Given that a major homophobic objection is ‘IT’S UNNATURAL’, proving it isn’t makes a strong point. Or at least shows the opposition are morons. There’s context here.
Yeah, this is really irritating. It’s a total strawman, that’s not how it works at all.
for clarification, someone asked on his tumblr:
angrybisexual said: Very few people actually believe it would be okay to oppress LBGT people if it weren’t for “gay penguins”. It is an argument that is used in the context of accusations of unnaturalness being thrown at queer people, nothing more.
I cited it as an example of the attitude I see a lot of relying on empiricism as a means of determining morality. I totally agree that that sort of statement is usually used in reaction to the queerness-is-a-choice attitude held by many. But it is frustrating that the anti-gay-rights side has dictated the terms of the entire argument: obviously it’s NOT a choice, but for either side to focus exclusively on whether it’s a choice or not pathologizes queerness and we should avoid it.
TLDR the penguin thing is a limited simplistic example (twitter) but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all be mindful of the ways we are framing this argument. give no ground and don’t let the bad guys dictate the terms.
I am writing this on my phone and watching soccer at a bar maybe not in best spot to have this sort of conversation. anyway I hope I make sense
I’ve been thinking about it and I actually do agree that a scientific basis for morality is just stupid, since science is purely descriptive. The thing is I didn’t think that was something atheists actually did, as a general rule. A rational basis for morality isn’t the same as a scientific one. Now, I don’t have much (or really, any) contact with “movement atheists,” I’m just over here in my corner not believing in god, so maybe I’m wrong idk. What I do know is that Christians frequently appeal to nature. So, maybe this is something atheists do and maybe it isn’t, but either way acting like it’s a problem unique to them is just disingenuous.
Also the only way the argument is being framed right now is the above argument. There is no quote from the so called ‘movement atheists’ we can see and object to.