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.
I can see why black atheists in Atlanta are inclined to be nationalistic. I don't agree with them that every aspect of European culture is inherently evil. However listening to their views helped me take a step back & realize that many atheist & humanist groups in America are dogmatically, politically, and socially ultra-left - and de facto religions themselves as a result. If you find yourself to be an atheist who's not socially ultra-left, you will be kicked out of such groups. So, the new atheist groups are now in my view religions in and of themselves.
Given enough education about Islam, and one may advocate for Islamofactia and Islamotruthia, rather than being guilty of "Islamophobia." The same can go for homosexuality. "Homophobia?" In my view it's more like homofactia and homotruthia - when given enough knowledge.
Political correctness & towing the party line IS a part of the atheist "movement," and thus we don't have rationalism or skepticism, - instead we've got just another religion.
Can you question your dogma? The atheist may well want to accept all of the "yes you can do that" precepts in all cultures, but they're rather loath & unfortunately wary to realize that sometimes there's also value in having stigmas associated with destructive human behaviors.
It's taken me a LONG time to realize this, after taking an Alice in Wonderland style journey through some "let it all hang out" type activities, and having a gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his regular family with no father, and a gay nephew who spends his life in petty dead end pursuits (eg: posting near naked pictures of himself on facebook & near constant talk of sex with "boys," plus he & his friend's acceptance of a convicted pedophile back into the gay community after he was was released from prison).
So, given enough knowledge, even a liberal can wise up and realize that not everything is equal... Black Atheists of Atlanta helped me realize this, along with my wife who comes from another country - where they never heard of Mormonism and very very little of Christianity.
Daniel Dennett showed us that religion is a natural phenomenon - a realization that can cut both ways.
So, human nature & human morality can be expressed in religion. But just because a given religion says something is bad - that doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. They can merely be expressing a key part of human morality & human nature.
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.
