[@Dynamo Frokane] Historically infertile women were given a lot of shit actually, and so were men that were considered infertile (because it wasn't possible to prove it back then). So you are wrong in that department. It has nothing to do with 'considering it normal' because infertility for straight couples historically resulted in shit too. In fact for a woman it was considered dangerous too. Because women didn't work = women didn't earn income = women relied on husbands to earn = husbands wanted a child to further their family line. No child = no food on the table = death. 

[quote=http://www.bustle.com/articles/76161-how-infertility-was-talked-about-throughout-history-because-to-fight-a-taboo-you-need-to]The overall impression, though, is that infertility has often been a frightening and societally damaging experience — and that women usually suffered for it.

In a pre-IVF, pre-feminist world, where motherhood and the ability to carry sons often proved a woman's worth, childlessness was challenging and dangerous — for everybody involved. So nowadays, if you're struggling to get pregnant, give a thought to the women in the past who've shared your fight. You're all part of the same surreal, difficult club.[/quote]

[quote]Ancient Indian childless women appeared not to have a good life either. One of the earliest Vedic texts reads: "O woe is the woman who does not carry out the provided role of a mother [birth of sons]. O woe the unmarried, woe the childless, woe the mother of daughters, the widow." Women who couldn't get pregnant were viewed as "possessed by Nirrti," a particularly ferocious goddess, and could be cast away out of the family unit.[/quote]

Read a history book my man.

Generationally (that word comes up a lot when discussing social issues) we have gotten past that just like we will get past homophobia. But applying pressure like the LGBT community does now by forcing people to get over it is counteractive and makes it take longer to get over it. It makes people feel forced to do something and if anything, people don't like to be forced to do things. 

I am unsure how protesting social acceptance would do any good. 'WE DEMAND YOU ACCEPT US' that's great, but.. who is going to listen to that? Do you expect to sway the hillbilly Christian who totes guns at homosexuals that steps too close to his property? How? He's not gonna have an epiphany, come on.

Race relations also don't improve with government bills but they're a start. Equal opportunity does not equal equal outcome. But it can lead to equal outcome. For example, lets say blacks were now getting educated (which they are more and more) meaning they're legally and socially on more equal footing with other races (let's say whites, because that's the prime target group I guess). 

Not only that but it brings them into areas that were previously predominantly white, and perhaps Asian and Euro-Hispanic. That makes them mix with white people and other races, and it begins the fostering of the understanding of different cultures and the feeling that perhaps they are not so different after all. The in-group is no longer defined by skin color alone, but also by just sharing the same space, talking, etc. 

Now imagine the same for homosexuals. They have the same rights and equal access to the same agencies and possibilities. Instead of mingling with the majority and fostering the growth of the in-group relations, they choose to out themselves at gay prides to show 'look how different we are!' Do you think that straight people will go 'well damn, they're kinda like us after all!!!' Fuck no. 

Most people will no care, and those hard-liners that were already against homosexuals will see the.. half naked men.. and go 'GOD DAMN WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG' and continue toting guns. Like I said before, acceptance is already at a very high level in city areas, and as mentioned by Jigg, the areas that do not have a lot of acceptance are full of hard-liners that are not going to chance their mind with gay prides.