jio wrote:I think all human rights are important but I also think some are more important than others. In that sense going from gay criminalization to decriminalisation is extremely important and so is recognition of trans rights. After that whether gays can go to the army, marry, adopt is all good and nice and definitely part of human rights development but not all that important in the general scheme of things, because there are other non-gay issues far more important. I also think that gay rights have been used as an excuse for walking over other kinds of rights and that's disgusting.
I think we cannot say this is more important than this.
Because when we move forward in any kind of human rights it's good for all of us.
I'll challenge your opinion.
There can be no gay rights without life although there can be life without gay rights. So obviously the right to life is more important than gay rights since it is a precondition for gay rights. And of course that doesn't just include the right to life of gays but of everybody. With this thinking for example Canada's policy of giving priority to gay Syrian refugees was ethically and morally wrong.
Secondly there can be no gay marriage without gay legal acceptance but there can be gay legal acceptance without gay marriage. So gay decriminalization is more important than gay marriage. But what gay decriminalization mean is accepting alternative ways of life in society (in this case gay way of life/self-expression), In that sense decriminalizing anything that makes a society less plural/diverse is more important than gay marriage.
Similarly the right to equal employment means nothing when the right to employment is not protected. If you can be employed under the same terms as anybody else, yet those terms do not confirm to the minimum requirements of fair employment it's completely useless, even if it's equal. Here I'd also argue that as far as the US is concerned equal employment/recruitment in the army of that country (or any country with a history of invasions really) does not constitute a right to celebrate at all as it can potentially help directly or indirectly violate the right to life of others so where do you draw the line?
I agree that if we move forward in any kind of human rights is good for us with one condition: that other rights that do not move forward at least stay put. Unfortunately I'd argue that we see certain kinds of rights moving forward whereas others moving backwards. A society which accepts gay marriage but for example criminalized Islamic dressing in the name of secularism cannot be considered a liberal society IMO, just a society that gives priority to one minority over another creating inequality.
All human rights should be moving forward but not all are and unfortunately many of us only care about what affects us personally. Although that's normal, it's only when we can accept rights of other people (that means rights that don't affect us personally) that society can really, truly move forward.