5 ms·

You might not realize this, but you come off a little bit anti-gay in your post. > Why are companies promoting "pride"? First of all, you don't need to put pr

You might not realize this, but you come off a little bit anti-gay in your post. > Why are companies promoting "pride"? First of all, you don't need to put pride in safety quotes. Second of all, gay rights are human rights. Companies promote them because it's the right thing to do, and because they want all the good things that come along with doing the right thing. I don't think it's all that complicated. Edit: If you're gonna downvote, at least say why you're downvoting.

ThomPete 8y ago
The right thing to do is not letting any one special cause dominate. My guess is that you arent tolerant of everyone either. Gays are humans they have human rights not gay rights its this idea thats gays are somehow more worthy of our support than say a conservative at a liberal workplace thats the crux of the problem. I dont care what people are, who they sleep with, what they believe, as long as i am not asked to offer them special considertations i wouldnt extend to others. Thats the right thing to do, not forcing conpanies to take up social caused for a small privileged group of vocal people.
- methodover 8y ago
  1. No one's saying that companies ought to only advocate for gay rights and leave behind every other issue. 2. I am tolerant towards everyone. It's actually not that difficult. 3. You seem to be a little confused on what gay rights are. Here's a summary: Gay people want to be treated fairly. We want our partner/spouse to be treated equally. We want our children to be treated equally. We want to not be fired for being gay. We don't want to be called names for being gay. We don't want people to hate us for being gay. These things are not special considerations. These things are basic rights. 4. The right thing to do is to be in favor of gay rights.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    1. No but you will have to prioritize which is exactly what is happening right now. That's a problem. 2. I agree so why question the Parents motives? 3. Not confused at all. Those are not gay rights they are human rights. You can replace the word gay with more or less anything and you will have the same. (Try read headed, try white, try black, try Swedish, try freckled, try fat). If you are a human you should have those rights no matter what you are and what you look like and what you believe. 4. The right thing to do is to be in favor of human rights. I see no reason why I should prioritize one thing over another. That's the very discrimination you seem to be advocating against.
    - methodover 8y ago
      “Those are not gay rights they are human rights” You are misusing the English language. When a minority is targeted with animus and their rights are systematically violated, we tend to label the campaign to fight back against those things: Gay rights/Pride, Women’s rights/Feminism, African American’s rights, etc. This is done as a matter of pragmatism. There’s no priortization of one group’s rights over another. Are you trying to say that when a minority is called out as being supported, that it makes you, who is not a member of that minority, feel left out? If not, then what is it? Be specific.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. Yes there is a prioritization of one groups rights over another and if you don't see that you need to look more careful. Do you think it's easy being fat, Ugly, Short, Stupid, Too skinny? You are proving my point. Supporting one group but not another i.e. putting resources into fighting for the acceptance of one group but not another is the very difintion of prioritization. How many more fat people do you think there are than LGBTQ+ The right thing to do is accept them all, not focus on one group instead of another. Treat them as humans give them the same rights, treat them with equal respect, because they are human not because they are gay or straight or black or white or asian or fat etc. It's about what I feel it's about what it is by definition when a workplace prioritizes the hardship of one group and not another. It goes deep into the corporate culture when it comes to hiring and decisions of who gets which position in the company etc. Thats exactly the opposite of what humanism is. It doesn't divide it includes it doesn't prioritize it simply treat everyone the same and that is not done by making on groups hardships more important than others. At least not in any form of humanism I am prepared to support.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        > I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. Sure. But the term "X rights" is emphasizing that X are being denied those human rights. The problem with saying you're in favor of "human rights" is that everyone will agree with you, even the ones causing the problems. They don't realize you're telling them to stop that discrimination, that that type of discrimination counts. That's why this language exists. And it's not a bad thing to prioritize groups that are being treated worse. Because when you try to prioritize no one, you often end up using the majority as the barometer of whether things are fine. The fact that some people have it a lot worse gets forgotten, and the problems go unfixed.

ThomPete 8y ago

The right thing to do is not letting any one special cause dominate. My guess is that you arent tolerant of everyone either. Gays are humans they have human rights not gay rights its this idea thats gays are somehow more worthy of our support than say a conservative at a liberal workplace thats the crux of the problem. I dont care what people are, who they sleep with, what they believe, as long as i am not asked to offer them special considertations i wouldnt extend to others. Thats the right thing to do, not forcing conpanies to take up social caused for a small privileged group of vocal people.

methodover 8y ago
1. No one's saying that companies ought to only advocate for gay rights and leave behind every other issue. 2. I am tolerant towards everyone. It's actually not that difficult. 3. You seem to be a little confused on what gay rights are. Here's a summary: Gay people want to be treated fairly. We want our partner/spouse to be treated equally. We want our children to be treated equally. We want to not be fired for being gay. We don't want to be called names for being gay. We don't want people to hate us for being gay. These things are not special considerations. These things are basic rights. 4. The right thing to do is to be in favor of gay rights.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  1. No but you will have to prioritize which is exactly what is happening right now. That's a problem. 2. I agree so why question the Parents motives? 3. Not confused at all. Those are not gay rights they are human rights. You can replace the word gay with more or less anything and you will have the same. (Try read headed, try white, try black, try Swedish, try freckled, try fat). If you are a human you should have those rights no matter what you are and what you look like and what you believe. 4. The right thing to do is to be in favor of human rights. I see no reason why I should prioritize one thing over another. That's the very discrimination you seem to be advocating against.
  - methodover 8y ago
    “Those are not gay rights they are human rights” You are misusing the English language. When a minority is targeted with animus and their rights are systematically violated, we tend to label the campaign to fight back against those things: Gay rights/Pride, Women’s rights/Feminism, African American’s rights, etc. This is done as a matter of pragmatism. There’s no priortization of one group’s rights over another. Are you trying to say that when a minority is called out as being supported, that it makes you, who is not a member of that minority, feel left out? If not, then what is it? Be specific.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. Yes there is a prioritization of one groups rights over another and if you don't see that you need to look more careful. Do you think it's easy being fat, Ugly, Short, Stupid, Too skinny? You are proving my point. Supporting one group but not another i.e. putting resources into fighting for the acceptance of one group but not another is the very difintion of prioritization. How many more fat people do you think there are than LGBTQ+ The right thing to do is accept them all, not focus on one group instead of another. Treat them as humans give them the same rights, treat them with equal respect, because they are human not because they are gay or straight or black or white or asian or fat etc. It's about what I feel it's about what it is by definition when a workplace prioritizes the hardship of one group and not another. It goes deep into the corporate culture when it comes to hiring and decisions of who gets which position in the company etc. Thats exactly the opposite of what humanism is. It doesn't divide it includes it doesn't prioritize it simply treat everyone the same and that is not done by making on groups hardships more important than others. At least not in any form of humanism I am prepared to support.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        > I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. Sure. But the term "X rights" is emphasizing that X are being denied those human rights. The problem with saying you're in favor of "human rights" is that everyone will agree with you, even the ones causing the problems. They don't realize you're telling them to stop that discrimination, that that type of discrimination counts. That's why this language exists. And it's not a bad thing to prioritize groups that are being treated worse. Because when you try to prioritize no one, you often end up using the majority as the barometer of whether things are fine. The fact that some people have it a lot worse gets forgotten, and the problems go unfixed.