Can China inherit the Earth? Attention Atheists: Have More Kids!

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...

Heterosexual Kissing Leads to Life!

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

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

----quote begins of posting 1:

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

May be child abuse.

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

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

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

Keep your Jesus off my penis cuts both ways.

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

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

----quote begins of posting 2:

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

Hetero kissing leads to life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal heresy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite so.

---

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

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

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

---

Additional related thoughts:

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


----quote ends of posting 2:

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

----quote begins of posting 3:

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

I only have two hands.

Were you drunk when you replied? Jonathan Brown?

LGBT rights today. Zoophile & NAMBLA tomorrow.

This JPAC guy does have a point...

























---

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

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

Quite so.

They have a good point.

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

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

WGAF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't like that? Too bad.

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Whoever the hell black atheists are?

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

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

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

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

Not everything is equal. The LDC maintains it is.

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

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

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

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

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

BUT, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist & so on.

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

----quote begins of posting 4:

Further:

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

The number has gone up & down a bit.

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

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

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

Another 2 to 3 billion to get sexual reproduction.

60 MYBP (million years before present) for primates

20 MYBP for great apes

2.5 MYBP for the homo genus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever.

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

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

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

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

Atheists Brainwashed By the Homosexual Agenda / Stonewall Centers - August 2013

From August 2013:

Atheist groups and members of those groups ARE being brainwashed by the homosexual agenda, as taught inside the Stonewall Centers. Inside each Stonewall center is a set of dogmas, and books there to back up those dogmas. If you question their dogmas they'll boot you out. You're not allowed to question their core dogmas. Just another Church. Atheists are being chumps and fools - just like any person brain washed by any other religion.

Secular positions against gay marriage - some links found...

In these articles when they say "the state" I would replace that with "the community." "The state" is a bit too strong of a term for me. Humans exist in communities, and they do get to set their own community rules.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=174431302683586&id=174427829350600

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/the-liberal-case-against-gay-marriage

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174848127/severing-love-from-diapers-gay-marriage-opponents-make-their-case

This whole deal has been an incredible eye opener.

Step back far enough from a position and you may well find yourself in the weeds of a Stonewall Center. This is exactly what's happened with atheist groups. And by "atheist group" we may as well call many of them "Leftist" groups, because it's very difficult to distinguish between their agendas and that of the social left in America: the assumption that everything is equal, and that everyone and all "lifestyles" are deserving of "equal rights" and equal respect. These are their dogmas. Question them, and they'll boot you - like any church would.

If your kids get sucked into a homosexual brain washing center AKA a Stonewall Center, or the gay culture generally, here is what they'll be exposed to: a.) a petty stunted life, and one which inherently leads to no children, no future - just petty vain childish play for all of their life; b.) exposure either directly to pedophilia (sex with underage people), or apology for such; c.) drugs (drug use is higher among gays); d.) deadly diseases (AIDS, other deadly STDs, etc.), and again e.) no ready opportunity to have real flesh & blood children of your own - to reproduce in a normal healthy natural way. YES, THIS MEANS SOMETHING AND IS IMPORTANT!

So we have underage sex & sex abuse. Drugs. AIDS. No naturally born children of your own. A stunted petty childish life. Brainwashing type teaching that being "gay" should be "equal." Well, it ain't. It never was, and by hell it never will be.

Atheists are, sadly, and en masse, jumping out of one church straight into the hands of another - but perhaps into a WORSE one, one which is far more damaging.

American Atheists - this group has done this.

Center For Inquiry - this group also.

Atheist Community of Austin - yep.

Several atheists go to Unitarian Universalist meetings, and such meetings are brain washing centers for the liberal death cult (eg; Having children is of less value, and acceptance of the homosexual  agenda via rainbow flag flying & worse).

The liberal deal cult (LDC) meme set infects all these groups. Samples of ideas from this meme set: 1.) Overpopulation & concerns about the environment means you should not have any kids of your own. 2.) Single parents raise kids just as good as two parent homes. 3.) Homosexual couples raise kids just as good. 4.) Human reproduction is now of little value, and if a person "chooses" to be a virtual zero on the Great Mandala, that's no problem. It's their choice.

Not all choices are of equal value, nor should all choices be supported equally by the community. That's one bottom line. And dare I say, advocacy for real flesh & blood reproduction is by f another - a good one, a worthwhile one, one worth advocating for and fighting for. YOU wouldn't be here without straight sex, straight pride, straight relationships (eg: normal human relationships) - even if your current views are rather traitorous in response.

August 14, 2013 - 7:33am

more info and links:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html
and
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/

Advice for Social Conservatives & Moderates, from a Family Values Atheist

On social issues, groups of scientists, atheism, and the atheist movement are still religions.

Dogma.

Doctrine.

Unquestionable dogma & doctrine.

Heresy & excommunication trials.

These are a few of religion's favorite things.

Humans are not a tabula rasa (a blank slate).

Here is some general advise for the religious & social right & middle:

1. Put more of your energy into searching for secular arguments to back up the otherwise good & valuable human morality that exists with your cultures.

2. Be less harsh & abusive where necessary.

3. Admit that on the "god" front (including on evolution), the intellectual argument has mostly gone to the side of the left.

4. Many of the moral arguments you make do have value - when made a bit less harsh.

Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea: Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. Fully natural, normal, valuable, and useful human morality can and does exist within religious frameworks. A damn hard thing for a liberal to admit! In fact many liberals are in active denial.

It's no wonder that Steven Pinker has commented about the modern denial of human nature, in his book The Blank Slate.

The left IS in denial, just as the right has been about god & evolution.

Yes we ARE animals, with BUILT IN morals, AND some damn good reasons for ascribing shame (yes shame!) to certain otherwise descructive human behaviors.

I remember when Sam Harris made note of how the right's view on Islam was more correct than the secular left. The secular left is in denial about Islam.

I remember when Steven Pinker made note of how the left & right are both in denial about human nature.

I remember when Christopher Hitchens made not of how the left was in denial about Islam and both the right & left about Mother Theressa.

I remember when Daniel Dennett stated "Dennett's Dangerous Idea" (thanks go to me for coining this if no one else has to date!), that: Religion is a natural phoenomenon. Again, this apparent fact cuts both ways. Very inconventient for the social agenda of assholes like P.Z. Myers and the like. The fundie left.

Hey, when I listened to the talk of the following guy, he does mention the tabula rasa issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfHTNt4ELwY

Hmmm.

Here's additional articles I found, debates, & discussions:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/03/22/homophobia-phobia-bad-science-or-bad-science-comprehension/

http://www.albany.edu/psychology/files/Gallup_Vita.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309594000286

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ensold/article/0162-3095%2896%2900042-8/abstract

Why all the gay stuff? Because the left worships homosexuality as the pinnacle of liberal sex. No kids. "Cha-ching" they say - "we're helping the environment!" Automatic birth control. Perfect liberal sex. Also perfect liberal marriage.

People trying to "recover" from conservative religion can be and are easily sucked into the abusive fundamentalism of the left.

For example: Atheists of Utah - in my view a fundamentalist religion of the left. Doctrines. Dogmas. Unquestionable paradigms. An ultra-leftist social agenda. Voted by Q Salt Lake as the best religion, and a runner up to being the best social group.

But where's the regular straight families? Where's the children? Where's the people who value good old fashioned healthy happy useful family values? They're actively excluded. They MUST be, because politically correct leftist dogmatism is their core religion.

Boozer parties where high alchohol content liquor is raffled off.

Beer drinking meetups on a more frequent basis.

But not much pro-kid stuff.

Leadership straight from the local branch of Stonewall.

Nominated by Q Salt Lake as being the pinnacle of religions & the near pinnacle of social groups.

But again being at that pinnacle is not all it's cracked up to be.

Not only does the conservative emperor have no clothes (eg: Joseph Smith), the liberal emperer has none also (eg: "gay culture"). The latter group are happy about that though, with their constant posting of near-naked photos of themselves on facebook.

Hey, I've seen it all first hand. I've seen the ultra-right AND the ultra-left. Unlike your average muff mouthed muff brained liberal, I've done in depth research into BOTH "ultra" sides. And here's what I've found: BOTH SIDES are nearly equally abusive!

It's sad that scientists claim they're being objective when they're not - on social issues.

They're ok with being mostly-objective when it comes to far off things like planets, or far distant in history things like dinosaurs. BUT, question their ultra-leftist social agenda on things like marriage & family, and by fuck they will revert to the new-ultra-dogmatic-religion-of-the-left as quick as a bat out of hell. Two seconds. Maybe one

"Yes, here on the high pillars of academia, we poo poo and laugh at the poor middle & right leaning religionists, with their views on the existence of god & evolution. BUT, question our social views and we'll quickly show you just how religious WE ARE as scientists - so-called scientists who refuse to be scientists when it comes to social issues."

So, yes, Mr. & Mrs. Conservative, you ARE right to conclude that groups of scientists, AND atheist groups, AND secular groups, most such groups are religions - dogmatic religions of the left.

----------

Both sides, right & left, poison of the well of reasonable discussion regarding natural normal good valuable useful human morality.

Jumping from one extreme to the other is no solution.

Honesty is the answer! Both to dogmatism on the right & the left.

Related posts:

Recovery from Atheists of Utah
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html

The Atheist Movement needs move laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html

Recovery from Atheists of Utah

Thoughts on recovery from Atheists of Utah, and similar "secular," "humanist," and "naturalist" groups.

A new religion is born, and as with all religion there are de facto elders, priests, doctrines, dogmas, belief maintenance, heresy trials, and excommunications. With the new religion of atheism things are a bit more subtle, but not by much.

Recently in the very exclusive ultra-leftist-atheists-only closed facebook group for A of U I had the audacity to state that I thought Duck Dynasty was provocative, useful, and mostly ok. That was heresy for the group leader.

Here's an expanded version of a response I posted in their closed exclusive de facto ultra-leftie-atheist group:

You're already well on your way to becoming an anti-normal-family religion.

Here's one recent example of the leftist hatred for the normal productive family:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/stfu

The common stance of your membership falls along similar lines to the STFU-Parents-woman who'd prefer that normal families just shut up about the joys of having children.

In response to my expression of appreciation for Duck Dynasty, your group has given religious responses thus far, straight from the latest human religion.

Belief maintenance. Heresy trials. 

I don't wish to belong to the religion of atheism plus or similar dogmatic faiths.

The founder of your church hooked up with a pro-life atheist and had a kid with her. But she was never welcome at SLVA (Salt Lake Valley Atheists) because of her views. SLVA was decidedly pro-ultra-left.

The fruit of the founder's outreach work has resulted in an ultra-Stonewall focus for your group. That's just the way it is. But it's a bit ironic that the founder of A of U ended up having a kid with a woman forcibly excluded from SLVA because of her social conservative views.

Hmmm. As the world (or stomach) turns. I would have expected better, but it's all rather par for the course in the long history of human religion.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled mirrored echo chamber of unquestioned newly dominant paradigms.

Is the judgement of the church court in now? Sounds like it may be.

Yes I like Duck Dynasty. 

Heresy for A of U.

If you want to have a discussion that's one thing. But if you're just a priest of a church, who pulls every tool out for discounting an argument other than possibly reasonable ones, then I'm not particularly obliged to respond - any more than I am to the leader of any other religion.

---

Atheists of Utah was recently named the "best Religious Group" and a runner up for the Best Social Group, as awarded by Q Salt Lake. Apt & appropriate awards. But being at the pinnacle of appreciation for the ultra-left is not all it's cracked up to be. An ultra-leftist cult. That's what Atheists of Utah has become in my view - and so I don't wish to be a member.

Were a group to be founded to help people recover from this new destructive cult of the left, here's draft short & long descriptions for such a hopeful recovery group:

Short description:

At Recovery from Atheists of Utah we help you recover from recovery from religion, particularly the religion known as Atheists of Utah.

Long description:

Did you leave one cult just to find you'd jumped right into another? Atheists claim their beliefs are falsifiable - unless you question the social-agenda aspects of their views. THEN the de facto heresy & excommunication trials begin.

Here at Recovery from Atheists of Utah we recover from the ultra-leftist side of atheism. The extreme-cultist left. Yes the right has their problems, but the left can be just as dogmatic and abusive.

An open exchange of ideas is welcome here. We don't resort to unwarranted name-calling as a means of shutting people up or belief maintenance!

Humans have in and out group morality.

Our in group morality is expanding, and that's a good thing.

But human nature DOES naturally include shaming for certain activities which are otherwise destructive. A damn hard thing for an ex-conservative religionist to realize is that SOME of that shaming actually is a damn good thing for the future of humanity.

Speaking the truth. Liberal cultists don't like it any more than conservative cultists do.

We didn't leave one religion just to join another.

Atheists of Utah, in the view of the author of this description, has become a leftist cult. Just as abusive as cults on the right.

But it's worse in my view: It's a part of the LDC - the Liberal Death Cult, a cult which does not value life & survival - again in the view of the author.

Does this description go too far? Maybe. My beliefs may be falsifiable. I'm willing to listen to evidence. They however, apparently, are not.

Recover from the dogmatism of the left. Avoid politically correct destructive whirlpools of consensus, mirrored echo chambers, and unquestioned newly-dominant paradigms.

Does the right have a point, at least on some issues? It's heresy amongst liberals to say: YES!

But again, we didn't leave one fucking cult just to join another.

Recover, from Atheists of Utah, and similar destructive leftist cults. How? Through honesty, and avoiding affiliation with all de-facto ultra-leftist new-cults. Cults & religions, on the left & the right. We need to find a new way to be human than these petty shallow infantile first-attempts: Through science, honesty, honest history, and being willing to listen to ALL sides.

Does the other side have a point? For example, the guys on Duck Dynasty? What if they do? What if the right is right on at least some points? Heresy, heresy, heresy to admit this. But the LDC is stuck in their own narcissistic hole.

These are all the views of the author - after a lot of observation & seeing what happens on all sides - PLUS after taking a step back from America and seeing what happens in other countries. Come to find out social-conservatvism, aspects of it, DOES actually help humanity survive, thrive, and be happy. Whodathunkit?

The TBMs (True Believing Mormons) don't like my blog. AND the TBULAs (True Believing Ultra Liberal Atheists) don't like it either. Maybe that means I'm making progress!

It's also worth noting that we may need recovery from the Exmoron Foundation. That's another story.

---

Related blog posts:

The Atheist Movement needs move laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html

Advice for Social Conservatives & Moderates, from a Family Values Atheist
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/advice-for-social-conservatives.html

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/atheism
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/homosexuality

Did Jewish Circumcision help lead to the Holocaust? | Both sides are right (& wrong).

All sides are right (& wrong), liberals, moderates, & conservatives.

All sides are right - all sides have valid points. And all sides are wrong also.

Attention atheist groups: I don't want to be in your religions. I left one religion already. I don't wish to join yours. I don't wish to kiss the ass of your de facto priests. I don't wish to join your chump chorus of ultra-liberalism.

It's been a long hard road. I've examined what goes on with "the left," and I've found it to be just as abusive as what goes on with "the right."

Key background:

1. Spending 26 years in the Mormon Church.
2. Went on a Mormon mission to Alaska.
3. Going to Rick College for a year (now BYU Idaho).
4. Being a temple worker in more than one Mormon temple.
5. Going to BYU in Provo, Utah for a year.
6. Leaving the Mormon Church.
7. Living in Texas.
8. Living in Oregon, checking out the wild Alice-in-Wonderland-style scene there & the fucking hippies.
9. Marrying a woman from China, where they've had pretty much zero exposure to Mormonism, Catholicism, & most other churches, and examining what their views are.
10. Hearing from people like Steven Pinker with his book The Blank Slate. Also from Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.
11. Daniel Dennett talking about how religion is a natural phenomenon.
12. Making note of how I had one uncle who grew up in Manti, Utah (ultra conservative Mormon small town). This uncle went to San Francisco to "let it all hang out," to apparently rebel against his ultra-conservative upbringing. He ended up dying of AIDS as a supposedly gay man, leaving his straight family with no father. WTF. A victim of BOTH Mormonism, and the gay freaks of San Francisco. Forced to jump from one side directly to the other. Abused by both!
13. Making note of the drunk bum aunt with no kids I knew as a child, the one who'd often phone my father while drunk. No kids of her own. A dead end largely meaningless life.
14. Making note of my gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty, shallow, and misguided life as an angle reader, and as a guy who readily accepts convicted pedophiles into his network of friends - I saw this first hand. Also making note of my many experiences going out with this nephew to gay bars & parties, and observing first hand the narcissistic messed-up people who tend to show up to such events (friends of my nephew). Truman Capote types. Shallow, sorry, messed up, narcissistic, people.
15. And yet (!) also making note of the service oriented gay people who help us & other people, and whose life work is centered around helping others. Also making note of the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde.
16. Making note of how BOTH ultra conservatism and ultra liberalism are abusive to the progress of humanity.

Examples of how both sides are right (& wrong):

On abortion:

Yes, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, and Peter Singer is an amoral fuck.

After-viability abortion is murder.

Before viability (the closer to conception & the further away from viability), the more "choice" there is that can be reasonably allowed.

In the case of the average crack whore pregnancy, or rape, or incest: before viability, the "choice" is still there to help prevent the birth. But, once viability is reached, the point of "choice" has fully & completely passed.

On the whole gay thing:

It's true that a gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage. Gay sex is not the same as straight sex.

Straight sex & straight marriage is inherently more valuable, to humanity, and to the individual, and to human flourishing!

Gay sex is not as inherently valuable as straight sex. Gay sex is inherently a dead end.

Whatever the biological underpinnings are for being gay, because of the nature of how sex works in humans (& other animals), unless you work to avoid it you may end up having a dead end stunted life.

I was a liberal chump about this issue in the past. Now, as per taking a step back and examining what I observed first hand both with my gay nephew & gay uncle, I've changed by views.

And yet: There are service oriented gay people who spend their lives helping others. That's great! And I value the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde!

It's true that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against regarding apartments or jobs! They should be able to have civil unions.

But on the other hand, when we talk about things like adoptions, or having children around, a straight kid growing up in a gay household will not have his or her straightness valued as much - by default. The abusive narcissistic petty dead end shit that goes on in gay culture could well easily mess up any otherwise-normal straight kid growing up around gay culture. So the right does have a point about this!

A certain level of concern regarding homosexuality is good, but on the other hand, the ultra-right goes way to far with their level of concern.

For example, in Mormonism they tell their children that masturbation can lead to homosexuality. Such a claim is child abuse. And of course the stance of Uganda on the issue is abusive. So the right goes way to far in their condemnation.

We shouldn't be as harsh as the right on the issue, nor as open as the left.

Children may NEED a mommy & a daddy, to be healthy, happy, well rounded, and thrive.

So like it or not, both sides are right, to a point, and with appropriate caveats.

On environmentalism, tree hugging, and overpopulation:

How are both sides right?

We do need to work to preserve & protect the garden. Yes that's quite true. Humans DO contribute to global warming. Also true. BUT, on the other hand, population control IS an abusive response!

Science & technology are the answers! Nothing else is! NOT forced population control on a personal or country level! That is an abusive response!

There's no such thing as overpopulation in first world countries - this is quite true. And humans DO come first above other animals and plants.

Liberal ideology, prompting you to be childless, may leave you a zero on the great mandala.

From what I've seen: Liberals hate children, normal families, and so on. STFU Parents is the tip of the iceburg. It seems to me that: liberals hate having children, and the normal family structure.

Your average college age kid will go to a liberal college or university & come away convinced that he or she should probably not have kids of his or her own because of concern over the environment. Abusive. Wrong headed. Brainwashing. Just as much braining washing by the left as what goes on with the right.

For the relativist liberal their ideal "family" is a childless one - because then the environment and the Earth is protected - supposedly. Stupid. Abusive. Such wrong headed evil ideology will lead them, and everyone sucked in by such ideology, to be pretty much a zero in the long term. Win or loose now you must choose now. Where will you be the tapestry of life?

Lesbians at the weekly Thursday coffee chat of Atheists of Utah claim that Mormons who have a lot of kids are stupid. However it's the angry loud mouthed lesbians who're being stupid. Who will have the last laugh in 100 years?

I remember the related talk I gave at my mother's funeral at a Mormon meeting house.

Additional thoughts on all these issues:

To fully accept the equality of gay marriage the left must first assume that having children is not a valuable thing.

It's a good thing that we want to have kids - for many reasons. Not just because we're horny. Children are our future. And the liberal death cult is rather quite similar to the Shakers. The childfree life, and the homosexual lifestyle, is de facto celibacy.

Read this article:
http://www.strangenotions.com/very-sad-childfree-life/

Simply replace the word "god" with "14.5 billion years of evolution by natural selection." I know it's hard, but try to see though the Bible-centered language - through to our incredibly deep history as a species. DOES HAVING NO CHILDREN really honor your own personal billion-year history?

Being childfree is sad, petty, and ultimately a dead end. A death cult, by any other name, is still a death cult.

But, read what the Guardian says about the issue:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/16/choice-child-free-admirable-not-selfish

Leftist relativist brain washing. Leftist dogma that will stunt your life!

No, having a dog or cat around is not the same as a having human child! Not the same in the fucking least. Abused by liberalism, just as much as you may have been abused by conservatism!

Go to the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City. There you will find a congregation of grey haried liberals who don't really value having children, and normal families. Cultural relativists being abused by their own anti-children anti-family leftist ideology.

De facto religions of atheism & humanism are abusive.

But on the other hand (!!!): Rightist religions like are Mormonism are also abusive, for example when they tell children that masturbation is evil, should be feared, & may well lead to homosexuality.

Catholicism is also of course abusive when it comes to child raping priests. But, both Mormonism & Catholicism DO have valid points when it comes to abortion & birth control. Yes, you ARE abusing yourself if you exclude the possibility of children from your life!

It's a damn fucking hard truth to realize that very valuable & good elements of positive human morality can be fully rooted within otherwise abusive religion.

HOW can we realize this?

By examining what non-Catholic non-Mormon human cultures do and think!

Go to fucking China!

Take a step back!

Also consider again the double edged sword of Daniel Dennett's true revelation that religion is a natural phenomenon.

More on the problems with leftist religion:

The largely leftist religion of Judaism, which engages in the mass genital rape of their children, is very abusive.

Recently I toured the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

Here's a hard question for the religion of Judaism:

Is your own promotion of separation from other groups, as part of your religion, in any way responsible for the past expression of fully natural human out-group morality, natural human out-group morality which was expressed in the past?

Forced genital rape of your own children.

Teaching your children that they are better than others.

Such actions naturally caused other groups of humans to more readily express natural human out-group morality in your case. Like it or not.

Examining what happened with Naziism and the Holocaust is rather like staring human out-group morality directly in the face.

The Nazis were fully human, humans expressing out-group morality.

And when your religion promotes separation between your group & others, you could well more easily fall victim to sociopathic nut jobs like Hitler who were able to effectively take advantage of this fully natural readily available negative side of built-in human morality.

Group think. Mob mentality. Survival morality. Nationalism. Provincialism. And even the Old Testament is completely filled with expressions of advocacy for out-group morality.

For Judaism here's a hopeful website:

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org

Life is not so simple.

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

Don't want me in your atheist church? I don't want to be in your church.

I don't accept your religion, left or right. Rather I want to be an advocate for science, helpful progress which promotes widespread happiness, well being & health, and survival.

Truth & honestly are required for healthy progress. That means staring our own history in the face and being willing to accept what we see. And to then try to work through what we see clearly.

Mormon Bishops DO abuse children in their care when they teach children that masturbation is evil & may lead to homosexaulity.

And yet, homosexual couples do PERHAPS abuse children by raising them in forcibly-relativist dogmatically politically correct households where straightness is not valued, nor honored, nor supported, nor promoted.

So BOTH sides are being abusive, ok?

The answer to conservatism is not liberalism. Instead it's honest science, observation, and tying into ALL of what it means to be human (including being willing to shame & blame & judge where appropriate & useful - !!!). A VERY VERY fucking hard thing for an ex-conservative-religionist to accept! Damn hard.

-----

Thank goodness the Internet is expanding our in-group morality.

There is hope though. In all religions people are becoming less abusive. It just takes time.

And, let me say there's aspects of ALL cultures & religions which I personally value.

I'm PRO-human. Pro-happy-human. Pro-true-and-honest-naturalism, in as much as being for those natural parts of us which can help us be happy. But, I'm also pro-honesty. Falling into naturalistic fallacies is also a consideration.

We have to be willing to look ourselves in the mirror, and to help promote what looks good, and remove the pimples which don't. That's all.

---

Did Jewish Circumcision help lead to the Holocaust? | Both sides are right: Liberals & Conservatives

Social conservatism. Social liberalism. Politics. Etc.

Free St. Patrick's Day from ultra-leftist religious dogmatism

Seculars against ultra-leftist religious dogmatism.

Naive ultra-liberal dogmatism is highly present in the following de facto branches of the religion known as Stonewall: American Atheists; Atheism Plus; Unitarian Universalism; Council for Secular Humanism; Center For Inquiry, Atheists of Utah, and so-called naturalists and humanists.

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?

Most recently the LGBTQPZ community became very upset with the New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade.

Found this on American Atheists' facebook page:

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.

Related post I generally agree with:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1467403400144168&id=293011477509961

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."

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/who-are-the-real-bigots-in-the-st-pats-spat/14797#.UycY1PldWaR

 ---end of quote

Related posts:

Listening to the NARTH guy - issues more complex than either side says
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/03/listening-to-narth-guy-issues-more.html

A high abundance of angel readers and other nutjobs within the gay "lifestyle"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-high-abundance-of-angel-readers-and.html

Again from http://www.naturalism.org/sexualit.htm

"...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.

Listening to the NARTH guys - issues more complex than either side says

The NARTH guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb_mks65Gwg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKxYBch2LVM

Listening 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.

Religion is a natural phenomenon, and so, like it or not natural human morality can be rooted in religion, even if religions also have built-in lies that their members are forbidden to speak against. And religions can go overboard, such as via equating masturbation with being gay.

Back in my fat bastard days I held up the book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl.

But politically correct liberals engage in the naturalistic fallacy when they state that homosexuality is "ok" because it's natural. So what.

Related blog post:

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

It's very true that Spencer Kimball and Boyd Packer were/are fucking perverts, as is the Pope. But, on the other hand so is my nutty gay nephew who constantly presents himself online in is underwear, and who has as a friend a convicted child abuser.

So, things ain't quite so easy to sort out as either side would have you believe.

Seeing first hand how things work can change your views. Yes it's quite true that the Mormon Church abuses children via their sexual masturbation interrogation interviews. But, there's also child abuse that happens at Stonewall centers too. Both sides are too extreme, too exclusive, too rigid, too dogmatic.

No I'm not gay. But I've been to enough gay parties & bars, and around the petty shallow stunted narcissistic friends of my nutty gay nephew to state that the "gay lifestyle" ain't all it's cracked up to be. But, don't change back to a fucking Mormon or Bible Beating Christian either - if you feel inclined to change.

And if you live a largely-abuse-free service oriented largely happy life as a gay man, that's ok too I suppose. Just don't cheat on your straight wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father. That's my advise to you.

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

On Ukraine & Russia: Russia is lying.

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

The way you love does matter.

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

You can have abuses on both sides.

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

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

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

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

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

Having kids is a good thing.

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

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

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

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

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

On NPR - National Politically Correct Radio

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

A high abundance of angel readers and other nutjobs within the gay "lifestyle"

Do psychic whackjobs really believe their own claptrap?

Read carefully the following example: http://goo.gl/ea9C6A

$100 per hour. $50 per half hour. What a bargain. Contact your dead loved ones. Find out all your medical problems. Oh my.

Oh, and what about the fun spelling errors at http://goo.gl/6gqjHk

The fruity flakey nature of the man's mother didn't help with his propensity to be sucked into such claptrap.

Here's one friend of the man in question:
"Predator was coach, Scout chief" http://goo.gl/vmC2J8

How nice.

I now have no contact with the whackjob psychic in question, and upon reflection I'm glad to also have no association moving forward with his friends, such as the abusive ex-con mentioned on the third site listed above.

Not everything is black & white, nice and pleasant, happy & healthy, in the "gay" community... Crass narcissism. Endless petty vain tail chasing. New-Age moonbattery. Easy acceptance of other abusers. These attributes are common in the culture.

Unitarians are the most accepting people? If you're too accepting you might just get AIDS, die, and leave your straight family with no father.

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

No, I ain't one, but after first hand exposure via my gay nephew & attendance within him at many gay parties and a few gay bars, I can see why someone would want to "live straight."

Living straight means: A more productive life, one which naturally includes the ready possibility of children. A life that doesn't require frequent contact with new age nutjobs and vain petty narcissists. A life which isn't, by default and without great effort to avoid it, a dead end. Anyway...

updated religious and political views... an atheist moderate / conservative

Here's an update on my religious and political views:

Religion: Atheist

The only gods worth worshiping are love, sex, life, and children.

Make a difference. Do something useful. Think about legacy. Don't be a drunk bum who stares at your own belly button all your life. Find someone else's to stare at instead.

Straight pride is life affirming, and worth valuing and supporting. You wouldn't be here if it weren't for straight pride and dare I say straight sex.

I've observed first hand:

1. A gay uncle who died of AIDS and left his hetero family without a father.

2. A gay nephew who lives and incredibly childish, petty, and stunted life.

3. Homosexual culture at many gay parties and bars.

4. The acceptance of one pedophile (abused 12-16 year olds) into the gay community after being released from prison. Constant talk in gay groups using the term "boy," and an apparent desire on their part to lower the age of consent.

5. A sister who has been sucked into the liberal death cult, where she believes she should have no children because of overpopulation. She's also living a petty and stunted life.

So several years of first hand observation & exploration has yielded this result.

Questioning all dogmas, at first. Initially take a step back. Examining all cultures. Seeing what is at the heart of human nature. Don't take the liberal view or side just by default. Questioning that side also.

Then, here's the hard part: Realize that:

Religion is a natural phenomenon. So not every tenant of a religion is necessarily bad. Some tenants ARE fully natural and rather good, both for the individual, and for the community.

The ONLY PATH to true flesh & blood immortality is reproduction. A mommy. A daddy. Good old fashioned straight sex and marriage. Damn right!

Not everything is equal. Make a difference. Share your memes if you can, but, if in the end you fail to also share your genes, that is too bad for you and for humanity.

Do what you can while you can to not live a stunted life. Ok? If doing so requires taking drastic action (like looking far and wide for a compatible mate - DO IT!). Don't let the liberal meme set leave you as a virtual zero on the great mandala.

Political views: moderate

Socially moderate to conservative.

After several years of first hand observation of "gay culture" I've come to conclude that it's one which is stunted, petty, childish, sad, and a dead end. The ex-gay movement is something worth checking out, if you find that you're either attracted to people of the same sex, or if you've been sucked into that culture.

Economically liberal, with the admission that too many people are on the dole (visit your average social security office on any day to see the status of things). But, the state sponsored dole is better than the Church or the street.

Hawk regarding Islam.

Christopher Hitchens fan.

Wary of cults of personality though.

more info: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/

Families Can Be Together Forever... Through Evolution!

Families can be together forever... through evolution and natural selection.  Marriage. Sex. Children. This is the path to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.

Thoughts on related topics:

Masturbation: Ok if it doesn't detract one from reproductive sex. For most people it won't. It doesn't need to be encouraged nor discouraged. And it won't in and of itself lead to homosexuality.

Sex before marriage: As an addendum to the comments I made in the video, on top of education and disease prevention, if we could have a system of verifiable virginity before a person enters into a long term committed relationship (eg: marriage) that would still be nice & preferable. Of course it's not 100% possible as per what people actually do. But I am just saying that 16, 17, and 18 year olds should find some other way of "playing around" that rules out a.) disease transmission, and b.) hey, may even a loss of virginity.

Abortion: Should be discouraged but legal before viability, and illegal after. As the viability timeline is reduced via science, then the legal line should follow it downward. People who engage in abortion before viability are not murderers per se. Not 100% free from ridicule perhaps, if the procedure is just used so that "you can be you" and for fully selfish reasons. But on the other hand people like Peter Singer who advocate for after birth abortions have been infected by the liberal meme set.

Homosexuality: Justified by the liberal meme set.
.
Living the childfree life: People who're hurt & abused by the liberal meme set. People who cut themselves off from the only immortality we will ever experience. Chumps & fools.

Overpopulation: Not a concern, and certainly even if it were you should still have children!

Religion is a natural phenomenon: A hard concept for the ex-religionist to accept also.

Can you question liberal dogma?

Related posts:

Family Values Atheism: Questioning liberal dogma -- the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here -- questioning gay marriage -- secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html
and
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html

response to: 'Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers' and questioning sex with 'boys' in gay culture

Story in "Q Salt Lake:"
Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers

"The owner of the pornographic site, MormonBoyz.com, says their site was under a denial of service attack late Sunday night and that the IP addresses of the servers being used to implement the attack were traced to being housed in a ZIP code that only contains the blocks of Temple Square, the LDS Church Office Building and the LDS Conference Center."
...as from
http://gaysaltlake.com/news/2013/08/05/porn-site-claims-attack-by-lds-church-servers

Taking a step back, the verbiage reportedly used on the site in question is a bit disconcerting.

...as from the story, where they quote from the site MormonBoyz.com:

"These guys are every bit as sexual as other boys their age, but are also wonderfully innocent and wholesome. And actually, you might even say that because of their deprivation, these boys are pent up and starved for release, and that makes them even more sexual...”

...Sounds like 11 or 12 year olds to me. What do you think?

The use of the term "boys" may be popular in homosexual culture & circles, but I wonder if it's really appropriate or useful - or telling? I have a homosexual nephew and have been to homosexual bars and parties. So I'm quite familiar with what goes on.

I have no special allegiance, and I don't particularly care about being "blacklisted" by fellow homosexuals since I'm not one. So, let me say that while it's a bit strange that they received a denial of service attack possibly from Mormon HQ, the use of the term "boys" is also strange. How about sexymormonmen, or mormonmen. But the use of the boy term tempts me to assume that sex with underage children is more associated with homosexual culture than some would otherwise like to admit.

Try to excommunicate me for saying so, but there is a crappy creepy underside to "gay culture" which is not politically correct (in "progressive" circles) to talk about.

For example, the man referenced in the following page was readily accepted back into the "gay community" after serving prison time for child rape (I was a first hand witness to this acceptance):

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695261750/Secret-shame-Predator-was-coach-Scout-chief.html?pg=all

The propensity for my own nephew to constantly post near naked pictures of himself in his underwear on facebook, while at the same time being supposedly "involved" or somewhat committed relationship to another man is telling, don't you think? And the use of the term "boy" this and "boy" that as homosexual men ogle other "men," or dare we say, "boys," in gay bars & parties is also telling.

Maybe there is biological exuberance in the human form of sexual expression known as homosexuality. But on the other hand just because something is "natural" doesn't mean we have to accept 100% of all that goes on. We don't. There's all sorts of human activities which we could be described as natural but which should nevertheless be curtailed. It's a balancing act and everyone draws the line somewhere. I would just like to suggest that people who engage or advocate for, explicitly, or implicitly, sex with underage children, deserved to be called out for what they are: child rapists & apologists for such.

Are Catholic priests who rape young boys "straight?" Doesn't sound like it to me, not according to the verbiage used by the owners of MormonBoyz.com, and not according to verbiage frequently used in gay bars and parties.

I know there's men who are rather highly genetically predisposed to be homosexual. Perhaps the shallow and childish nature of my own nephew was a misnomer? I imagine there are some "family values" homosexuals out there who don't spend 100% of their free time ogling "the boys" at bars & parties, and parading around in front of each other near naked on forums like facebook. Certainly there's slutty crazy straight people who're also selfish & largely a bunch of wastrels (particularly those who choose to not have kids & be "child free").

But again, one thing about straight sex is that it naturally leads to responsibility and growing up. Gay sex doesn't, and the results are sometimes a near permanent petty childhood state. I've observed this state first hand, and I believe it deserves to be commented on, particularly when convicted child rapists are not directly ostracized and confronted in the "gay community" when they get out of prison.

That Shitty Chicken Place: I never eat there anyway

I never eat at the chicken place currently being mentioned in the news, and haven't done so since maybe one time about 15 or 20 years ago when Crossroads Mall was still open. Should gay people get married? I don't think the law should ban adults from doing what they please with other adults. I'm still in favor of questioning all suppositions and dogmas, left and right alike. So I'm willing to listen to all sides. But I don't think the force of law should be used to keep people from doing what they please with other adults.

However I do think that the crucible of debate should be used to shine a light on all dogma, left and right alike. For example here's one guy with enough balls to do this:
http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1578785

Ad hominem attacks and conversation killers like "racist," "bigot," and "misogynist" don't help further the conversation. It goes without saying that the COO of the "shitty-chicken-place-that-I-never-go-to-anyway" could rightly be described as a bigot. But all this fervor makes me think we should also take a step back and examine >why< people think the way they do. There may be naturalistic explanations to why people respond the way they do to things. Religion is after all a natural phenomenon, like it or not. Maybe what people really object to is who's making a contribution to moving humanity forward? Are you doing it? Am I?

Is it difficult but still possible to listen to both sides in a vociferous debate and to take a step back from both sides and do a more thorough evaluation. Do we have the balls to ask hard questions of both sides?

In any case, let's all try to be less selfish. Think about legacy. And let the people who like the shitty chicken place go there if they want. I never go there anyway.