zuckerberg is "borderline autistic"????

Post Reply New Topic

Which has pushed less quiet groups off the radar. Its not like most Aspies have the numbers or the inclination to be as vocal, is it?

So why is the benchmark of what makes a good equality minister suddenly whether someone supports a semantics change? Or voted for section 28? Surely the benchmark should be for more important causes.

Saying it is not by societal argument shows nothing. The onus is on gay people to prove that someone is born gay - they should not be getting the priveleges ahead of people who can prove it. Moreover, it is definitely a choice to go into a job interview and announce that they are gay. I wish disabled people had that luxury.

You ignore the fact that in the UK, parents run similar campaigns. The NAS has £70 million a year in its budget. The reality is that gay rights are in the way.

It matters for the reason of legitmacy. Otherwise any religion someone invents could get this set of rights, ahead of the queue of those who actually deserve them.

I know of no evidence indicating that this is the case and the evidence I am aware of does not support your wider conclusion but rather undermines it.

Our inclinations are not the fault of homosexual people.

Do you have any idea how non-sequitor this question is?

I have no idea who this equality minister you refer to is, or even which geopolitical unit this minister is relevant to. I do know that homosexual rights have advanced markedly where I live in the last couple of decades and yet there has not been any equality minister valued suddenly on whether or not they support some unspecified change of semantics.


Surely I would not know because this is a local issue, restricted to a particular community and not something that is occurring everywhere homosexual people have advanced toward equality. If the cause were the one you cited rather than being under the influence of some localized variable, then I would know what section 28 is because this effect would be everywhere homosexuals have successfully advocated for their inclusion and equal treatment, but I do not know or even particularly care at this time about section 28.

I did not say it was not by societal argument, or indeed by any argument. I do not need an argument because I am merely countering a claim that you have made. The burden of the onus of evidence falls on you because you are positing a proposition. If you simply state it, a mere statement to the contrary is sufficient refutation. Only if you actually establish some kind of grounds for condsidering your assertion might be true, would I need any better refutation than a mere counter-statement.

The onus is on them to prove this for what purpose?
I do not care if they are born that way or not so far as their rights are concerned. I am not convinced that people are born butchers, bakers or candlestick makers, but I am convinced that we should not treat someone inequitably on the basis of being a butcher, baker or candlestick maker; this remains true even if such an identity is a life style choice. Changing "butcher/baker/candlestick maker to "homosexual" does not cause me to alter my conclusion that whoever the individual concerned is, they are as entitled to equitable treatment as anyone else.

Which is irrelevant since we are talking about rights, so there is no need to even inquire into what it is they should prove. Most people do not have to prove anything other than being alive and of the human species to access equitable rights where such are in effect. I see no reason to make an exception of homosexual people in this respect.


Some disabled people do have that choice and for many their disability makes no effective difference a lot of the time anyway. Many gay people do not have that choice, and further more it is not equitable that they should have to make a choice to be secretive about such a thing for fear their occupation will be effected.


I am not ignoring anything. Although you are clearly ignoring information inconvenient to your conclusion, including your own information. At the start of this post I am replying to, you claim that homosexual rights are pushing our's aside because we lack the numbers and inclination to act as effectively. Now you seem to want to argue that a difference in the number of advocates and their aptitude is countered by parents. Now either there is some influence from a difference in numbers in which case you should not be criticizing me for pointing out less advocacy being a factor, or there is no effect from a difference in numbers, in which case it was dishonest of you to imply such was negatively effecting us, not only relatively, but absolutely, at the outset of this post...

Again, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that "gay rights" are "in the way". None, not a bit.

That would only be the case if it were legitimate to deprive people of equitable human rights on the arbitrary basis of picking out some lifestyle choice and ripping away the rights of anyone who made that choice, just because we can.


Technically religions cannot have rights, although those people who practice them do have all the rights that homosexual people have, and can exercise these rights if they choose, and this does not change if they happen to make up and convert to some novel religion.

I have not read all of these posts, but my son does happen to be a very cute, white, 5 yr. old little boy who flaps his hands, doesn't listen to me, and attends a special school. He has been diagnosed as having an ASD. That just irritated me when I read that post, and I had to vent.

Look at say the UK - the last important piece of disability rights legislation was passed in the 90's, despite the UK government being socialist for the 13 years after said legislation was passed.

I never claimed so - but the fact that a group succeeds by being the loudest has a lot to do with the gay rights movement.

Again - I was referring to the UK.

No, the burden of proof falls on the gay rights movement and those who back them. There is no intrinsic right to shove ones dick up anothers arse and be respected for it. Or any other oddity that a group of people band together and campaign for.

I am suggesting that people get treated equally actually - that one arbitary group of petty whinners does not get special dispensation. Your the one who is against people being treated properly, it seems.

Why should one lifestyle choice be placed above another.

All gay people have that choice. Even the British government was forced into pointing that out.

Look at the UK over the last 13 years and explain why gay rights have hit the sky, whilst disabled rights have remained effectively stagnent. Now tell me that there is no pie being carved out.

Cultures (which religions are sadly a subset) are given rights, unfortunately.