deipnosophists, the Roman Greek rhetorician and grammarian Athenaeus, repeating assertions made by Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC (Bibliotheca historica 5:32), wrote that Celtic women were beautiful but that the men preferred to sleep together. Diodorus went further, stating that "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused". Rankin argues that the ultimate source of these assertions is likely to be Poseidonius and speculates that these authors may be recording "some kind of bonding ritual ... which requires abstinence from women at certain times".[8]
In Steve Lenius' original 2001 paper, he explored the acceptance of bisexuality in a supposedly pansexual BDSM community. The reasoning behind this is that "coming-out" had become primarily the territory of the gay and lesbian, with bisexuals feeling the push to be one or the other (and being right only half the time either way). What he found in 2001, was that people in BDSM were open to discussion about the topic of bisexuality and pansexuality and all controversies they bring to the table, but personal biases and issues stood in the way of actively using such labels. A decade later, Lenius (2011) looked back on his study and considered if anything has changed. He concluded that the standing of bisexuals in the BDSM and kink community was unchanged, and believed that positive shifts in attitude were moderated by society's changing views towards different sexualities and orientations. But Lenius (2011) does emphasize that the pansexual promoting BDSM community helped advance greater acceptance of alternative sexualities.[88][89]
The Bible, in Leviticus 18:22, states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," thus condemning homosexual relationships. [120] In Islamic tradition, several hadiths (passages attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) condemn gay and lesbian relationships, including the sayings "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Sihaq [lesbian sex] of women is zina [illegitimate sexual intercourse]." [121] The Catholic Church, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. [119] Two orthodox Jewish groups, the Orthodox Agudath Israel of America and the Orthodox Union, also oppose gay marriage, as does mainstream Islam. [13] [119] According to a July 31, 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman…" [54] Pope Benedict stated in Jan. 2012 that gay marriage threatened "the future of humanity itself." [145]
According to Alfred Kinsey's research into human sexuality in the mid-20th century, most humans do not fall exclusively into heterosexual or homosexual classifications but somewhere between.[1] The Kinsey scale measures sexual attraction and behavior on a seven-point scale ranging from 0 ("exclusively heterosexual") to 6 ("exclusively homosexual"). According to Kinsey's study, most persons fall within the range of 1 to 5 (a mixture of heterosexual and homosexual). Although Kinsey's methodology has come under criticism, the scale is still widely used in describing the phenomenon of bisexuality.
A term created and used by far-right extremists to oppose nondiscrimination laws that protect transgender people. The term is geared to incite fear and panic at the thought of encountering transgender people in public restrooms. Simply refer to the nondiscrimination law/ ordinance instead. For additional resources on how to fairly and accurately report on nondiscrimination laws and bathrooms, please see "Debunking the 'Bathroom Bill' Myth – Accurate reporting on LGBT nondiscrimination: A guide for journalists."
×