I've recently just noticed that the SCP symbol has been Pride-ified, if you will, for Pride Month. Great job to the staff team that set that up. It looks great.
Only nerds have signatures
I disagree with this. Not from any place of hate nor malice but out of practicality. I would rather the SCP foundation hold itself in the same regards as the AA people do. Striving to keep its name out of all controversy or contention. I am the father of a kidnapped child. The ex wife took him to her home nation. Will their be mens rights advocacy in the SCP symbol next? No. nor am I asking for it. In the last four years the foundation has been a blessed escape for me. BY embedding us into this movement or that movement we invite the counter movements and the push backs and I really dont want that. I would rather we remain neutral neither endorsing nor discouraging anything but plainly and completely remaining neutral. Its fathers day this month. A day that will hurt immensely for me. Will their be a special fathers day SCP logo? In sincerely hope not. I dont want that. I dont want to be reminded of it. I want neutrality. Freedom from controversy. I just want to read about strange theoretical anomalies in peace.
The personal anecdote aside (for the record, I'm sorry that happened to you) this is the best argument against this I've ever heard.
I guess it's an okay argument? It amounts to conflating a symbol intended to signal inclusiveness to LGBTQ+ communities with making a political statement.
I'm going to make a "controversial" statement of my own, here: Being inclusive and accepting toward LGBTQ+ people is a "political issue" only in the same sense that asking American police to stop shooting black people is a "political issue".
That is to say: Yes, it's a political issue, but that's a bug, not a feature. It's a political issue only because politics are so warped that somehow, positions like "we should stop murdering all these black people" or "we should stop excluding all these gay people" have become controversial political positions.
Yep, just saw that too. Kinda wonder when it was brought up though, seems like you would've done that on the first. Still great job though.
Yeah, we got around to it late. That said, on all future pride months, we'll update it on the first like clockwork.
kinda nitpicking, the top black part kinda blend in with the wiki header's gradient—if the outline of the logo being another color, or if it have glow effect it might pops out better, heck reversing the header's gradient could also work, but it's a commendable effort nonetheless.
If anyone can create a logo that fixes this issue, I would be more than grateful.
if your reading this your gay
I've made what I think is an improvement on this, which more closely matches the original logo in terms of internal gradient and colour consistency, as well as also matching the external inset-shadow that the old one had (although it's not quite a perfect re-creation). There's also a drop-shadow thrown onto the logo itself to add a touch of depth-based contrast from the flag.
Preview of what it would look like in place
Big version so you can see all the flaws close-up
Dark version (resembles the old logo even closer)
(for recordkeeping purposes: current logo at time of this post)
Edit: new logo has just permeated on my end
Thank you! I will go with the light version of this logo. Please note that this can take up to a day, if not more, to change on the site (I had changed the logo a full day before any changes showed up for everyone else).
It doesn't actually take a day - you just need to refresh your image cache. You can do that manually by going into your browsers settings and clearing all of your cached images. When you reload the page, the image will appear properly.
I'm glad the implementation of it has been better received here than on FB… urgh god damn it Facebook.
Yeah, I came here specifically to see where there were any asshats/trolls that needed to be dealt with, but as of this post the thread is 100% goodness. "no loud bigoted trolls" is a low bar, but these days i take and praise what wins I get. Cheers all!
The brown part of the rainbow seems outta place, to be honest.
But great job! Glad to know this awesome community is even awesomer than I thought.
The brown and black is meant to represent POC who are part of the LGBT community and who's voices are frequently spoken over or silenced, as well as to honor the elders who started the gay rights movement (black trans women).
Of course! Every year we continue to get more awesome.
The brown and black is meant to represent POC who are part of the LGBT community and who's voices are frequently spoken over or silenced, as well as to honor the elders who started the gay rights movement (black trans women).
Didn't remember that. Now I look stupid!
Which I am, but…
Anyhoo, congrats and keep being this way, whoever read this!
Kina unrelated, but will we do something similar for July 4th with the American Flag?
This would be very, very cool.
Although, you can't forget Canada Day.
Down that road lies madness. With >190 countries on earth, you are gonna have to go full Google Doodle with something new every day and still probably make folks gump that you picked Svitz over Samothrace.
I'd honestly have no problem with doing it for every branch. But some countries like France don't have something like July 4th so it'd be a bit tricky to nail down when we should do it.
That would work just fine
But what about Germany, Spain, Russia, etc.?
That would be a problem with most multi-country branches (French,German, ESPECIALLY the Spanish one)
The multi country branches could have a vote on what flag they want for themselves
Yes. The (active, non-staff) Spanish branch members would vote against this by ample majority.
Trying to fix that. It's a work in process. It'll take a long time.
Of course we'll celebrate that. That's the 2nd most important holiday of the year
Most likely not, no. A special feature for that day isn’t out of the question, however.
Ah shoot. Well if it's ever on the table, here's something I whipped together in 15 minutes for the occasion. click here to view because IMGBB won't show it here
We've had special holiday-themed featured SCPs, for example. I think we could all enjoy SCP-2776 for Independence Day, for example.
I kind of hope not, because this is the English language SCP site, not the American nation SCP site.
We could do the something like it on Guy Fawkes day and Canada day with the appropriate flags to appease everyone.
But what about Australia? India? South Africa? There are a lot of nations with large native English speaking populations. As stated below, I actually love the US (or what I feel our people stand for, anyway) but I don't think nation-specific celebrations here are in our collective best interest.
You’re missing my point. The point isn’t "we need to include other English-speaking countries in this," it’s "the site is global even though its user base is mostly Americans and that global aspect needs to be remembered."
Also, Americans aren’t a marginalized group.
Realtalk, I am a filthy North American Imperial Space Marine someone who has a lot of love for the US and I don't think it's necessary. I could theoretically see something for Armistice Day or Victory in Europe Day because those are global celebrations. But US Independence Day has no bearing on our community. Pride is an international thing iirc and that's a big part of the reason staff is cool with saying, "yea it's SCPride month y'all"
You cowards. You should've gone whole hog with the CSS, as seen in this horrible abomination of design.
Visual cognitohazard. Truly you have Become Too Strong, Kaktus.
Actually this is homophobic bc I can’t use my draft page now bc I’m blinded by the site theme every time I try to use it and it inconveniences me, a known gay
/s
I personally think this is unecessary.
I think that it is important to note that The Foundation contains people with a wide variety of ideas. Not everyone supports the ideas behind pride week. This doesn’t mean we need to argue with each other. I’m not trying to troll anyone or start an argument. I do think it’s a little odd to change the logo for this one specific event. If we frequently changed the logo to support various groups, (Black History Month, Cancer awareness, etc.), I’d look at it differently. As it is, this seems a little strange and it doesn’t represent the entirety of The Foundation.
I recommend reverting the logo to its original form.
I can say this without getting 9003 angry comments right? In all seriousness, I’m not trying to start a discussion. I just wanted to represent a polite dissenting opinion. Thank you for your patience.
The site is an explicitly inclusive environment. Changing the emblem during Pride month is an act of explicitly showing support, however small. People who don’t support the idea behind Pride month are not the kind of people who will be a positive influence on the site, and thus they can and most likely will have to leave if they can’t keep homphobic and transphobic comments to themselves.
EDIT: Week??? Week???????? It’s fucking month god dammit shit idiot I am
I don't think that being homophobic is necessary for not supporting pride month. Some people may feel that pride month is abused by corporations for marketing and sales, which isn't inherently homophobic. Personally, I support pride month, and I like the new logo change, but I do agree that the site should try to stay as neutral as possible, when possible within reason. I think we shouldn't have a pride month change for the same reason we shouldn't have a Christmas logo change, despite Christmas being such a popular holiday, especially in the west. I don't think people should be ignored for having an unpopular opinion, even if said opinion is considered taboo. As long as the individual isn't directly disrespecting a specific person, inciting violence, or otherwise breaking the law, I wouldn't mind.
PS: I know that showing support for pride month would be different than changing your logo for christmas, as supporting LGBTQ+ is more about supporting a specific group of people rather than celebrating a holiday. I was more just debunking the claim that a majority of the site having an opinion/belief is excuse to ignore the minority.
In the end though, it's just a logo change for a month, and it probably won't have any lasting effect one way or another.
Thank you Vizlox for your eloquence.
I was specific with my wording; "the idea behind Pride month" rather than "Pride month" because yes, Pride has been co-opted by corporations interested in our money and little else (how especially vile in a community that suffers from high poverty and alcoholism rates…).
The fact that people aren’t being banned for (only) saying "I don’t like the change" indicates that the site isn’t ignoring our purposely ousting them. If we were ignoring anyone who didn’t like the change, half of the comments on this thread wouldn’t be here.
The corporation thing was an example of a valid reason to dislike pride month, there are more that would apply. It doesn't matter if you disagree with those opinions, because the fact that they are opinions is the point.
Also, I was referring to the ignorance of their opinions, not themselves in general. Sorry for the miscommunication.
I personally dont like being demonized or osterzized for being cis normative hetro. And that is not an invitation to attack me. You dont know me, my past , my friends , or anything I am not publicly declaring. I dont feel the SCP foundation needs to embroil itself into anything outside of creative writing. Endorsing one can exclude another. Neutrality should be our goal . You and I have a right to align or not align however we wish but I do not come here for alignments , I come here to read about anomalies in a safe place free from the outside politics of the world. Im not gonna wish anyone happy fathers day. Im not gonna wish anyone happy pride month. Im not gonna devalue or elevate , rather I am gonna advocate moderate neutrality.
Rainbows aren't oppressing you, or demonizing, or ostracizing or humiliating, or whatever. You aren't being oppressed whenever other people are not being oppressed, either.
I am a straight white dude too, and nobody here is demonizing or ostracizing us. They just temporarily changed a logo and it neither picks your pocket or breaks your leg.
This is a lot of words all to say that you think it’s somehow more virtuous to be cowardly. To not take a side. And what is the other side? Not "tolerating" or "accepting" lgbt people? That sounds like the side of ignorance. Moderate neutrality is worse than that ignorance. It’s pure cowardice.
Not changing our logo doesn't mean we don't accept LGBTQ+ people.
1. If we have a pride flag logo like we do now, we show support for them.
2. If we have the regular logo, we stay neutral.
3. If we have a homophobic logo change, to something offensive to LGBTQ+ people, it would be not supporting them.
No one is saying we should go with option 3 here. The only option that involves ignorance is option 3.
I don't see how being cowardly is involved in this. I'd appreciate some elaboration on why you think staying neutral would be cowardly. What would we be fearful of?
Not changing our logo doesn't mean we don't accept LGBTQ+ people.
No, of course not. But if the reason we don't want to change our logo is because we don't want to offend people who aren't supportive of LGBTQ communities, that is pretty cowardly.
I understand why some people perceive this situation as a form of ethics-based blackmail: "If you don't support changing the logo, you're clearly against LGBTQ, so fuck you." That's a nasty and manipulative sentiment, and not one I want to stand behind. It reminds me of demanding candidates in the US all wear flag-based lapel pins (otherwise they're clearly anti-America).
You don't have to support changing the logo; maybe you just don't think the message the change sends is as important as maintaining the aesthetic of the site. Maybe you don't buy that this is the message the logo is sending, or that this message is already clear enough to not need additional signaling. Okay. Those are positions I can understand (I disagree with them, but I can understand them). Heck, maybe you just think it looks ugly. That's fine; you're entitled to your aesthetic (and to promote it!).
But to oppose the logo because you oppose the message itself? That's a problem. And if we refrain from putting the logo up because people oppose that message? That's cowardice.
I never said I appose the message of the pride flag. I am not homophobic, or anything like that. I support LGBTQ+ pride. I also don't care if people get offended by the logo change. If someone gets offended by something so mundane as a logo, they need to be less sensitive.
I simply believe that the opinions of the minorities on the server shouldn't be ignored, even if a majority of the site may disagree with them. As long as someone isn't being disrespectful or hateful, they shouldn't be ignored.
I oppose the logo because it clearly chooses a side in the argument, when there are people that have been respectful and rational on both sides. I could understand why the site may have to make decisions that favor one side, but in a case like this where there is an option to easily stay neutral, while still not disrespecting any party, it should be taken.
Also, I don't understand how a certain opinion can be seen as cowardly. Any opinion can be expressed cowardly or bravely.
I never said I appose the message of the pride flag. I am not homophobic, or anything like that. I support LGBTQ+ pride. I also don't care if people get offended by the logo change. If someone gets offended by something so mundane as a logo, they need to be less sensitive.
And I neither said nor implied otherwise.
I think we're getting our wires crossed, here. My post wasn't meant to be antagonistic or accusatory; I presumed you were asking a question in good faith, so I responded in turn. Nothing I said was intended to express hostility.
I oppose the logo because it clearly chooses a side in the argument, when there are people that have been respectful and rational on both sides.
If the argument is whether or not we should be open and welcoming to LGBTQ people on this site, I am very open to choosing a side in this argument. I don't really care how respectful the opposition is; bigotry remains bigotry no matter how politely packaged. I'd be just as vehemently opposed to the KKK if they gave up their burning crosses and white hoods for neatly pressed suits and 'sophisticated' speeches.
If the argument is whether or not the logo should be on the site, well — that's a tautology ("I oppose the logo because it chooses a side in the argument as to whether or not we should have a logo").
Also, I don't understand how a certain opinion can be seen as cowardly. Any opinion can be expressed cowardly or bravely.
Okay, I'll give you an example: "We support LGBTQ people, but we don't want to offend people who don't support them. Therefore, we will refrain from using a logo that might offend those who oppose the existence of LGBTQ communities."
This is the sort of position I would describe as 'cowardly'. Supporting someone means opposing those who oppose their existence.
It is not cowardice to oppose the logo because you dislike the aesthetic, or don't think it sends a message of support, or because you think that message of support already exists (therefore making the logo unnecessary). I think these sentiments are incorrect — not cowardly.
I would also like this to stay as non-hostile and respectful as possible, I didn't take anything you said as hostile, and I wasn't trying to come off that way either. I think I may have taken a few things out of context, so the clarification was helpful.
But to oppose the logo because you oppose the message itself? That's a problem.
"And I neither said nor implied otherwise."
This is what I was referring to. Maybe it was a communication error, I don't want to assume.
To clarify, I was talking about the logo only. I am in full support of welcoming LGBTQ+ people. I believe anyone that is respectful and non-destructive should be welcomed on the site. I also agree that we shouldn't encourage prejudice.
I also don't share the same position as the people that are against the logo for aesthetic or other reasons you gave. I think it looks good, and does send a good message that the site supports LGBTQ+ pride month, but my problem is that this is false. The entirety of the site does not support it, for the reasons you gave.
Although we both find these sentiments to be incorrect, these reasons are still understandable and should be respected as they are not prejudice or mean spirited.
The 'you' there was not meant to be taken as specifically you; I presume you support the message (which is just one of inclusion and openness toward LGBTQ+ communities). I was directing it toward a hypothetical person who prefers to exclude LGBTQ+ communities.
Although we both find these sentiments to be incorrect, these reasons are still understandable and should be respected as they are not prejudice or mean spirited.
I don't particularly care how polite or nice someone is about their desire to exclude LGBTQ+ people from this community; if you think LGBTQ+ people don't belong here, then you don't belong here.
(Again, I'm not directing that 'you' at you. That's a generic you, not a specific one)
The notion that an opinion must be respected simply because it is expressed civilly — and in such a way that we can presume the person holding it isn't mean-spirited — remains a puzzling one. I've met plenty of people who are very polite and reasonable about their belief that my loved ones and I are abominations; that in no way made it less hurtful or frightening.
Again: If anything, well-intended bigotry is worse. These are the sort of people who end up thinking conversion therapy is a good idea.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to want to exclude bigoted people, because they are trying to exclude you? Why stoop to their level?
I can understand why having family that are polite yet believe you to be an abomination can be very difficult to deal with, but (at least for me) dealing with that kind of thing in real life is a lot harder to deal with than on the internet over text. As long as they aren't harassing, (which is against the rules anyway), it should be easy to ignore them if asking them to stop doesn't work.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I am speaking from my own perspective and obviously can't speak for your own.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to want to exclude bigoted people, because they are trying to exclude you? Why stoop to their level?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I don't mean to be insulting, but the notion that excluding bigoted people is in itself inherently bigoted is an extremely unsophisticated paradigm. You may as well argue that since imprisoning kidnappers is a form of kidnapping, we shouldn't do it.
I can understand why having family that are polite yet believe you to be an abomination can be very difficult to deal with, but (at least for me) dealing with that kind of thing in real life is a lot harder to deal with than on the internet over text. As long as they aren't harassing, (which is against the rules anyway), it should be easy to ignore them if asking them to stop doesn't work.
People who want to exclude LGBTQ+ communities from the wiki will work to exclude them from the wiki. I really don't care how polite they are about it; I don't want the wiki to include people who want to exclude LGBTQ+ communities.
I want a guarantee that this place won't one day turn into yet another place where articles about LGBTQ+ issues are "stupid and gay" and their authors are "a bunch of homos". Excluding people who are open about their desire to exclude us — however polite or 'respectful' they are about it — is one way to give me that guarantee.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to want to exclude bigoted people, because they are trying to exclude you?
I'm sorry, but this is an extremely dumb and self-defeating argument. It's inclusive to have one person say "I'm against this because it breaks immersion" and one person say "I'm for this because it supports my community". It's not inclusive to have one person say "I'm for this because it supports my community" and another say "I'm against this because gay people are wrong". That's just…. inflammatory, and it's boarderline (if not outright) feeding the trolls.
Since for some reason I am unable to reply to Hippo's previous post, I will just reply here since you are both making similar arguments.
That Wikipedia article was actually very insightful. From the article:
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument
In the name of preventing mass intolerance and destructiveness, we should not allow people who are both prejudice, and unwilling to engage in respectful debate. On the other hand, if they are willing to engage in meaningful, rational converse, they should not be punished.
Are we overlooking the fact that the LGBT symbol is supposed to represent inclusion of everybody?
It may be supposed to represent the inclusion of everybody, but as far as i'm aware, it is widely recognized as specifically accepting and including sexual orientation related minorities.
The flag would make a lot of sense as being inclusive of everyone, as the rainbow would symbolize inclusion of everyone of every form, but the flag has been used primarily by LGBTQ+ communities, and thus has adopted their movement in the eyes of a lot of people.
I simply believe that the opinions of the minorities on the server shouldn't be ignored, even if a majority of the site may disagree with them.
Okay, delete everything with even one downvote.
That was a very broad statement, and as you point out, doesn't really work under a lot of situations.
I would rewrite it as "The opinions of the minorities on the server shouldn't be ignored if a reasonable compromise can easily be made, that is satisfactory to both parties."
The 049 rewrite could be called a compromise, for example.
If you’re looking for """neutrality""" here you’re not gonna find it. The site is an explicitly inclusive place. Clarifying inclusion of a certain group doesn’t indicate exclusion of anyone else, and if that’s what you’re getting out of a logo change then I think you need to rethink the way you think about human interaction. Either that or you’re homophobic, in which case the site doesn’t tolerate that.
Legitimate question: If the site is explicitly inclusive, why do we need to specify that the site supports the LGBT community? We don’t need to send signs that Blacks and Hispanics are welcome and we never put up a sign for them.
Side note: I personally think the term homophobic is overused and applies to a small minority of people. To me homophobia suggests an irrational fear of homosexuality and it should not be applied to those people who disagree for religious or philosophical reasons.
Legitimate question: If the site is explicitly inclusive, why do we need to specify that the site supports the LGBT community? We don’t need to send signs that Blacks and Hispanics are welcome and we never put up a sign for them.
Because, in the past, this community has promoted, supported, and even celebrated a culture that was toxic to LGBTQ communities (and PoCs as well). The community has shed a lot of these toxic elements over the years, and is now significantly more inclusive — stuff like the logo helps clarify this both internally and externally. It's basically a way of saying, "We neither engage in nor tolerate that awful shit anymore".
For the record, I'd be happy to see something similar targeting other marginalized groups. The pride logo is probably just on account of having so many members of the community who are LGBTQ.
ETA:
To me homophobia suggests an irrational fear of homosexuality and it should not be applied to those people who disagree for religious or philosophical reasons.
This is likely beyond the scope of this discussion, but just to clarify: Learning that someone opposes my very existence for philosophical reasons rather than just seeing me as gross does not make me feel any less unwelcome. If anything, it's worse — people with internally consistent justifications for their intolerance are far more likely to promote things like 'electroshock conversion therapy'.
First off, you have my sympathy if anyone has recommended electrocuting you repeatedly. That is a difficult thing to hear.
I noticed you were saying that philosophical opposition was worse than irrationality. It’s actually a very interesting difference of perspective.
As far as I know, the philosophical arguments derive from the idea that LGBT people choose (whether consciously or subconsciously) to be the way they are. The LGBT community, obviously, disagrees. The situation then becomes not pseudoscientific medical procedures, but rather logical arguments to convince the other side. As for religious reasons, people are willing to die for their god so trying to convince them to change their minds is often a moot point. I’m writing this in an attempt to illuminate both sides of the argument and promote greater understanding.
As far as I know, the philosophical arguments derive from the idea that LGBT people choose (whether consciously or subconsciously) to be the way they are. The LGBT community, obviously, disagrees.
Whether or not LGBTQ+ people 'choose' to be the way they are isn't the point. It never was.
If, tomorrow, we used SCIENCE! to somehow verify that every single LGBTQ+ person on earth had chosen to be LGBTQ+, it wouldn't matter. Whether this is a choice or not doesn't change the fact that people should be permitted to 1) Be who they wish to be, 2) Love who they wish to love, and 3) Express that love how they wish to express it.
The pseudo-scientific nonsense is a sideshow. The core of this issue is an answer to a very simple question: Who gets to decide my identity? Who gets to decide who I love, and how? LGBTQ+ communities say that it should be up to yourself, and up to you and the people you love. The opposition says otherwise.
That's not even me straw-manning them. That's the opposition's position: Who you are, who you love, and how you love them are all things that you don't get to decide.
When the opposition's position is that fundamentally perverse, you don't have a lot of options in regards to respecting their world-view.
The idea is that if LGBT people choose to be the way they are, the issue is no longer a civil rights issue. It becomes an issue of ethics. If ethics are individual to each person, then those who disagree with the LGBT community are no better or worse than the LGBT community itself. They just have different ethical interpretations.
Being allowed to choose who I am — who I love — and how I love them — intersects with issues of civil rights. Besides, whether or not I 'choose' to be queer in no way changes my right to be queer.
It becomes an issue of ethics. If ethics are individual to each person, then those who disagree with the LGBT community are no better or worse than the LGBT community itself. They just have different ethical interpretations.
I am not a moral relativist, and I sincerely hope that neither are you. There are such things as 'shitty ethical systems'. Systems that denigrate and punish us for how we love each other are superb examples of this.
When it comes to morality, allowing people to be who they want to be — love who they want to love — and express that love how they want to express it — is about as uncontroversial as you can get. I'm very comfortable labeling any ethical system that argues otherwise as stupid at best — and outright evil at worst.
The problem is that when you "disagree with" other people's sexuality, it implies that they should be doing what you think they should be doing, instead of doing what they want to do.
There is a world of difference between saying "this is what I do" and saying "this is what you should do instead." If freedom and compassion are important in your value system, attempting to change unwilling people to be the way you'd prefer (or supporting the attempts of other people to do so) immediately puts you on the ethical low ground.
It was true when half the site wanted to write dickbottle tales and the other half wanted them to stop, and it's true now.
That is a bit disrespectful to say they need to change how they think. You can disagree with their opinion, but please respect it. They were respectful with their post, not calling out any one person or the like.
Although I agree that you shouldn't be demonized or ostracized for being a cis normative hetro, I don't think that really happens on this site. Unless you were referring to being demonized outside the wiki, which is understandable, but somewhat unrelated.
There seems to be a perception for some people that expressions or validations of opinions or lifestyles that are different from theirs are oppressing them somehow.
It isn't enough that their opinions are easily expressed or their own lifestyle be valid, they seem to think that they won't feel free as long as media exists that depicts positive images of contrary values and as long as the law permits contrary expressions. They view the freedom to oppress others as a fundamental right that is being infringed. They then expect to exercise this "right" in spaces they don't control and become frustrated when they aren't permitted to do so.
So the mere presence of a symbol of inclusiveness here is viewed as political oppression because it is undeniable evidence that they don't control this space and that they don't have the ability to force this space to be exclusionary.
This is, of course, part of the paradox that Great Hippo mentioned upthread. It is also paradoxical because groups that feel this way would certainly oppose each other, for example many Christian and Muslim religious fundamentalists political groups would happily exclude gay rights, but also religious freedom for each other, and claim that it violates their freedom of religious expression in societies where they aren't permitted to do so.
The solution to this paradox is simply to not recognize the freedom to the political oppression of others as any kind of meaningful right.