That's *seriously* toned down compared to modern ones. If you edited the signs and said its conservatives and libertarians marching for free speech, it would be entirely plausible.
Note that all the signs are directly related to LGBT, good luck finding something else.
It quickly got crazier, and that's not toned down. By 1970 standards, that's a lot crazier than what happens now. There were gays kissing, which was violating the law.
And yes, during the LGBT march, they campaigned for LGBT stuff, but they also would frequently work for other campaigns en-masse, and be coopted by them. The book
Conduct Unbecoming goes into this more in one of the early chapters, but basically the gay population served as a general wellspring of activists for whatever liberal cause there was.
The anti-slavery movement and ending the slave trade is one I can think of which lasts to this day.
No, that movement ended a while ago, in the 1860s.
Yes and no. As someone who's an aspiring Orthodox Christian, I can't say I'm the biggest fan of the LBGT rights movement overall.
HOWEVER, if it had stopped at say, LGBT relationships being legalized (I don't consider it 'marriage') in a way that didn't force churches to participate, that didn't give LGBT's any special privileges like the degeneracy we see now, I would have been fine with it. In short, as long as you lot were willing to act and dress like civilized humans, I could have cared less about what LGBT people did.
That is where it is now, to be clear. There is no force on churches currently, and although people are trying to put force on individuals to participate in weddings (also wrong) that's going to SCOTUS soon.
All I wanted was the government getting out of our lives, and equal recognition of straight and gay relationships. I got that, now I'm happy.
I do think the whole Pride Month and parades were something of a mistake. Mostly for the same reason I sort of think Black History month is a mistake.
It wasn't a mistake (at least the Parades weren't). It was highly successful at what it had to do: show the world that gays existed when it was normal to pretend they didn't, and thus ignore the horrors they went through. It was a highly successful tactic at solving one of the problems. Now it's just performative wokeness with all the use of a St Patrick's Day Parade, but at the time it really mattered.
Now I'm pretty sure that most LGBT people don't agree with the disgusting degeneracy we've been seeing as of late. But since none of you seem to be speaking up against it, it does not send a good message.
As an aside, on the subject of LGBT people getting tax breaks for getting 'married', I'd have to look more into why those tax breaks existed in the first place. (As I assume it was so it would be easier for married couples to raise children.)
Um, you don't seem to be paying attention to people who speak out against the LGBT craziness (which to be fair, wouldn't necessarily be in your wheelhouse), but they do exist, and are prominent. Scott Pressler is literally signing new republicans up by the thousands, trying to get out the vote. Arielle Scarcella is both very gay and very sex positive, while also still calling out this bullshit and pulling other gays away. The entire WalkAway movement. Buck Angel, Blaire White, and not least Dave Rubin. And that's just off the top of my head. There are absolutely LGBTs calling this shit out.
The thing is, getting to a mass movement takes time, when the instinctive response of every human is to defend their institution right or wrong. So there is progress being made, it's just going to take time. The anti-woke pressure in the community is slowly getting more and more powerful, and it's current biggest impact is getting LGBTs just to...
not contribute to woke stuff, when previously would. Give it time, it's less than a decade since we had to be on the opposite side and this wasn't even an issue.
I disagree. I think it came from elements who were with the LGBT community even at the beginning. One only has to cast an eye toward Alfred Kinsey and that one fellow whose name escapes me at the moment. His last name was Money or something similar, did trangender experimentation on a pair of twins or something?
There would have been crazy people who were LGBT, but there would have been no mass movement. There would be no point, no shared history, no culture etc. Just a different check box on a dating app.
The whole reason there was a LGBT community was repression. You get a bunch of people, exile them from society, and threaten them with draconian punishments, and voila, you get a community pretty quick. And that community had problems, but no access to solutions because of the exile from society, so ended up with some fucked up ideals.