I was banned for posting the following comment in response to a post. The original post asked if 'LGBTs' had a place in conservatism. I posted my response and then was banned within about 14 hours. Here's a clip of the post to which I was responding...
Conservatism is conservatism.
----- quote begins of banned post
Space or safe space?
Socially conservative would mean conserving and valuing our 1.2 billon year evolved morality.
Are you inclined to make one of these (see the small human animal pictured) au naturel or not? If not, you are an outlier, either a forced victim of abusive postmodernism, or a much less common DNA type.
T - the gender dysphoric exist for sure. May they find recovery via mental health counseling.
L - please loose weight and try to be more attractive. You're cheating yourself and others.
G - most are abuse victims and forced outliers.
B - abusive denialist cheaters. Choose to be a non-outlier if you can.
---- end of quote
Wolves in the hen house apparently, or at the very least touchy outliers who don't like the truth of long standing biological history and evolution.
Apparently the LGBTPZ fiscal conservatives will not tolerate social conservatives who question their denialist liberal doctrines.
Gays are victims of postmodernism.
When I see people jumping off a cliff, yes that offends my sensibilities
Socially conservative atheists exist. Abusively permissive, denialist, pot smoking libertarians who are not socially conservative can't tolerate their presence though.
1.2 billion years of evolutionary history is so inconvenient.
Our evolved morality is not subjective. Whereas abusive neomarxist postmodernism is.
The censoring non-conservative admins of a 'Conservative Atheists' group on facebook:
There are alternate groups on facebook with similar names.
Thus my own banning has not blocked me completely on there. But it's worth noting that fiscal conservatives who see themselves as 'quintisentially' conservative, really aren't.
A true conservative would be both socially and fiscally conservative.
Conserve, what's good about 1.2 billion years of evolved human history. The valuing of family. The valuing of life. Yes the valuing of inherent reproduction. And yes, devaluing abusive non-reproductive outliers. Working to help people live happy lives, through education and advocacy. Advocacy for the valuing of highly useful and good evolved human values.
Ok so anyway, speaking with less of my usual bone dry humor:
Yes I admit it's valuable to hear reactions to my suppositions.
More broadly I'm aware of the suicides directly caused by the Mormon Church with regard to the gay issue, and also at least one suicide connected with masturbation shaming.
So on first glance it's easy for me to be part of the Pride parade.
Damn. If it weren't for my uncle & nephew, I'd be there cheering maybe with my shirt off also, showing off my sexy man boobs to all the participants.
Oh well. Regardless of the opinions of one guy in bass ackward Utardia, humanity will move forward.
More kids. Have more kids. Attention, atheists: the religious are having many more kids than you. The Bible Beaters. The Mormons. The Islam people.
Can China inherit the Earth?
Not so bad of a proposition - in the long term. Communism will hopefully drop away more in the long term. The one child thing will probably eventually drop off.
No Mormonism. No Utah. No Catholicism. No Islam (not much). Light Buddhism. Not so bad. Good old fashioned family values (children first, elder respect, etc).
I'm trying not to step in the shit of Mormonism while also calling attention to a bit of poop I've seen on the other side. Difficult...
All the other points are either purposefully wrong, stupid, or lies.
Hey, whomever created that image with collections of mostly outrageously untrue & abusive quotes, seeing stuff like that pushes people like me ever more into the pro-gay-marriage camp.
I have examined both sides, or is it three sides?
A gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father.
A gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty & shallow life.
On the other hand I very much appreciate the work of people like Stephen Fry and Oscar Wilde. I also have seen first hand how some gay people are much more service oriented, and who appear to have their heads screwed on much more than my Angel Reading Boy Chasing Convicted Pedophile Friend Accepting gay nephew.
There are atheists who agree with concerns about homosexuality:
Black Atheists of Atlanta
Greek Culture - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 05-23-11:
However I don't believe they'd agree with too many more points than point three on your photo.
Serial killers? That is destructive abusive bullshit, no question.
"Consider the source." This phrase is pushing me more & more toward the pro-gay camp. Now, I do still believe ALL sides need to be questioned. Unlike some I AM willing to at least listen to the few seculars who are either socially moderate or conservative.
As we know, it's not the number of people who believe in something, it's whether the ideas are actually valid or not.
What you'll find on my blog is the playing out of a tension between several forces. The ultra-pro-gay-everything-else-be-damned position within the secular community, and the built-in desire to be more, well, pro-reproduction & pro-family.
Having gone to China & having a Chinese wife has given me a wider perspective.
Again my experiences with my own gay nephew have influenced my views (and having a gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father). But, on the other hand, there's this very nice man who helps keep our birds while we go on vacation. A service oriented guy who spends his life helping others. He's not a petty kook like my nephew. The guy is softening my view. So I'm perhaps somewhere in between the Black Atheists of Atlanta and the left at this point - on that issue. And the image you posted is pushing me further left still.
Children may really NEED both a mommy & a daddy. You ARE selling yourself short if you don't have kids. These two points may be true, regardless of how much hand wringing the left may do. But, on the other hand, the right is completely unhinged (as per what's in that fucking image you posted). So the right is completely wrong & lying about the issue also. The bottom line is that I'm not going to be tied to either side, not until more evidence is in. And if the evidence shows that children DO need a mommy & a daddy, then we should accept that evidence, period.
Since when did being human or natural mean we have to accept 100% of the gay agenda? Inherently non-reproductive sex? By default a petty dead end narcissistic lifestyle? Perhaps concern about homosexuality is natural? How's that?
Generally speaking the American Atheists group, located in Cranford, New Jersey, is in my view yet another branch of the liberal dogmatic religion known as Stonewall, as are all of the other groups I mentioned above.
My response to the social-justice oh so righteous warriors on the ultra left, who want to fly the gay flag at every possible event:
Not every parade needs to be a gay pride one. The boycotts are stupid IMO. The parade organizers get to decide who's in their parade. If the Stonewall place in NYC wants to have their own parade, they can. But they shouldn't demand to hijack the regular parade for their own agenda. Liberal dogma can be a de facto religion. Whatever American Atheists or the advocates for atheism plus happen to say isn't automatically on my own list of important agenda items.
The quintessential struggle of our time is not the promotion of the ultra-liberal agenda. Rather, it's just general advocacy for science, survival, and a prudent amount of hawkishness so as to curtail the actions of world-stage bullies. That's my view...
As for the rest, you can put me on a heresy trial if you wish, but if you do so you'll be just acting in yet another religion, just one with a new name.
I'm not a member of your church, nor do I wish to be.
Quotes from the post of the group Seculars
Against Same Sex "Marriage:"
Just as black pride, brown pride, feminist pride, etc cannot be emphasized at
the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade; the same applies to gay pride groups as
well. The parade and day has nothing to do with any of the causes mentioned
above. Blacks, Hispanics, Feminists, and Gays can still be in the parade, but
just not promoting their own identity politics.
*"In their defence, parade organisers claim that gay people are not
prohibited from marching, just not allowed to march under gay-themed banners. In
Boston, organisers point to the fact that gay people this year joined a
‘diversity’ float that represented a South Boston neighbourhood.
*According to Boston’s lead parade organiser, Philip Wuschke: ‘We don’t ban
gay people. We ban groups that are trying to make a statement.’ He notes that
they have rejected a variety of groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, Irish
heterosexual pride and an anti-abortion organisation, among others...
* Or you might ask, why do gay activists insist on joining a parade that
isn’t about their cause and, in the case of Boston and New York, doesn’t want
them there as a separately identified group?
*The notoriously anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church probably doesn’t expect to
be able to join a gay pride march, and gay pride organisers wouldn’t let them in
if they tried (in fact, St Patrick’s Day organisers in Boston say they turned
down an application from Westboro, which is anti-Catholic as well as anti-gay,
to join the parade)...
*This is the top-down, elite-led politics of name and shame, rather than a
properly liberal campaign that draw upon popular support.
*What we are witnessing is an attack on those who don’t share today’s pro-gay
outlook. Some may not want to opt out of this Culture War, but the war
increasingly won’t allow there to be any bystanders. Instead, there is pressure
to conform. Even if it does not spill over into the political or legal world,
such conformism is problematic for the free flow of ideas.
*The sky will not fall if gays and lesbians are allowed to march in the
Boston and New York St Patrick’s Day parades. But we will create a conformist,
intolerant and unfree society if we do not allow space for the expression of
different views, including traditional religious teachings about homosexuality
and same-sex marriage."
"...Since there are no objective harms of being or acting gay, there are no reasons to withhold any constitutional right from homosexuals, including marriage..."
But there IS objective harm! The naive liberal just doesn't know. It's par for the course.
And I am reminded of:
1. My gay uncle who died of aids leaving his straight family with no kids.
2. My gay nephew who leads a petty, shallow, dead-end type of life.
3. However and also: gay people I know who spend their lives helping others, in service oriented lives.
4. Gay people like Stephen Fry, who I largely admire.
5. The crappy crazy warped & perverse sexual morality in Mormonism & Catholicism.
In any case, I don't wish to be annexed by either side. Just because I think there may be problems with the petty selfish lifestyle present in homosexual culture doesn't mean I believe we should shame children for masturbation, for example, or teach children that masturbation automatically leads to homosexuality, which of course it does not.
Religion basically fucks up people's built-in sexuality. It can fuck it up so much that you can go WAY to far over to the other side. So in my view gays are ALSO being abused by religion, by being pushed away from normal productive human relations by the extreme anger on the issue present in conservative religion. So this is not a simple issue.
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:
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
level of veiling; Breasts documentary; Neff's Canyon; Bill Maher & having children (octomom); atheists should have more children; Let's value life; on Margaret Sanger again; "don't judge me!" - why not?; Unitarianism, Mormonism; family values - the left should embrace those words again as well. July 10, 2013
Thoughts on: Scouting in America. Maybe they'll be admitting gays, but probably not gays or masturbators anytime soon. Further thoughts on Elevatorgate.
Scouting in America is essentially the Mormon Mountain Camping Society. Nothing more.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that everyone is a little bit racist & I agree. Maybe everyone is a little bit of a eugenicist also. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, apparently wrote a rather distasteful article on the issue. Check out page 107 of the following document:
And a more readable version: http://hawaii.edu/religion/courses/sanger.htm "The main objects of the Population Congress would be: a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.
c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives..." ---end of quote
Well, isn't that nice. All the good old fashioned family values we've come to expect from rather famous eugenicists. I guess what pops into the brain of one totalitarian zealot who had only one testicle can easily somehow pop into the pretty brain & eyes of another - the second person having no testicles at all. What's up with that? Was advocacy for eugenics just a 1932 "thing," or was this all just a coincidence?
I am reminded of the crazed hysteria on the left revolving around overpopulation, a hysteria which has caused some people, sadly, to not have children of their own. "Those people in the third world have a lot of babies & so therefore I should have none." Crazy & stupid in my view.
In looking at source documents by Margaret Sanger, it appears that she was an amoral fuck also.
Women raped, and all women up until the baby is viable, should be able to get abortions if they want them. But I also agree that the procedure should, in general, be highly discouraged.
Not everything is equal. Sanger & Singer are in rather the same boat - a boat I prefer not to be in.
Here's info on local atheist groups in & near Salt Lake:
Salt Lake Valley Atheists. Meets the 1st Sunday at Sizzler on 4th South
at 11:30AM. Kirk Robinson is the speaker this month. Eat if you wish,
but it's not required. Come to the back room. For more info: http://nowscape.com/a
Atheists of Utah is a 501C3 type group and so is "officially"
politically neutral, but attendees can have whatever views they wish
& debate & discuss freely. The coffee chats tend to be a
churning type of experience, and they can be fun if you decide to simply
talk to your neighbor. Location Mestizo's Coffeehouse, 7-9:30PM. More
info on the website.
The above groups, and this group, are members of UCOR, the Utah Coalition of Reason. http://reasonutah.org/
The yearly Exmormon Foundation conferences in Salt Lake have never had a
"Christian" agenda per se - mostly a secular one of learning to live
life after being in the circle of the cult. http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/
There are two Unitarian Universalist congratulations in the Salt Lake
valley and some former mos attend. My own personal satisfaction level
with each congregation has varied & wavered over time. From a
cultural perspective the meetings & layout are more similar to
Catholic & Anglican services rather than Mormon. The kids are, for
example, sent away to rooms instead of being allowed to stay with their
parents. Also they tend to have a paid preacher - who does admittedly
tend to be very socially liberal, but still it's usually the same person
speaking every week. The UU's in general have some taboos about being
truly honest about he problems with religion though, and so sadly they
have their heads in the sand as much as other religions to some extent.
But nevertheless they are a socializing option you could consider if you
wish. My further concerns about UUism: http://tinyurl.com/beqls4b
My view on such things is that people are unfortunately jumping from
one cult to another. That's my view, and I won't belong to any group
that would seek to censor my trying to speak my mind. I try not to be a
cultural relativist, so I could say "if that what floats your boat, so
be it" but I won't because doing so makes me feel bad.
Here again is a more full list of groups that ARE stronger advocates for secularism and the fruits of the Enlightenment: http://reasonutah.org/groups/
Try them all - as on that site. And don't forget that in some there is a
weekly or monthly churning. So if irritating people show up one week,
maybe next time you'll find more interesting people - or you could be
the interesting person yourself.
Even some some atheists wonder about the anger of exmormons & fellow atheists.
Why? Why? Why are we so angry?
Because we have damn good reasons to be. Check out the links above. Read what people actually say.
All that baggage. Why don't we just "get over it?" We do live our lives and we move forward. But we never completely "move on." Why? Because the petrified penis of Mormonism still stands tall over Salt Lake. Because the "Miracle of Forgiveness" is still sold in the Mormon Church distribution centers. Because asshole Boyd Packer is still spewing human spirit destroying filth. Because the Mormon Church continues to oppress people. Because we're upset at being lied to. Because some of our families disowned us. Because some of our fellows committed suicide because of the pain.
Some people who had a fluffy exit from Mormonism, or who were only ever liberal religionists or who have always been non-religious, these people often have no idea what life was like in Mormonism or other conservative cults.
Why don't we just "get over it?" Ask us in a more respectful tone & maybe we'll tell you.
I will not disparage people for seeking social support after they leave a cult. You shouldn't either.
Why is it such a mystery to some why these people have "so much religious baggage?" Because they do. And maybe they need some help learning how to be more free from the cult they spent many years inside.
Atheist groups serve as a social support for people who leave various religions. People with a "lot of religious baggage" may well show up to such meetings, and if that offends you, too bad. It's par for the course at such meetings. Maybe those people need your help.
Related site & a good quote: http://new.exchristian.net/2011/02/why-are-atheists-so-angry.html
"...Atheists are fully justified in their anger, and that anger may be the last, best hope for our species surviving our own ignorance and gullibility. If religious forces ever manage to quell our anger, then they will have won the battle . . . and lost the world..."
