I don't have a problem with PEOPLE, provided of course they aren't total fuckwits (regardless of any kind of sexual orientation)
I am not keen on this apparent obsession of developing a label for every single possible sexual inclination and potential variant.
Like Pan sexual for example - the definition being given upthread seems very anti trans to me. If a bi sexual woman starts a relationship with a trans male, then all of a sudden she is pan sexual? What? Surely if you are going along with a positive trans attitude then that's a totally unnecessary, and pretty cruel, distinction to be making.
Not everything has to have such a specific label on it. Someone upthread was talking about ethnicity. A rough equivalent would be starting with labels like
I'm french
I'm Russian-Portugeuse
I'm a word which means I am specifically a mix of irish and french, but lived outside of those countries and now reside in country X
I'm a word which means that my parents are from X, I live in Y, but I have a passport to Q.
People can call themselves whatever they like, but at some point it does become quite ridiculous in it's...what, unnecessity?
I am personally very pro gay marriage and gay adoption. However, I can see how for some people, they associate "marriage" with their particular religious faith. If that faith does not allow homosexuality, then they consider allowing gay marriage as being an insult to the written law of their faith.
What they don't seem to understand is that marriage has been around long before christianity was invented. Or Islam. Judaism maybe but I can't think of any specific examples offhand.
No specific religion "owns" the concept of marriage.
However, I would be against forcing churches to conduct gay marriages. That would be forcing them to breech their faith.
I'm not so sure why people would be against gay adoption. In France even very secular people are against it. It's quite bizarre. Maybe they think it's a communicable thing? 