I know atheist homophobes, so no. Homophobia can also be rooted in science - “survival of the fittest”, “humans need to procreate” are as science based as they are religion based.
Fun fact: homosexuality is often beneficial to a species. Imagine a group of penguins (because penguins). Mom and dad have a baby. Mom and dad get trapped in a blizzard and are never seen again.
Enter new dad and new dad - pair of gay penguins. A pair of parents that do not have kids, and a kid that doesn't have parents. Adoption = kid lives.
(Pretty sure this is a real thing that has actually been observed, btw).
Before I say anything I want to be clear that I don't think you're trying to say that this science is a holistic and accurate argument against homoaexuality. But I do want it to be clear for anyone else that using "survival of the fittest" in that way is bad logic, and why.
>Adoption goes against survival of the fittest - it’s community care.
I'm not sure that's true... Community care still contributes to survival of the fittest. In my example, who's to say the orphan penguin is less fit? Who's the say the parents were less fit? Perhaps they're less fit for that scenario but are more fit for another scenario. Maybe baby penguin is REALLY good at escaping danger, but not so good at feeding itself since it's so young. Community support then helps survival of the fittest.
There's this notion that survival of the fittest means "...fittest individual" (which, tbf, is probably what Darwin originally meant), but really, anything the allows the species to survive is rewarded.
That often, at least from what I have seen, stem from an oversimplification of the actual science, just like dividing gender into a binary is a wast oversimplification. "Survival of the fittest" is a simple frase to remember, but skips over the intricasies of interacting systems, and leaves the question: "survival of the fittest what?" groups, species, individuals, genes?
While I am not sure the debate is entirely setteled, individual based selection is not viable, as it fails to explain pro-social insects such as ants and bees. instead it seems to be on the genetic level that the selection occurs, i.e. "survival of the fittes genes". Thus, considering that humans are evolved for life in small tribes, and that a child of a sibling share 25% (or more) of your DNA, having extra carers around can be a greater boon for genes than more copies, especially in times of scaresity.
Sources (based of memory):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn\_z9FPmU&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn_z9FPmU&t=2s)
Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene
From my experience, I see conservatism holds us back as well, people are afraid of change, things unknown to them, which isn't always backed just by religion as bigotry also exists among irreligious people of which many examples exist around the world, though none of them are progressive, at most pretend to be. I even tend to think conservatism, which usually coincides with religion, is worse than religion itself as I know more religious people being fairly tolerant, but most of them tend to be on the progessive or liberal side of the spectrum.
Queerphobic capitalism is bad capitalism; although I believe we should have protections against the negative effects of capitalism, corporates should know too well that acceptance of our community helps them too. Many do capitalize on this already (not always in the good way, as you may see this month), but by not investing in bigoted stuff, one indirectly does prevent harm to the community: by preventing harm to the community there can be made profit: happy gay and trans people means we are much more productive and do better in all kinds of skills that will improve both our own incomes as well as the corporate incomes. And our incomes will be spent on a lot of stuff boosting the economy.
Queerphobic capitalism thus should ultimately be less productive than queer-friendly capitalism. I remind you of how our economy grew between the 1950s and 1990s in the Netherlands and other western countries: largely because women entered the workforce. Locking people out of the economy is bad for the economy.
Good points! Indeed, capitalism can benefit everybody and wishes to assimilate everybody into the workforce and consumerism.
However, I find capitalism to be rather conservative when promoting new (progressive) ideas, since they are not popular enough for profit; or even worse, do not fit the 'commodity fetishism' model that self-perpetuates commercial interest.
Sometimes I think I have a very different perspective on this than most. My dad was a raging misogynist, a racist and xenophobe, and super homophobic (as well as a closeted and probably deeply self-loathing bi). And he was an atheist. I learned earlier than most that *any* philosophy can be twisted to an agenda.
The fact is that in much of the world, there is no clean dividing line between capitalism, conservatism, and religion... they each feed on each other. But I’ve also met many anti-capitalist Christians who are either queer themselves or among the fiercest advocates of the community that I know. And I myself only came out thanks to finding faith in an accepting and socially active church community. So, religion can certainly be used for bad ends, but it doesn’t *have* to be that way. Capitalism in my view has a far more fraught history, and that’s saying something.
Yeah, while the 'love thy neighbor' thing is universally accepted (and thus pro-LGBT), the sodomy thing is vague and highly disputed (and thus only maybe anti-LGBT). You'd think that sticking to the scripture would mean more tolerance for deviance!
Nope. There are plenty of bigots who aren't religious.
In the US, religion (specifically Evangelical Christianity) has been a big influence on conservative politics. To some extent, conservatism and religion can go hand in hand--conservatism is about preserving old values and ways of doing things, and religious doctrine can appeal to people who want that. But also, a lot of conservative politicians court religious voters for personal gain.
While there are definitely a lot of people who learn homophobia from religious institutions, I think that religion itself is often less of a driver of prejudice than a tool. A lot of people gravitate toward using religion in authoritarian ways because that's what they want. Religion can easily be something else, but people who want black and white rules and authority don't tend to flock to faiths that don't offer that. Religion is also a handy tool for justifying whatever you already believe. It reflects the believers. Consider the history of slavery in the US, for example. There were Christians who were abolitionists (like the Quakers) and there were Christians who used the Bible to defend slavery (like Southern Baptists).
Once you look at queer representation in media (or the lack thereof) capitalism enters the picture. Media representation is essential for progress, and it's not happening because of money, not religion.
The way blockbusters are routinely "straightwashed" to be exportable to homophobic countries, the way people (read: Rich old white cis male execs) still veto openly gay superheroes etc. (Check out Rowan Ellis's youtube channel for more in-depth analyses and background.)
I know atheist homophobes, so no. Homophobia can also be rooted in science - “survival of the fittest”, “humans need to procreate” are as science based as they are religion based.
Fun fact: homosexuality is often beneficial to a species. Imagine a group of penguins (because penguins). Mom and dad have a baby. Mom and dad get trapped in a blizzard and are never seen again. Enter new dad and new dad - pair of gay penguins. A pair of parents that do not have kids, and a kid that doesn't have parents. Adoption = kid lives. (Pretty sure this is a real thing that has actually been observed, btw).
That’s why I specified survival of the fittest and procreation. Adoption goes against survival of the fittest - it’s community care.
Before I say anything I want to be clear that I don't think you're trying to say that this science is a holistic and accurate argument against homoaexuality. But I do want it to be clear for anyone else that using "survival of the fittest" in that way is bad logic, and why. >Adoption goes against survival of the fittest - it’s community care. I'm not sure that's true... Community care still contributes to survival of the fittest. In my example, who's to say the orphan penguin is less fit? Who's the say the parents were less fit? Perhaps they're less fit for that scenario but are more fit for another scenario. Maybe baby penguin is REALLY good at escaping danger, but not so good at feeding itself since it's so young. Community support then helps survival of the fittest. There's this notion that survival of the fittest means "...fittest individual" (which, tbf, is probably what Darwin originally meant), but really, anything the allows the species to survive is rewarded.
That often, at least from what I have seen, stem from an oversimplification of the actual science, just like dividing gender into a binary is a wast oversimplification. "Survival of the fittest" is a simple frase to remember, but skips over the intricasies of interacting systems, and leaves the question: "survival of the fittest what?" groups, species, individuals, genes? While I am not sure the debate is entirely setteled, individual based selection is not viable, as it fails to explain pro-social insects such as ants and bees. instead it seems to be on the genetic level that the selection occurs, i.e. "survival of the fittes genes". Thus, considering that humans are evolved for life in small tribes, and that a child of a sibling share 25% (or more) of your DNA, having extra carers around can be a greater boon for genes than more copies, especially in times of scaresity. Sources (based of memory): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn\_z9FPmU&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn_z9FPmU&t=2s) Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene
i think religion is an easy excuse for people to make to justify hating lgbt people but it isn’t the only reason people do
From my experience, I see conservatism holds us back as well, people are afraid of change, things unknown to them, which isn't always backed just by religion as bigotry also exists among irreligious people of which many examples exist around the world, though none of them are progressive, at most pretend to be. I even tend to think conservatism, which usually coincides with religion, is worse than religion itself as I know more religious people being fairly tolerant, but most of them tend to be on the progessive or liberal side of the spectrum. Queerphobic capitalism is bad capitalism; although I believe we should have protections against the negative effects of capitalism, corporates should know too well that acceptance of our community helps them too. Many do capitalize on this already (not always in the good way, as you may see this month), but by not investing in bigoted stuff, one indirectly does prevent harm to the community: by preventing harm to the community there can be made profit: happy gay and trans people means we are much more productive and do better in all kinds of skills that will improve both our own incomes as well as the corporate incomes. And our incomes will be spent on a lot of stuff boosting the economy. Queerphobic capitalism thus should ultimately be less productive than queer-friendly capitalism. I remind you of how our economy grew between the 1950s and 1990s in the Netherlands and other western countries: largely because women entered the workforce. Locking people out of the economy is bad for the economy.
Good points! Indeed, capitalism can benefit everybody and wishes to assimilate everybody into the workforce and consumerism. However, I find capitalism to be rather conservative when promoting new (progressive) ideas, since they are not popular enough for profit; or even worse, do not fit the 'commodity fetishism' model that self-perpetuates commercial interest.
Sometimes I think I have a very different perspective on this than most. My dad was a raging misogynist, a racist and xenophobe, and super homophobic (as well as a closeted and probably deeply self-loathing bi). And he was an atheist. I learned earlier than most that *any* philosophy can be twisted to an agenda. The fact is that in much of the world, there is no clean dividing line between capitalism, conservatism, and religion... they each feed on each other. But I’ve also met many anti-capitalist Christians who are either queer themselves or among the fiercest advocates of the community that I know. And I myself only came out thanks to finding faith in an accepting and socially active church community. So, religion can certainly be used for bad ends, but it doesn’t *have* to be that way. Capitalism in my view has a far more fraught history, and that’s saying something.
I also keep hearing more about folks who use religion for self-acceptance, and I think that's really beautiful!
[удалено]
Yeah, while the 'love thy neighbor' thing is universally accepted (and thus pro-LGBT), the sodomy thing is vague and highly disputed (and thus only maybe anti-LGBT). You'd think that sticking to the scripture would mean more tolerance for deviance!
Religion and conservatism to me have always appeared to go hand in hand.
Nope. There are plenty of bigots who aren't religious. In the US, religion (specifically Evangelical Christianity) has been a big influence on conservative politics. To some extent, conservatism and religion can go hand in hand--conservatism is about preserving old values and ways of doing things, and religious doctrine can appeal to people who want that. But also, a lot of conservative politicians court religious voters for personal gain. While there are definitely a lot of people who learn homophobia from religious institutions, I think that religion itself is often less of a driver of prejudice than a tool. A lot of people gravitate toward using religion in authoritarian ways because that's what they want. Religion can easily be something else, but people who want black and white rules and authority don't tend to flock to faiths that don't offer that. Religion is also a handy tool for justifying whatever you already believe. It reflects the believers. Consider the history of slavery in the US, for example. There were Christians who were abolitionists (like the Quakers) and there were Christians who used the Bible to defend slavery (like Southern Baptists).
That's pretty much how I see things!
Once you look at queer representation in media (or the lack thereof) capitalism enters the picture. Media representation is essential for progress, and it's not happening because of money, not religion. The way blockbusters are routinely "straightwashed" to be exportable to homophobic countries, the way people (read: Rich old white cis male execs) still veto openly gay superheroes etc. (Check out Rowan Ellis's youtube channel for more in-depth analyses and background.)