Violating our rules against hateful conduct.
You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.
As a result, we’ve temporarily limited some of your account features. While in this state, you can still browse Twitter, but you’re limited to only sending Direct Messages to your followers –– no Tweets, Retweets, follows, or likes. Learn more. Your account will be restored to full functionality in: 12 hours and 0 minutes.
——
I was on there with a pseudonym. There’s more where that came from.
As for FB the fight continues here also. San Fran freakazoids.
And I say this as a guy who’s seen lives destroyed in my own family via the abusive permissiveness of the cultural left. Real lives, real families, destroyed.
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.
Start with 8 (children), as an ultra-hard-line Mormon family.
Later 3 get sucked into a man-hating crazy-woman-led cult. The 3 all change their last names to that of the cult leader (the Cropper cult of Logan, Utah). 1 of the 3 Cropper cult converts later decides he's gay, while still working at BYU.
More recently 1 of the 8 decides to "change" from a man to a woman (not a Cropper cult 3, but another of the 8), leaving his children homeless and a broken home.
1 commits suicide (also separate from the 3 Cropper cult ones - probably because of irritable bowel syndrome in part, and who knows why else).
What are the causes? Why all this chaos in an ultra-right ultra-hard-line Mormon family?
Here's some theories:
A. Too much cheap ground beef as a child, and too much rice and beans? Cheapy poor-person possibly-third-world style nutrition as children, for all 8.
B. Parents too strict ultra Mormon. Father very angry and sometimes violent. Mother extreme passive aggressive my way or the highway type person re being a strict Mormon.
E. Ultra-rightist cults can spawn new sub-cults. A woman named Cropper in Logan, Utah started.a sub-cult branched from ultra Mormonism. She hates men and does laying on of hands, and has visions where she tell her adherents that all men are evil.
Three of my brother's children were sucked into this strange sub-cult in Logan. They all changed their last names to Cropper, and they now have zero contact with my brother or anyone in my "normal" regular family.
F. Ultra-right religion can cause a worse abuse when a child or adult rebels and becomes a permissive relativist ultra leftist.
See item C for more details.
G. Memetic diseases of the left can at times be more abusive and destructive than those of the right.
Families and lives are destroyed by leftist meme sets.
H. To have all this chaos, my ultra extreme angry passive and non-passive aggressive (sometimes violent) brother and his wife have set up a meat grinder somehow. Many of their children have been fucked up and damaged by the "my way or the highway" type of upbringing.
But on the other hand permissive relativist liberalism is also a meat grinder.
In the past I had a gay uncle who turned his back on his straight family, and he died of AIDS as a result. He was a victim of both the extreme right and the extreme left.
So with the latest news that one nephew of mine just destroyed his family because he's chosen to "change" his sex: this man IS a fucking victim of moronic leftist culture which claims that whatever damn fool thing pops into your head should be acted upon.
A marriage and family, destroyed.
Two wonderful little girls, ages 4 and 1, out on the street.
Permissive gay and tranny accepting leftist culture IS to blame for this! But so are his my way or the highway parents, AS IS anti-heathy-sex Mormonism.
Open ended acceptance of all things ，LGBT results in the destruction of lives! Bruce Jenner for example is a moron who's also a victim of permissive leftistism.
My uncle who jumped from ultra conservative Manti, Utah style Mormonism to San Francisco put your John Thomas in a glory hole liberalism was a fool and a victim of both the left and the right.
My longer standing pedophile-friend-accepting gay nephew is s victim of the anti-masturbation anti-positive sex Mormonism, AND permissive leftistism.
My newly transgender nephew and his children and his now destroyed family are victims of the meat grinder nature of his patents' ultra conservative strict angry violent Mormonism, and also of permissive relativist leftistism.
Lives are destroyed by ultra rightism and ultra leftistism. A ping pong game that grinds people down to dust.
Will artists be told what to paint now? Will authors be told what to write? We are being told what to think. And the penalty for not towing the party line is exactly the same as what it was in Mormonism.
1 out of 10 atheists (or is it 1 out of 100?) is skeptical of outlier pride. A rare gem amongst the naive masses. Now that's something to be proud of...
When is Duck Dynasty appreciation month? I think it's right now.
In a normal regular traditional marriage, AKA a marriage, a human male and a human female can naturally produce a baby. Forcing the marriage term to include a wider scope does lessen the value, and the value of valuing & honoring & supporting, inherently-reproductive marriage. It may also damage children's need for a mommy & a daddy, in adoptive couples. A male & female parent, or adoptive parent, raising normal inherently reproduce-themselves-children.
Maybe I'm not 100% percent against inherently non-reproductive outlier "marriage," But I think it's important to be skeptical of denial of basic human nature, and remembering where life comes from.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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):
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.
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.
