Heterosexual Kissing Leads to Life!

In response to hearing that a gay director is going to put his gay dick right into the faces of American families who watch his otherwise quite popular cartoon show "How to Train your Dragon," here's quotes from my thoughts on the issues at hand - as posted in an online forum dealing with exchanges idea & info between Mormons & non/ex-Mormons:

=================

----quote begins of posting 1:

Lame boring inane PC bullshit (such a film / franchise feeling the need to do such a thing).

May be child abuse.

By comparison, IF Mr. Rogers was gay, he should not have revealed that to his toddler audience, period.

My "fellows" on the left would claim that I don't even have a right to such an opinion.

But ultra PC directors feel the need to put gay dicks right in our faces.

Keep your Jesus off my penis cuts both ways.

Which otherwise sinking political/cultural boat can I jump to? Seems like both the leftie and rightie boats have some issues.

Maybe my own boat will float better. We'll see.

----quote begins of posting 2:

In response to someone who claimed we need to view everything as equal, I then wrote:

Hetero kissing leads to life.

Non-hetero leads to the opposite, in many ways, and by default.

Q. Do we need to make gay marriage & sex equal?

A. No. It will never be equal. Not so long as two men and/or two women cannot >naturally< make babies.

The whole concept of pushing for forced equality is incredibly abusive & wrong headed, and indicative of a greater problem with the liberal left.

Why is it harmful to expose children to the "strong possibility" of being gay? Because gayness is far less set in stone than the left will admit. Perhaps a bit more biological in *some* cases than the right will admit. But still, having children sucked into what is essentially a death cult (speaking frankly) is abusive.

Cartoons? Books for 2-9 year olds? Are you (ie: that is, the advocates that gayness be presented as "equal" to children) serious?

What if the presentation of gayness-as-equal to a kid robs them of a life in a normal marriage with kids? What if?

That ain't so bad - so says the liberal. The planet already has too many people already. Hey, the more people that become gay the better.

Now, you have to realize that my observations & views come after a LOT of observations of my own, at MANY liberal leftist social meetings, plus gay bars, plus gay parties, from perhaps 1995 through 2012.

Is exposure to the Stonewall agenda inherently abusive & damaging to children? I maintain it is. And I ain't a Mormon, nor a Catholic.

Rather, I'm a naturalist & science advocate who happens to maintain that 14.5 billion years of evolution, and the development of sexual reproduction with males & females being present counts for something - as it should.

Children sucked into the gay lifestyle may well be robbed of a life which could be more happy & productive.

Liberal heresy.

Oh, I'm just latching on to the beliefs I had in the past. I don't think so. It's not that simple.

Can I channel at least a bit of my wife's views on this issue, and work to intellectually stand up for how humans think who had ZERO exposure to Mormonism, Catholicism, and so on?

Anyway, yes there's gay people & there will continue to be.

I just advocate for the position that gay "marriage," or whatever you want to call it will NEVER be as valuable to humanity as normal straight marriage. That's it.

And comparisons to the banning of interracial marriage is not only a complete and utter non-sequitur, it's abusive and inane to even make such a comparison.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/

"...Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage. The reason for this, writes libertarian economist Jennifer Roback Morse, is that 'marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.' Hence, this explains its standing as an uncontroversial common law liberty. 'By contrast,' Morse goes on to write, 'same-sex 'marriage' is completely a creation of the state. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple...'"

Quite so.

---

More apt responses from
http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-viking-in-how-to-train-your-dragon-2-revealed-i-love-the-idea-says-director-video-119910/

"Seriously? Putting this in a children's movie?" eb wrote on the EOnline blog. "I have absolutely no problem with any homosexual people but the way [it's] pushed down everyone's throats now [it's] getting out of hand."

"My very young kids love this franchise. However, this is not a conversation my wife and I are prepared to have yet. It's immensely frustrating that Hollywood feels complete autonomy to force these issues on our kids," another user agreed.

---

Additional related thoughts:

Family Values Atheism: Questioning liberal dogma -- the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here -- questioning gay marriage -- secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html


----quote ends of posting 2:

After receiving several replies in an online forum, I drafted the following pointed reply:

----quote begins of posting 3:

One million posts. Can't you put your thoughts into a single post. Every point doesn't need to be in a separate post.

I only have two hands.

Were you drunk when you replied? Jonathan Brown?

LGBT rights today. Zoophile & NAMBLA tomorrow.

This JPAC guy does have a point...

























---

I waded through the load of shit you both put out. My goodness - a lot.

I can see why the religious look at the left and say: fuck, I ain't leaving my religion just to join up with those amoral fucks.

Quite so.

They have a good point.

Out of all the liberal smoke blowin', I did see one or two things worth responding to.

"You understand that homosexuality is found in pretty much all species on earth right?"

WGAF.

In "human nature" we also have: Zoophilia. Man-boy "love" (pedophilia). Sociopathy. Psychopathy. Schizophrenia. And so on.

Also, there happens to be biological roots behind whether a person likes Obamacare, or not. Whether they worship Ayn Rand, or not. And so on.

Just because something is natural, doesn't "make it right or useful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Human males & females have babies. Marriage is about family & babies.

Hey, put your dick in ALL the assholes in the world, and you will NEVER produce a baby from that act.

Don't like that? Too bad.

If you're a lesbian, you may well dream of parthenogenesis.

Do you cheer when you hear about the supposed decline of the Y chromosome?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17127617

http://wi.mit.edu/news/archive/2012/theory-rotting-y-chromosome-dealt-fatal-blow

---

God doesn't hate fags. But evolution by natural selection may have a few concerns about such activities, like it or not.

Liberals do have their heads right up their asses when it comes to equating gay marriage with normal regular long standing 14.5 billion year history marriage.

Right up their fucking asses. So, that's it.

Whoever the hell black atheists are?

Rich gay crackers w/no children commitments (of course!) are invading their neighborhoods & making the housing prices go up. No wonder they're more than a little upset.

Also, and here's the kicker for any liberal dumbshit:

Fully natural human morality exists in religion. In the Bible.

Now, as per my own ref. to the naturalistic fallacy, we do have to be careful. But on the other hand, the highly useful shaming (in some cases) that exists in human CULTURES, the shaming that helps us thrive and survive, some of that shaming IS valuable.

Not everything is equal. The LDC maintains it is.

Good job. In 100 years you may not have left any speck on the Great Mandala. But, in the de facto apparent dreams of all liberals, at least NAMBLA group members and Zoophiles will be able to marry, along with the LGBT crowd.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/787617/posts

NOT so distant a connection as you might think, leftie liberal with your head in the sand.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/response-to-site-claims-attack-by-lds.html

And again, I fucking like Obamacare. Yes, Ayn Rand was a dumbshit.

BUT, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist & so on.

So, the Blacks in America who're concerned about this negative abusive part of cracker culture do have a point.

----quote begins of posting 4:

Further:

In response to "14.5 billion years of marriage? Don't think it was your idea of marriage for that long," I replied:

The number has gone up & down a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

13.8 - 4.54 = 9.26 billion just to get our Earth going, with the more rare elements coming from exploded stars.

Another 2 to 3 billion to get sexual reproduction.

60 MYBP (million years before present) for primates

20 MYBP for great apes

2.5 MYBP for the homo genus

200,000 years before present for the first anatomically modern humans

And 10 to 40 years ago for the assumption that gay "marriage" is equal to straight normal regular marriage.

We may as well consider this *assumption* to be a side-effect of how human neural networks can go "right off the rails," as with any religion.

Maybe some day, two vaginas, or two dicks, will produce children.

Hey it happens in other animals, moving back, and speaking generally about asexual reproduction.

Crafty lesbians are finding a way to get sperm into their hoohaws, by hook or by crook. I suppose one can admit that such an action is also "natural," since all actions by humans are by default natural.

Whatever.

I just think there's value in advocacy for honoring long standing history, and with taking a step back.

Completely discounting the shaming propensities that exist in ALL human cultures is a wrong headed & destructive response.

Can liberals accept that children may, ideally, need a mommy & a daddy?

Marry if you want (as a gay). But, don't so easily discount what evolution by natural selection may have instilled into the brain of a child some naive judge may have allowed into your home.

Ukraine; sex should result in children; atheist religion; capitol building should be open

On Ukraine & Russia: Russia is lying.

About Jian Ghomeshi & Terry Gross: the childless-gay interviews of public radio.

The way you love does matter.

If you love the wrong way you might just get AIDS, die, and leave your straight family with no father.

You can have abuses on both sides.

Atheists of Utah: one big problem with this group is that the focal point for their activities is attending the yearly gay pride festival in Salt Lake.

Regarding human sexuality: Unless kids come along naturally, you can end up with a life that goes nowhere.

Inherently non-reproductive sexuality does, in the long term, go nowhere.

To my fellow atheists & naturalists: will you try to eject me from your de facto church?

I can see why Tom in Portland went back to evangelical Christianity. Poor dating prospects in the secular groups, which are usually highly populated by gay fat women with strange hair.

Having kids is a good thing.

We need to reform atheist groups: extracting such groups from the dogmatism of the left.

Currently if you don't adhere to the ultra-liberal agenda you will undergo a heresy & excommunication trial in many secular / atheist / naturalist groups.

Regarding the GCHQ spying on the intimate activities of people who use Yahoo Messenger to have webcam chats: That does go too far. Gathering connection to connection data into a large database is one thing. But keeping content data, and being able to watch en-masse webcam chats by regular people, without court approval for each search of actual content does go too far.

The U.S. Capitol Building should be returned to the people, for open walking around. Right now it is most definitely not a "temple of freedom." Perhaps the Congress can go work elsewhere, and have the building returned to the people. An initial security scan is ok at the door. But after that people should be free to walk around the building. Until then, it is not, nor will it ever be, a "temple of freedom" as is claimed in the current mandatory film they show to all visitors at present.

Commentary on pronunciation issues with English. John Boehner's last name should be pronounced boner, not bayner. English is English. Pakistan is Pakistan, not Paaaakaaastaaaaan. It's France, not Fronce. It's Mexico, not Mehico. And so on. English is English. If Mr. Boner wants people to pronounced his name as Bayner then he should change the spelling of his last name.

On NPR - National Politically Correct Radio

2-27-2014 7:30am 3:23pm

Miley Cyrus and Breastfeeding: Don't censor either!

Part of an image shared on facebook in response to the Miley Cyrus incident:

The original facebook poster added words on the bottom of the image stating how they were outraged that the picture on the right was reportedly sometimes censored on facebook, and yet the image on the left was widely shared with no problem.

Well, facebook is no panacea. Here's my response though to both photos being combined and posted together:

Hey liberal: The first picture leads to the second picture - and it should!

Hey conservative: Don't be afraid of either picture!

I only barely knew about the VMA's before hearing about the incident on the BBC.

The apparent wildness of sex leads to the beauty of a child. Whodathunkit. It's not one or the other - it's both intertwined.

We apparently need sex ed for both sides of the social & political spectrum...

Hey liberals: have kids - it's a good thing!

Hey conservatives: Sex is fun, and it should be. Sex can free you from your made up gods. And: don't be too hung about about masturbation or oral sex. And if you're a Mormon woman, stop wearing your garnments during sex.

Ok...

don't throw out the baby with the bathwater: hard work for an ex-religionist

The guy is right:

"...So who is to blame? The breakdown of families, the pernicious promotion of single motherhood as a desirable state, the decline of domestic life so that even shared meals are a rarity, have all contributed importantly to the condition of the young underclass..."

"Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters." in the Daily Mail.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater: hard work for an ex-religionist. But examining how other cultures work who have zero association with your former religion can help re-center and re-root yourself.

Exmormon Foundation: discriminating against children & their parents

Below are copies of post & replies in connection with a related post on here entitled Atheist Family Values: Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. And more on presuppositional apolegetics.

Original post on 7/5/2013 on the exmormon email discussion group on yahoogroups:

Now that I actually have a child I'm finding that some secular  advocacy
groups either are actively not child friendly, or they are  passively so (by
inaction or just not thinking things  through).

Related blog post: http://goo.gl/4f1L2

Jonathan

Reply received from the vice president of the Exmormon Foundation:

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:

>Jonathan -- if you will read carefully our position on children at the 
>Conference, I think you will find that it's pretty reasonable.  Because  we
>film and record the talks, and extraneous noise can seriously  affect that
>filming, we cannot have toddlers and older children in the  room.  We all have
>experienced times at other events (including Sac.  Mtg.!!)  when the noise
>from children has compromised a speaker.  The  serving of alcohol is another
>reason.  Nursing babies are allowed.
>
>Sue

----end of quote

And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:


----quote beings

Howdy,

I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:

1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.

2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.

3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.

4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.

So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.

It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.

I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.

I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.

I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.

Real people who show up are the most important.

I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.

A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.

A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.

A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.

We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.

So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.

Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.

I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.

A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.

Sincerely,

Jonathan