Family Values Atheism: Questioning liberal dogma -- the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here -- questioning gay marriage -- secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)

Family Values Atheism
Questioning liberal dogma
the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here
questioning gay marriage
secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)

Examples of liberal dogma:

1. Everything is equal.

2. Gay marriage is as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as regular heterosexual marriage.

3. Gay couples are as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as regular heterosexual couples.

4. Gay sex is as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as regular heterosexual sex.

5. For the individual, living the gay or homosexual lifestyle is just as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as living a heterosexual life.

6. For groups of humans, it's important to be "accepting" of a much wider range of expressions of human sexuality.

7. Being gay is just "who you are," and whatever happens to pop into your head is "what's right for you."

8. If you find out you like men sexually, it's ok to cheat on your wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father (as happened with an uncle of mine).

9. Being around gay lifestyle living parents doesn't impact children to be gay. If you're the daughter of a gay man who otherwise cheated on your mother, got AIDS, and died as a result - it's no problem for you to learn from your father that being gay is ok and therefore to live as a lesbian.

10. It's ok for convicted pedophiles to be readily accepted back into the gay community after they get released from prison.

The gay flag essentially means: "Freaks Welcome Here." I first saw such a flag being flown over the entrance to a Unitarian Univeralist church, a church which for several years was headed up by a transgendered woman/man/it (woman to man). "We won't judge you." Well, after several years of being exposed to gay culture via a nephew of mine I can safely say this: Yes, we need to "judge" the gay lifestyle. Yes we need to judge whether gay marriage is equivalent to regular true straight marriage. Yes we need to judge whether inherently non-reproductive sex is as useful to humanity as regular sex is.

There are some gay people who spend there lives in service & helping others - being part of the social fabric in a good way. But, there's also hordes of homosexuals who spend their lives selfishly chasing their own & other people's tails - to no useful end. A permanent stunted petty vain childhood state.

In cultures which are less accepting of the state of being homosexual, there are less homosexuals. Socialization plays a much larger role in what happens than the gay rights advocates will admit. And "just being born that way" doesn't mean your brain is 100% blocked from life as a more normal, healthy, productive, and happy person - living a life which isn't stunted.

So, if you've found that you like people of the same sex sexually, I would submit that you can choose to open yourself up to happy sexual marital long term family type relations with a person of the opposite sex. And what will be the benefit of such an action? Immortality.

I agree with the Black Atheists of Atlanta where they state that the only true flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience is through having children.

An animal which doesn't wish to reproduce for whatever reason is damaged. As an advocate for naturalism, I'm for examining ALL human cultures to see what may lie at the heart of human nature. And many cultures discourage homosexuality. Is that a bad thing? No! I support them. And in as much as I can join hands with the rebels who are in the Black Atheists of Atlanta, I'll do so - as a guy with lighter skin. But I'll join them in spirit and with the brave concept that as an atheist we can rebel against, and take a step back from, liberal dogma too!

Not everything that comes from religion is necessarily bad. What they advocate for CAN be part of human nature. And reproduction is a damn important part of human nature. If you find the liberal dogmas you're being taught draw you away from this key fact, you're being abused. So work to free yourself...

Raising children in a household which is accepting of the homosexual agenda can lead to children who won't reproduce. That IS a problem. Liberal dogmatists will try and tell you otherwise. But such people are essentially part of a new death cult. That's my view.

So, do I think homosexuality should be illegal & punished? Maybe not. But I do question the value of legalizing gay marriage, and of assuming that a gay couple can raise a child just as well as a regular straight family. A gay could will introduce the gay agenda meme set to the child as being acceptable, and that may well open up the child to being sucked into a dead-end, petty, stunted life path.

For the gay people who do live service oriented lives, I feel empathy and sympathy for them, and I feel sad for them as well. I also feel sad for the heterosexual liberal who also chooses to not have kids because they've been lied to and sucked into the liberal death cult that teaches, among other things, that overpopulation is a concern, and that overpopulation in third world countries means you shouldn't have any kids.

What a crazy and destructive idea: "Your right to be a zero." Ok, you've got that right, but I don't have to respect it. And being gay is another way to be a zero. Yes we have certain artists who we remember, but even they could have hooked up with a woman and had kids - if they would have opened their minds to the possibility. The possibility and option for immortality. Some of them did.

So, from a secular perspective, there's no shame in living a "reparative" life, that is a life where you choose to live "straight" even if you're inclined to varying degrees to be "gay."

It's heresy in liberal & gay groups to state that choosing a straight life is a.) possible, and b.) preferable. They'll go on angry witch hunts against such ideas. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? Today we have the Gay Inquisition. Watch how angry your average "gay" person gets online when they encounter such ideas.

Hey, it's not about god my friend. It's about tying into true & honest human nature, and that nature may well discourage people from engaging in inherently non-reproductive sex in the long term. That nature may well also discourage other destructive behaviors, such as sex which leads to deadly diseases and so on.

Human morals have some rather key foundational reasons behind them. Discouragement of homosexuality and encouragement of being a normal, healthy, productive, and dare I say, reproductive person, is a good thing. There, I said it. And if you're an atheist group who is ready to excommunicate people for having this view, or if you fly the gay flag to show how "accepting" you are, well, you're really no different than the religions you claim to be against.You've got your dogmas, and you're ready to back them up. But, I would argue, you're not really true humanists nor a true naturalists.

Religious & atheist groups are essentially meme set advocacy groups. Atheists groups DO advocate for a set of memes. So do religions. All these meme sets operate in human brains, and on the framework known as the human body. It's all natural, like it or not atheist & religionist. So that's what a liberal today has to come to terms with: examining which parts of religion, the parts that actually ascribe stigma to certain human behaviors - which stigma-advocating parts are actually valuable & worth advocating for? Oh my god, that's a super hard one for an ex-religionist to do.

The ex-religionist may well spend years of "letting it all hang out," and exploring Alice in Wonderland style all the hippie shit out there. But in the end maybe you'll then come around and find that some of the stuff they taught you as a kid, in your religion, may actually be, at least in part, correct. How can this be so? Because even in your religion it was humans talking to humans. A natural occurrence.

Liberals claim to be able to be more introspective - willing to do self examinations. But are you introspective enough to examine whether certain activities actually DO deserve to be shamed for (eg: discouraged)?

video made August 12, 2013 7:41am

further links:

Sexual reorientation therapy not unethical: Column
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/30/sexual-reorientation-therapy-not-unethical-column/2601159/

"Former American Psychological Association President Says APA Has been “Hijacked” by Gay Rights Activists"
http://narth.com/2013/08/psychologist-for-kaiser-permanente-speaks-out-on-patient-choice/

National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) position statements - a secular group advocating for reparative therapy
http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html

Many atheist groups have been similarly hijacked. The Unitarian Universalists were already hijacked and have been for some time. The creep of the gay freak flag has now moved on to "main line" atheist groups. But, the black atheists are thankfully pushing back.

Is Homosexuality Destructive For The Black Family?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kka3ECinb6M

In the video they're critical of "cracker culture." If by cracker culture they mean ultra-left liberal culture that assumes that everything is equal - I agree.

Related previous post with more links & videos:

Homosexuality occurs in nature? So what. Can I be a "black atheist" too?
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/homosexuality-occurrs-in-nature-so-what.html

response to: "Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers" and questioning sex with "boys" in gay culture
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/response-to-site-claims-attack-by-lds.html

Yelena Isinbayeva - You Go Girl! -- Questioning Hippie Dogma.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/yelena-isinbayeva-you-go-girl.html

Homosexuality occurs in nature? So what. Can I be a "black atheist" too?

Homosexuality occurs in nature? So what. Can I be a "black atheist" too?

From the Black Atheists of Atlanta: "The homosexual community is co-opting the whole atheist movement." And they present the view that there's a difference between "black" and "white" science.

I can very much see their point on the first item. Gay flags are popping up as the front face for several atheist groups.

Also I can agree with them that when hard natural science attempts to address issues which are also in the "social sciences," scientist's own presuppositions & biases can and do affect both the options they're willing to explore, and the outcomes of their research.

Their videos:

Greek Culture - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 05-23-11:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFXwgPLW378

Gay Zeus & Ganymede - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 08-08-11

Part 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfpQaUwIqbQ

Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFnAlsrj9zA

Part 3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5nqwrFck58

My response:

URL for above video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px8vqBjmVFg

Ok, so when I left the Mormon Church, I rejected as much as I could of everything they said. That was the first starting point. But, as per Daniel Dennett, religion is a natural phenomenon. Not everything that comes from a religion is there because of the religion itself. Some of the ideas in a religion are natural, and those ideas are there for good naturalistic reason. Take away the religion, and the apparently built-in morals tend to remain - given time.

Religions can also warp a person's built in morality, but, and here's the key point, so can other ideologies.

Here's a picture of when I protested in front of the Mormon Temple Square in 1999:

...(oh my goodness, what a fat bastard I was in those days. It took a lot of work to loose 100 pounds and those thick glasses. Also I now consider Unitarian Universalism to be advocates for belief in and apology for bullshit. So that's been my evolution and Enlightenment process.)

Notice the book I'm holding up the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl.

So, when I was a Mormon they taught us that masturbation would lead to homosexuality and that it must be confessed to a Mormon bishop. So they taught me & others to fear thoughts of sex, and of what happens when you come of age. Being a normal "straight person who sometimes masturbates" was who I was. And the whole gay movement had a similarly themed agenda. "I'm gay and that's who I am, so you have to respect me."

But, now, after being out of Mormonism for several years, and after learning more about science & history & hearing from all sides including those who question liberal dogma, I've come to conclude that not everything is equal.

Homosexuality is natural! - they say. So what. So is pedophilia. Oh, heresy, heresy, I've spoken heresy to an ultra-leftie liberal. But, hey, I've discovered the value of taking a step back, even from the presuppositions of the left!

Here's quotes of some one and two star reviews from Amazon.com of Bagemihl's book which I now largely agree with. See the original pages for author names:

Half-baked theory, July 28, 2004

The book's extensive documentation of homosexuality in animals may be valuable, but the book's style doesn't leave me with much confidence that its interpretations of the research are sufficiently unbiased to be relied upon.

The book's discussions of why it is hard to provide an evolutionary explanation of homosexuality are mostly reasonable, but the alternative to evolution that the book proposes isn't sufficiently well thought out to qualify as a testable scientific hypothesis. Evolutionary theory has a good enough track record at explaining things that appear at first glance to be counterproductive that people shouldn't reject it without finding an alternative with a good deal of explanatory power. But exuberance is an idea which explains very little. And anyone who has made impartial observations of typical natural ecosystems should see that the extravagance and waste that the book worships are sufficiently uncommon as to be hard to reconcile with the book's characterization.

So Much Written, So Little Conveyed..., December 27, 2004

Bagemihl belongs to the genre of writers who write a great deal but convey very little. His huge book is divided into two parts; the second part describes case studies of homosexual behaviors among several animal species, and the first part provides what could-with great difficulty-be called an analysis of these reports.

Bagemihl groups sexual behavior in terms of five broad categories: courtship, affection, interactions involving mounting and genital contact, pair-bonding, and parenting activities. Such broad categorization risks confounding social interactions with sexual behavior, possibly leading one to mistakenly assume that a preference for specific social partners is a sexual preference for these partners.

Bagemihl alleges same-sex sexual partner preference in at least some individuals in over 50 bird and mammalian species, based on five types of interactions: intersexual competition for same-sex sexual partners, sexual interactions between the object of intersexual competition and a same-sex competitor, repeated pair-bonding with same-sex individuals or repeated selection of same-sex sexual partners, reuniting with same-sex partners following prolonged separations with opposite-sex individuals, and engaging in sexual activity with same-sex individuals in the presence of opposite-sex individuals. Whereas these criteria are consistent with a same-sex sexual partner preference, none of them definitively prove a same-sex sexual partner preference, and an examination of the examples presented by Bagemihl reveals that the majority of the cases of same-sex courtship, mounting, and genital contact can be explained without assuming a same-sex sexual partner preference [see P. L. Vasey, Ann Rev Sex Res 13, 141 (2002)]. Besides, the large number of case studies cited by Bagemihl notwithstanding, his book cannot be used to claim that homosexual behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom because Bagemihl's case studies are drawn from a less than miniscule non-random fraction of the millions of animal species out there.

Bagemihl, failing to find themes behind homosexual behaviors among animals, offers a concept of biological exuberance, whereby homosexual behavior is pursued for pleasure and is a goal by itself that need not serve any purpose other than pleasure. Whereas this may be true, it is difficult to believe that this could be the result of normal developmental processes. Even among humans where much heterosexual behavior is non-conceptive, non-conceptive heterosexual behaviors typically occur as a prelude to or in conjunction with conceptive sexual behaviors. Additionally, the pleasure that accompanies orgasm not only prompts heterosexuals to repeatedly indulge in conceptive intercourse but also facilitates pair-bonding, which would come in handy if an offspring results from the union. Bagemihl's thesis on homosexuality, within a paradigm that he calls non-Darwinian biology, is meaningless for species that are capable of sexual reproduction only.

On the other hand, whereas Bagemihl fails to provide evidence for a same-sex sexual partner preference among the animal studies he cites, it has been proven that homosexual behaviors and a same-sex sexual partner preference are natural (i.e., occur irrespective of human intervention) in some individuals in some breeds of some animal species. However, nobody, let alone Bagemihl, has shown that homosexual behaviors are normal in some animals, i.e., result from development in accordance with design. Whereas the question of the normality of homosexual behaviors among some individuals of various animal species remains unanswered, a considerable amount of information shows that human homosexuality results from abnormal development, specifically prenatal developmental disturbances. See a newly published book in this regard: "The Nature of Homosexuality: Vindication for Homosexual Activists and the Religious Right."

Biological Exuberance or Scientific Burlesque?, June 15, 1999

This review is from: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Hardcover)
I must admit that I find some satisfaction in being a thorn in the side of the homosexual fantasy, but I do apologize to all the honest readers of Bagemihl's work for exposing this "manual of gay opinion" for what it is. Although the second half of the book might serve as an excellent reference for students of ethology (and as a sidebar to one reviewer, there are many, many texts about animal sexual behavior on the shelves of the libraries I frequent; I suspect many from before the reviewer was born), the first half of this text is nothing more than opinion, or what would be termed "observational science." Most unfortunate is the fact the Bagemihl's opinion is actually a second-hand opinion, dependent on the first-person opinions of original observers. I do see that such an extensive volume could be a labor of love, since the homosexual fantasy does not separate sex from love or vice versa.

As to whether or not homosexual behavior occurs elsewhere in nature, is there a true biologist, especially wildlife biologist, that believes otherwise? Every American farmboy can tell stories of observed homosexual behavior. Although it may seem a small step for Bagemihl to jump from adaptive homosexual behavior to homosexual orientation and lifestyle, this is truly a "giant leap for mankind." If one accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory, then at the species level all behavior serves one purpose: survival. Survival of the species depends on reproduction--asexual or sexual, and sexual reproduction exhibits a myriad of sexual behaviors all designed to enhance survival, specifically survival of the fittest.

Most of the behaviors Bagemihl references have been described as enhancing reproductive success, e.g. female bonobo copulation prepares females for future mating and increase fertilization success (and may even stimulate male bonobos, thus enhancing copulatory success). I will admit that there is little hard core, or "conclusive" science to support these interpretations, but the point is that all Bagemihl does in this voluminous text is offer a different interpretation based on his opinion (or a minority opinion if you will). Other interpretations are based on far more knowledge, experience, and collective reasoning.

Proposing consideration of modifications to traditional evolutionary theory based on his interpretation of other workers observations is a real travesty. If we were to modify our assumtions, hypotheses, and conclusions regarding evolution every time someone had an alternative perspection, evolutionary theory would be about as valuable as the theory of genetic predispostion to sexual orientation. We cannot construct science to fit any particular "perspective", such as the homosexual perspective, or it is no longer science, but politics, which is where the argument for homosexual equality should remain. At least in the political realm it is a valid argument. In the scientific realm, it has no ground on which to stand.

Because of the very unscientific nature of Bagemihl's interpretation, I strongly suspect this work will go the way of the early 90's so-called genetic research on the origins of homosexuality--quickly and quietly discredited. It is unfortunate that the discrediting of such works in the scientific community does not receive anywhere near the media attention and fanfare that the original release of such garbage receives.

To sum up, let me say that Bagemihl's work proves absolutely nothing and is more a product of a fertile imagination that of scientific rigor. Bagemihl does present a convincing argument, but he DOES NOT present any conclusive proof of anything. He is much more the marketer than the scientist. Homosexual behavior may (I emphasize "behavior" and "may") have adaptive significance as far as survival of the species. Most ethologists accept that humans do have bisexual behavior tendencies. However, sexual orientation or sexual lifestyle are human choices and deserve psychological interpretation, not biological. Rather than psychoanalyzing wildlife biologists and ethologists, Bagemihl should consider the psychology of the homosexual lifestyle, which in humans includes an emotional element not present in other species, because it is this choice, not homosexual behavior, that flies in the face of evolutionary theory, reproductive strategies, and ultimately, species survival.

Don't put any stock in this book, September 1, 2008

This review is from: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions) (Paperback)
Interesting how "scientists" can prove anything they want. State a hypothesis, then go about collecting information, categorizing it to suit your purpose, then use it as "proof" of your claim. The reason this book is dismissed by virtually every true biological scientist isn't because of "homophobic academia," (like the book's advertising claims)-it's because true scientific academia can see right through his preposterous claims. Come on, use real science and we'll all get on board with you.

Damn right. "There's gay animals?" So what. There's also ducks who rape. Lions who kill. And humans who are "naturally born" pedophiles, sociopaths, psychopaths, and so on. The "machinery" of biology & evolution may result in some outliers, but just because outliers exist naturally that doesn't mean they should always be fully respected in all cases.

I rather think homosexuality comes from two sources: a.) an artifact (natural byproduct) of the sexual "machinery" built into humanity and of the ways sex gets "set up" in growing infants in the womb, and b.) social acceptance & ultra-left liberal education. Not all a choice, but not all born in. Exposure to hormones in the womb can have an influence. But socialization has a huge influence, much larger than the politically correct left says.

There is something to be said for examining how homosexuality is expressed, or not, in other cultures, so as to question ALL dogmas on the issue, including those on the left. And of course to not go the way of Uganda and have the death penalty for such things. But I have observed my gay nephew & his friends at many gay parties and some gay bars. I have learned that not everything is equal.

Being "gay" for many is this: a near permanent petty & vain childhood state. No opportunity to have their own children, really. Selfishness. Sex which is non-reproductive, and thus they're left in this state for the rest of their lives - unless I suppose they adopt. Sometimes unless biology & nature forces responsibility upon us, we may get sucked into the trap of an otherwise stunted life.

So, THIS is the type of discussion which should be able to take place in atheist groups and in society as a whole, without demonizing or attempting to shout down the person who surfaces the idea!

I can hypothesize what it may feel like to be a gay man who currently dislikes or is fearful of the idea of sex with a woman. But like it or not, from a biological naturalistic perspective, such a person is damaged. An animal that chooses to not reproduce of it's own accord is damaged. Can you choose to work to become less damaged? Yes you can. Not by kissing the bum of some god. Not by joining some church. But rather by opening up your mind to the idea that sex with a person of the opposite sex may not only be valuable, it may be fun.

Look, a lot of sex is in the brain. Maybe your brain was exposed to too little testosterone. Maybe some quirk, accident, or artifact of nature allowed you to consider the possibility of sex with someone of your same sex. But, so what. Consider the costs of just assuming that everything is equal: a.) a largely selfish & permanently-childish life, b.) no real biological flesh & blood children of your own, c.) having to associate yourself with ultra-left demonizing dogmatists who have their own core list of dogmas and heresies, d.) being a perpetual outsider, and e.) having to waste a lot of your life in a wrong-headed "crusade for justice" - just so that you can try and force others to justify what was, in the first instance, an unfortunate choice on your part.

Maybe you cannot "choose" if you happen to like people of the same sex, but I argue that in a lot of cases you CAN choose to open your mind up to enjoyable sex (& therefore reproduction & true marriage) with someone of the opposite sex.

If you're a man who at present is reluctant to have sex with American women, maybe the thing you really oppose is the omnipresent ultra-feminist easy-divorce disposable-relationship culture present in America. If so, there's hope: go overseas if you must, or search harder for a down to Earth woman here. But don't let the hateful ultra-feminists get you down. There are down to Earth real women out there who will value family and children over other considerations.

So, no, you aren't going to hell. No you don't need to be kicked out of your family. But yes, relationships which include the option of real reproduction are superior! That's my view, as a naturalist, "humanist," atheist, and Enlightenment advocate. But, I know these words are heresy to some atheist groups, and that they'd happily go on witch hunts against such views. In that way they ARE rather like controlling religions. Atheism Plus is one such new religion of the ultra-left. And there's others. But those of us who took a step back from one religion don't wish to be sucked into another de facto one.

A gay flag flying on the front page of your "secular advocacy" group means you're not for really for reason, fully honest science, or truly open debates about all issues. Rather, it means your group has been hijacked by people who have naive & foolish assumptions, and by people who will demonize & call out "heresy!" to people who disagree with their assumptions.

I am a human who took a step back from a cult, took a while to explore, and to find that what remains inside us, our desire to reproduce, is something good & worth valuing. It's core to who we are and who we should be. Survival. Life. And true & fully honest science will back this up.

Additional post with more thoughts:

Family Values Atheism: Questioning liberal dogma
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html
response to: "Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers" and questioning sex with "boys" in gay culture
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/response-to-porn-site-claims-attack-by.html

response to CBC and Jian Ghomeshi about STFU Parents

for my own records a copy of a post I just put on the CBC's website, here in it's uncensored form:

STFU - strong words aren't they. This whole "child free" thing and being annoyed by children is something I have observed for some time.

If on facebook (FB) you or anyone are friends with someone with kids, if you think they're "oversharing" or if the letters or words associated with STFU pop into your mind, you don't deserve to be their friends or associated in any way with them.

Parents should not STFU. If you don't like being reminded about your lack-of-children state by a passive-aggressive attack on them via STFU-ing them, then de-friend.

Maybe it's a New York thing, but STFU isn't a particularly funny phrase. An attack on parenthood, even an attack *supposedly* couched in humor, is still an attack. Basically the STFU site is transmitting a message to all parents that they should not share the joys & pains of being a parent.

Parents shouldn't STFU. Just the opposite.

Y-E-S, to your question "Should those who don't want to see parental posts filter or unfriend instead of passing judgement?"

If your some childless leftie who's annoyed by parental updates, unfriend the people, instead of complaining about them. Or STFU. The site owner used the acronym first, and Jian fawningly interviewed them. But let's remember what those letters mean. Jarring, & shocking really. Not funny Jian.

The site: http://www.stfuparentsblog.com
and fb page: https://www.facebook.com/STFUParents

Crass, narcissistic, & mean spirited. A de facto "lack of life" cult - brought to you by the same cultural hole that bought us overpopulation hysteria, & ultra-lefties having no children as a result.

Related posts: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com

Jian & the CBC brought us this page, this info, about this crass woman and her pages. So funny. So cute. No, not really.

------------

Related post:
STFU, "STFU Parents"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/stfu-stfu-parents.html

response to: The Childfree Life - When Having It All Means Not HavingChildren, in Time Magazine

Recently the following article was published in Time magazine online in August, 2013:

Having It All Without Having Children
The American birthrate is at a record low. What happens when having it all means not having children?

As an atheist I've heard some of my fellows complain about people who have too many kids. And my own sister has "chosen" to not have them. I think this is a memetic disease of the left. Here's my response, to atheists, and to anyone who "chooses" to not have children:

Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2011/11/atheism-having-kids-right-to-choose-to.html

Should Atheists be trying to have more children?

I would answer a strong yes. Here's quotes from another blogger who also agrees:

"...Having children consciously, in full awareness of the insanity of the leap you are taking is a revolutionary act. It can be compared to picking up a weapon and walking on to a battle field. Sure, there are far more idiots that are willing to become soldiers, but when an educated individual chooses to take a stand it is very different. One who chooses to fight in full understanding is not a soldier but rather a warrior..."

"...Intelligence is a virtue but is it worthless without bravery. If you have brains and have a sense of what this world needs, then have children. Otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself when you find yourself old and infirm, surrounded by blithering morons."

Relative to overpopulation: There will be a natural curve limiting to exponential growth, and those limits will occur more on the uneducated ends of the curve, not so much in places where highly educated atheists tends to live. Science, technology, and education about both can help to save things.

Relative to whether it's stupid for someone to have 8 or 11 kids: Was it stupid for them to pass on their genes & memes more easily to a wide group of people? Transmitting memes is of value, but there's something about a living breathing human that doesn't quite compare to a book or computer. Their right to choose is the mirror of your right to choose not to. The drunk bums in my own family who were in the end zeros both genetically & memetically - their wasted lives show that sometimes there really is value in doing what comes natural.

There's a certain anti-having-kids ideology from the 1960s and 70s which continues today, and it goes something like this: Because there's overpopulation in third world countries that means I should have no kids myself. It's a false analogy, and it's about the same type of thing as saying that one should eat one's peas because of starving children elsewhere. This ideology robs people of a key part of life: reproduction! Yes that's right, having kids. It's not all about you. Biology & evolution will have the last laugh.

Just because resources are scarce in third world countries doesn't mean you shouldn't have kids. Have them, have as many as you want (!), but teach your kids the value of science and the value of continuing The Enlightenment.

After my mother died I gave a talk at her funeral, at a Mormon (LDS) meeting house, while still being an atheist (whodathunkit). Here's a relevant excerpt:

---quote begins

As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.

As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.

In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.

So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.

Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.

It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state

Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.

There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.

What we teach our children about science may save humanity.

There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.

We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.

Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.

---quote ends

So yes, as either an atheist or an ultra-leftie, you do have the right to "choose to be a zero," but that doesn't mean you deserve more respect. You rather deserve a lot less. And in the end, you'll get what you want - death, and a lack of access to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.

8-1-2013

To the Mormon wife whose husband is 'addicted to porn:' 12 *real* steps that will help!

To the Mormon wife whose husband is "addicted to porn:" 12 *real* steps that will help!

In response to: "Doug Robinson: One woman's crusade against the evils of porn" in the Deseret News. http://goo.gl/e0m9SL

The Mormon position on porn is basically this: Let us fit porn and human sexuality into our addiction paradigm so that we can exercise control over you.

The LDS 12 step program:
http://addictionrecovery.lds.org/bc/content/arp/content/manuals/ARPGuide_English_36764.pdf

Bullshit.

Here's 12 steps for you, if your husband is viewing too much porn in your view:

Step 1: Stop assuming that the act of viewing human sexuality online is, in an of itself, something bad.

Step 2: Stop threatening your man with divorce over the issue.

Step 3: Stop wearing your Mormon underwear at night, and especially during sex. Go nude, 100% nude, at night, in bed, with your man, and during sex. Period.

Step 4: Engage in oral sex, and encourage your man to do the same.

Step 5: Don't be afraid to touch your man's genitals at night in bed.

Step 6: Be sexual with your man, all the time. Give him cues during the day, and be affectionate at night.

Step 7: Find types of porn which are more a.) educational, b.) produced by amateurs, and c.) does not require payment, and d.) may be produced by regular people as opposed to "porn stars." Watch these videos with your husband, and see if what you're seeing can give you some ideas of fun things to try.

Step 8: Stop asking that your children confess to some Mormon bishop regarding masturbation.

Step 9: Set boundaries for leaders in your religion. Do not let them pry into your private life, and especially not into your sexual life or the sexual lives of your children who're coming of age.

Step 10: Stop teaching your children, your husband, and yourself to be afraid of sexual thoughts & feelings - of *lust* - of being *an animal*. We ARE animals. Get used to it. Live with it. Learn to love it.

Step 11: If your man is engaging in video sex chats with other women online, ask him to stop. Tell him you love him and want him to be happy. Tell him that you're ok with watching some types of porn online, but that video sex chats with other women go too far.

Step 12: Reject 12 step programs which assume you can "give something away" to some fanciful god. You're it baby. You're god. I'm god. He's god. She's god. Sex is god. Love is god. And the only immortality you will ever experience is through having children via sex. So, sex is good, and it's there for very good reason. It's there to be enjoyed, for good reason. The Internet has brought new opportunities and new challenges to what it means and is to be human. We all agree that we need to keep away from the thieves while embracing the good. The same goes with porn online. Get an ad blocker plugin for your web browser. Block your kids viewing as you feel appropriate. But, realize also that some value can be had from exposure to more full details about human sexuality, with less shame, fear, ultimatums, and threats. Move forward in love.

July 31, 2013

American Atheists: Censoring atheist thought, taking a step back from all ideologies, and questioning 100% acceptance of gay marriage

On the facebook page for American Atheists they don't allow links to other sites to be posted. Science and human progress generally requires having a free and open exchange of ideas. American Atheists' main focus seems to be acting as props on Fox News, suing people over 10 commandment monuments, promoting the ultra-left social agenda, and not much else. Is this "atheism plus," or atheism minus?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

Maybe triple minus - more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnBGeoJsFOk
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ69BhfiC6g

Pedantic motto of American Atheists: "I'm an atheist and I fight for equality."

Just because a human activity is natural doesn't mean we should embrace it 100%.

Maybe homosexual married couples should be required to adopt. How about that?

Just because a person becomes an atheist after leaving a cult or an ultra-conservative religion, doesn't mean they automatically become an ultra-leftie.

Be careful of people who want to control you after you leave a religion. Atheist plus people want to control your speech, just as much as any ultra-leftie might.

Frantic censoring ultra-lefties: http://goo.gl/wQ5BkP

A secular case against gay marriage:
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/

I'm still somewhat undecided in general about gay marriage, but I'm not just 100% "for it" just automatically by default. The inherently non-reproductive nature of gay sex IS an issue, as are built in human nature that may feel some amount of concern over gay sex. That's natural too. Not everything is equal. Let's take a step back and not just jump wholeheartedly into the arms of the ultra-left. Maybe, just maybe, conservatives have something useful to contribute, even if at first glance their motives are motivated by "religion." Since, religion is a natural phenomenon, we cannot just fully dismiss out of hand every single thing they're concerned about.

A brain can be trained by genetics, socialization, and a combination of the two. During the following talk Warren Farrell talks about how in ancient societies homosexual sex which didn't include reproduction was discouraged: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4

An a fascinating article on the subject:
The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Population
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/
hmmm

I don't wish to see anyone harmed by the ideas people like past Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball, who equated masturbation and sex before marriage as sins akin to murder. That goes too far. And yet, even the happily free exmoron draws the line somewhere, between acceptable and unacceptable human behavior, regardless of the naturalistic status of that behavior. Of course it's all natural, and to some extent, so what. A better question may be: what do most people do, and what helps the species survive? Does this mean I advocate that gay couples separate? Not necessarily. But men who're in hetero relationships should not jump ship just because they find out they're gay. And already-gay couples maybe should adopt, or find other ways to have kids. And gay men, and rather self-centered straight no-children men & women, should find ways to not spend their whole lives in highly childish games chasing their own & other people's incredibly vain and shallow tails forever. Eventually we all have to grow up. Sex usually, even today, forces that upon hetero couples. It doesn't, automatically, do so for gay ones - and maybe that's the point.

I'm a social moderate, and an economic liberal.

Here's for an open discussion, and being free from censors.

June 30, 2013 afternoon

Happy Birthday Utah, Pale Blue Dot, Hope for the future, instead of Kraussian nihilism

http://spaceinimages.esa.int/Images/2013/07/Cassini_s_Pale_Blue_Dot

Happy Birthday Utah, Pale Blue Dot, Hope for the future, instead of Kraussian nihilism

Utah's birthday is not just for Mormons.

Thoughts on the pale blue dot and having hope for the future over Kraussian defeatist style de facto nihilism. Humans are a different type of animal. Space travel. Calculus. Knowing why we're really here, for the first time. Yes, a special type of star stuff indeed. A part of the universe who can understand itself for the first time.

Related talk given at my mother's funeral:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_blue_dot_%28disambiguation%29

July 24, 2013 - 7:47AM

on Daniel Pipes, Israel, Islam & democracy, the veil, group dynamics

on Daniel Pipes, Israel, and what happens in "democracies" when Islam is voted in.

When Islamists vote in a "democracy" they vote in sharia and literalist Islam (regular traditional Islam).

How much hair a woman gets to show in an Islamic country is an indication of how much freedom there is there. There is an inverse relationship between the level of veiling and the level of freedom in Islamic countries. So it IS all about the veil.

Human groups morph over time. Pet bird clubs. Atheist groups. Religion. Politics. Name any group on any topic and they will change, sprout, split, and morph over time. It's natural.

July 9, 2013

Official announcement: I'm now an ex-post-Mormon and maybe an ex-ex-Mormon also

Attention all post and ex Mormons: Recent engagements online and in person with "post-Mormon" and "ex-Mormons" have revealed to me the following: Regarding labels I'd rather just use "human," "naturalist," and "atheist." Post-Mormon is also a fairly irrelevant term. If you were a Mormon you'll always be impacted in your future life by what happened to you. If you were impacted sufficiently you'll always want to fight and to help free people from the brain washing prison. But, when it comes to groups, the label "postmo" or "exmo" is not quite sufficient. It's too limited in scope, as apparently are the groups who use these labels.

Related post:
Mormons, Exmormons, "post-mormons," and the "need" to control the speech of others and to "mother" people.

Mormons, Exmormons, "post-mormons," and the "need" to control the speech of others and to "mother" people.

In Mormonism they tried to control our thoughts & our speech. So, upon leaving Mormonism I've found high value in opposite actions to these, and in fighting against people who are too controlling. I don't go on the net to be anyone's child per se. I've been here since 1994, and I wasn't born yesterday. Perhaps you cater to those who were, but there's been too much water under the bridge for me to kowtow to anyone.

Some exmormon websites do have forums with a very limited scope. Such controlling & micromanaging groups cater to exmos (people who've left Mormonism) who've just been out of the Mormon Church for perhaps one or two weeks - and that's all. Once you've become more psychologically adult, more than a "2 week exmo," you'll find such controlling forums infantile & incredible myopic.

Once you've exposed yourself to the writings, speeches, and debates of people who don't speak at Mormon General Conference (eg: Enlightenment Values speakers & thinkers), you will find controlling personalities to be even more distasteful.

Hey you, controlling forum admin: We don't exist to serve or exist at the pleasure of yourself or people who get angry at an open expression of ideas. People who want us to shut up - whether those people are Mormons, or control freak exmormons like you - no, you won't control what we say & think.

So to the mothering admin who tries to maintain "harmony" via suppressing a highly valuable crucible of ideas, here's my message to you: I stand by my videos and links, and the opinions expressed therein. People exposed to authoritarian culture can be authoritarian too - even in their desire to ensure that no one is ever offended.

For example: Carefully read over the restrictions at http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,45 - the forum rules for people who are just leaving Mormonism. It's a largely highly disgusting list of what's not allowed in their little forum:

1. personal attacks
2. politics (terrorism, party politics, foreign policy etc)
3. preaching
4. attempts to deliberately stir up trouble
5. faking a conversation by answering your own posts under different names (puppeteering)
6. complaints about censorship (ironic, ain't it)
7. questions for the admins (send those to ExMoLight@gmail.com instead)
8. complaints about the admins (ditto)
9. advertising and solicitations for money
10. legal issues not cleared in ADVANCE through admin
11. copyrighted material
12. posts about a topic that the moderators have said to drop
13. anything that collects personal information, requests for signatures on petitions or links to petitions, interview requests not cleared IN ADVANCE with admin. Requests for people to contact you off board.
14. anything illegal.
The above list is not exhaustive.

---quote ends 

Item 1 may be ok, as along as the term "personal attack" is construed to mean that we should generally not tell people to "FOAD," and as long as we aren't, again generally speaking, telling people to "shut up." I generally won't advocate that you shut up, unless such a demand is warranted, such as in cases of people who go around destroying the lives of children, people such as Boyd Packer or Spencer Kimball.

Item 2 on their list is evil. For example: Utah is still a theocracy in some respects, and especially outside of Salt Lake City itself. So, "policitcs" does relate to the state of being an ex-mormon. Also politics is about life and what leaders may choose to try & do with yours. So in any case such a restiction is not only myopic, it's abusive.

Item 3 may be ok, but advocating strongly for your position could be interpreted as "preaching," and again, we don't exist to serve at the pleasure of control freak forum admins or of people who cannot handle open discussion & debate. In general "trolls" should be allowed, because they can be Mormons or fundie Christians who simply need more exposure to atheists.

Item 4 is also a perniciously evil request to make of a former Mormon. Hey, we ARE here to "stir up trouble!" We left Mormonism! That stirs up trouble for Mormon leaders! And we're also here to "stir up trouble" with people who want to control the speech & thoughts of others. Yes, this means you micromanaging forum admin at exmormon.org, and your kin on other sites. Item 4 is an OUTRAGEOUSLY ABUSIVE request.

Go read the works of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. Are they "stirring up trouble?" Damn right they are! No, you're not going to shut us up.

Item 5 is a stupid thing to worry about. Who cares.

Item 6 shows what we have here is exmormons behaving EXACTLY like Mormon leaders.

Item 7 shows that the admins are very afraid of having their abusive micro-managing ways questioned in public.

Item 8 -same as item 6.

Item 10 - who cares

Item 11 - who cares

Item 12 - we don't exist to serve or speak or live at the pleasure of micro-managing forum admins. Now, there's a difference between telling people to stop directly attacking each other (eg: telling people to stop saying "f-off" or "shut up" to each other), and telling people to "stop talking about a given topic." Do you know the difference, forum admin? "Stop talking about a given topic" means an order to stop thinking, to stop the crubicle from doing it's work. And, forum admins seem quite adept at shelling out their own personal attacks while shielding themselves in their own propped up self importance and access to instruments of control. More on that below.

Item 13 - who cares

Item 14 - freedom of speech & thought may be illegal in North Korea, and in even in some places where the Internet now reaches.

So, what's the bottom line specifically about the forums at exmormon.org? It's a site that can be useful to help you leave Mormonism initially, and it's useful for most people during the first week they're out - but that's it! There is on there some separate good informational articles about Mormonism, but avoid the forums like the plague. Go out and find yourself a good old fashioned atheist forum or group. Seriously. Generally speaking groups with balls enough to actually use the term "atheist" in their group name will have people who're more psychologically adult, more intelligent, more willing to have pointed discussions & debates, and, generally speaking, be less controlling of free speech & thought.

Who are my heros, as a former Mormon Temple Worker, Sunday School President, and Mormon missionary?

Christopher Hitchens.
Richard Dawkins.
Daniel Dennett.
Stephen Pinker.
Sam Harris.
Carl Sagan.

Google all these people to hear & read their thoughts & words.

To the control freak "exmo" or "postmo" admins, listen to these people! Do they "stir up trouble?" Do they "question the admins?" Do they even bother to care about whether their speech "offends others?" Well on that last point yes they do, but they aren't afraid to nevertheless make judgements about others when they feel such actions are warranted. Judgements about religion. Judgements about religious leaders, or political leaders who act in in similar controlling ways. Judgements about otherwise slimy behavior.

Ideally I believe life is not so much about whether we offend others, it's about speaking the truth. We only have so much time on this rock to make a difference. For what it's worth, here's a copy of my the talk I gave at my mother's funeral, given inside a Mormon meeting house:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html

And here's some related videos:

Richard Dawkins on being offended:

Stephen Fry:

Chrisopher Hitchens on the importance of having freedom of expression including the license of offend:

To control freak hippies who want to impose "harmony" by quelling freedom of thought & speech:

The 60s was your great experiment. The 70s was the hangover result. When I left Mormonism I didn't loose my ability to evaluate the behavior of others. Yes there are moral judgements worth dropping which are popular in Mormonism. Prohibitions against premarital sex & masturbation. Prohibitions against coffee, tea, and the moderate consumption of alcohol. But, there are some "generally universal human morals," and I'm less willing to drop these as a human who happens to also be a former Mormon.

No, becoming and "postmo," an "exmo," an atheist, or continuing to be a human doesn't mean that I loose my ability to judge the actions of others.

It's not my goal to show how accepting I am. I care more about the facts, the truth, and yes even how I get to advocate for my own position. I care more about long term survival than your "feewings."

Not every path in life is an equally valid one. If you disagree with my approach or think it's inappropriate, I welcome your direct feedback (as long as your feedback is not "shut up," or nicely-put versions of such a demand).

After leaving Mormonism I did try out a few "hippie culture" groups. Nudists. Groups which advocate more sexual openness. In the end I found serious problems with such groups. A fear of being human (nudist leaders), and strange controlling whackjobs (polyamorists). Their leaders were either hypocritical harmony-imposing-two-faced-deceptive-control-freaks or just strange.

I found going all the other way culturally and socially was not a good option. There's a reason the 70s were a hangover from the activities of the 60s. There's elements of 60s culture worth embracing, but the 1970s shows we can go too far with letting it all hang out.

Ok, so, here's a demand I received from one forum admin," on their super secret facebook page for the group SLC Postmos. The same group also exists on meetup.

Jonathan you wanted input about why people felt there were not enough kid friendly events. You received plenty of offers to them. You brought beefs with other groups on her and you posted blogs and videos meant to insult others. You may not have said those things on this page but you posted links to places that did. Yes name calling is not good here but you need to stop as well. As admin I suggest we drop this thread.

 And here is my video response:

My history with Mormonism:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm

atheists in Jamaica - video found

Here's a video I found regarding atheists in Jamaica:

Religious Hardtalk - Atheism and Secularism - 9-18-2012

Related website:
http://www.televisionjamaica.com/Programmes/ReligiousHardtalk.aspx/Videos/20909

Mormon meeting house visit - 2-17-2013

My wife & son & I attended part of the Mormon meeting this morning. We tried some bread and water, listened to a couple of hymns, and part of a boring wrote-recitation-style talk by some lady. My son's fussiness gave us an excuse to escape early.

We went to the same meeting house where my father's family had Christmas parties when I was young. Last weekend the monk at the Salt Lake Buddhist Temple suggested that we just go back to our first religion. So today I followed his advice & we tried out Mormonism today. The result? Same old boring stuff. Oh, and the sound was up too loud in the place. On the way out we saw pictures of the leaders. As we passed by Spencer Kimball's photo we made note of his abhorrence for certain, if not most, expressions of sexuality.
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml
http://www.lds.org/braille/The%20Miracle%20of%20Forgiveness.txt
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/02/ldsorg-discover-perversity-or-mormonism.html
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-violence-of-buddhism-relativism.html

lds.org : discover the perversity or Mormonism

lds.org : discover the perversity or Mormonism

Go to lds.org. Search for the following terms:

masturbation
necking
"petting"
fornication
atheist
atheism

Find out what these people actually think about the human condition.

Also, read the horrible book viewable at
http://web.archive.org/web/20100712035957/http://www.lds.org/braille/The%20Miracle%20of%20Forgiveness.txt
...by past Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball. While in that document do text searches for the same words.

Then in response, read the following reviews of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Miracle-Forgiveness-Spencer-Kimball/product-reviews/0884944441/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

More info:

My own pages:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm

Audio from past exmormon conferences:
http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/conference-archive.html

Also current Mormon apostle believes that atheists are all moral relativists. What a bunch of bulls#|t. Atheists are humans too.

For example check out:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/02/balancing-truth-and-tolerance
where Dallin Oaks says:

"...For example, an atheist has no need to decide what kinds and occasions of profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. Persons who don’t believe in God or in absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant of persons. For them, almost anything goes. This belief system can tolerate almost any behavior and almost any person. Unfortunately, some who believe in moral relativism seem to have difficulty tolerating those who insist that there is a God who should be respected and that there are certain moral absolutes that should be observed..."

My response: What a shallow, obtuse, non-sequitur, and just plain wrong evaluation of what & who atheists are. We fight against abusive religions like yours because there's good reason to do so. And no, being an atheist does not automatically make one a moral relativist. I am not one, Mr. Oaks.

Sam Harris, on science helping to determine that is moral (videos found):
https://www.youtube.com/results?q=moral+landscape

Myths about atheists - Mormon & other religious leaders are especially interested in putting out lies about atheists:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1

Dawkins on atheist morality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aCRHjH6d4Q

Also check out the morality in the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm

For each scriptural text you can find good sections about the complete lack of morality via clicking on the following terms:

Injustice

Cruelty and Violence

Intolerance

Contradictions

Science and History

Family Values

Interpretation

Misogyny

Sex

And what of the morality of Mormon leaders?

On oral sex, past Mormon prophet Spencer wants to get into your bedroom:
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml

On masturbation, past Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball & Mormon apostle Boyd Packer both want to have a look:
http://www.zionsbest.com/only.html
http://mormonthink.com/QUOTES/masturbation.htm

Subverting normal human sexuality: Mormon Church's principal crime
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/12/subverting-normal-human-sexuality.html

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, gets to have a 14 year old wife & wives who are still married to other men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith's_wives

Brigham Young, the second Mormon prophet, gets a 15 year old & wives still married to other men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young's_wives

Sin and Death in Mormon Country - about the costs of shaming children about masturbation:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080620075156/http://www.affirmation.org/suicide_info/sin_and_death_in_mormon_country.shtml

Evangelical & 'religious' atheism - Utah Atheist Brunch

The Salt Lake Valley Atheists group held their monthly Utah Atheist Bunch, on Sunday February 3rd, 2013. Here's a clip from that meeting, and then subsequent commentary added on from the 5th and 6th:

The talk at the meeting regarded whether atheism is a religion. At the front of his talk the speaker stated that "evangelical atheism" is just as bad as other forms of evangelical religion, and he said that atheists should not be "moral busybodies."

After his talk the speaker took a more conciliatory tone to some extent and said that he was mainly concerned about tactics. Also during his talk he said that it may be appropriate to respond to other religionists if they were procreatory.

Is atheism a religion? Not in the traditional sense. In religions usually there's leaders who cannot be questioned. Atheists tend to value science & try to reject dogma. Scientists get ahead in science by actually disproving, overturning, or adding to previous theories. Usually religious organizations reject and resist change and challenges to their core leaders & doctrines.

There is a lot of provocation going on from regligionists. Mormons send out their missionaries, they interrogate children and adults about masturbation, necking, petting, sex outside of marriage, and even oral sex in marriage. Catholic priests rape children en masse, and Catholics & conservative Anglicans have thrown their pretty women and women who had sex outside of marriage into asylums. Islamic people require that their women live in the prison of the burqa, niqab, and hijab.

More info:
My own writings including info on Islam & Mormonism:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm

Related info:
Sam Harris on science being able to comment on morality:
http://www.samharris.org/media/video

Scott Atran & Sam Harris debating:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sam+harris+scott+atran

Mormon oral sex letter:
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml

Catholic child rape:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org

Christians locking women up who were too pretty, or who had sex outside of marriage:
Magdalene asylums
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum

Related video on the issue - Sex in a cold climate - documentary:

Tawfik Hamid on fear of sexuality in Islam:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/02/happy-world-hijab-day-its-gonna-be-good.html

A link to Galileo's sentencing document, can be found on my post at
DNA, the Book of Mormon, and Creationists: blowing smoke in response to science & facts
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/02/dna-book-of-mormon-and-creationists.html