3 ms·

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 c

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
      In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all. You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there and thus it becomes a political statement were open doors are kicked in because it's popular NOT because it's important in those companies to focus on "gay rights". So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies.
      - methodover 8y ago
        > In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all. It's not ironic. It's causal. Discrimination against minorities is less of an issue in companies where minorities are explicitly and openly accepted. There's a causal relationship there. > You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there They might be for now, but the world outside is less accepting. So long as the world outside has a problem with minorities, companies need to be steadfast about ensuring that the animus outside doesn't survive inside. Think of it like a vaccine. > So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies. Uhh, virtue signaling is still a great reason to be supportive of minorities?

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
    In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all. You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there and thus it becomes a political statement were open doors are kicked in because it's popular NOT because it's important in those companies to focus on "gay rights". So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies.
    - methodover 8y ago
      > In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all. It's not ironic. It's causal. Discrimination against minorities is less of an issue in companies where minorities are explicitly and openly accepted. There's a causal relationship there. > You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there They might be for now, but the world outside is less accepting. So long as the world outside has a problem with minorities, companies need to be steadfast about ensuring that the animus outside doesn't survive inside. Think of it like a vaccine. > So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies. Uhh, virtue signaling is still a great reason to be supportive of minorities?