Latest thoughts on homosexuality & gay marriage - as of April 26, 2014

On facebook I found the following image:



Point three is valid.

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:

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

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

Part 1:

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

Part 2:

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

Part 3:

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

------------------
Is Homosexuality Destructive For The Black Family?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kka3ECinb6M
------------------

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.

A recent post of mine:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/03/listening-to-narth-guy-issues-more.html

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.

And previous related thoughts:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-paths-to.html

and also check the long list at:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/homosexuality

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.

thoughts on gay adoption - 1-16-2014

response to "The sciphi of gay adoption,"
at http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-sciphi-of-gay-adoption.html

It's too simplistic to state that because human brains have come up with medical advances, that therefore a child does not need, and would best benefit by having, a father and mother - normally, ideally, usually.

From an experiential perspective I've seen a lot of gay culture. For several years I went to gay parties & gay bars with a nephew of mine. However we recently had a falling out & no longer speak. I feel I’ve finally seen the light about his position & my need to stay away from it.

My gay nephew spends his life chasing his own tail, going to petty alcohol centered parties & bars, and in vain & petty pursuits that lead nowhere. When a convicted child abuser (12 year olds – sex related) was released from prison, my gay nephew & his friends readily accepted the man back into their social circle. And like I say he appears to be living a life that will in the end count for pretty much nothing.

Also I have in my experiential profile a gay uncle who died of AIDS because he cheated on his wife during the ‘60s, therefore leaving his family with no father or grandfather. Also he apparently influenced one of his daughters such that her brain was modeled in such a way as to allow herself the internal latitude to consider herself to be gay.

Ok, so there's that. But, I also have been an observer of some gay people who are not quite so petty,  shallow, and destructive. For example there's a very nice man who helps us out when we go on vacation. He spends his life helping others, both professionally and personally.

Here is a list of my current views, after making all these observations, and taking into account exposure to cultures outside of the United States which are largely secular, but which also have concerns about homosexuality:

1. People who are accepting of convicted child abusers are themselves suspect. There may be a dangerous trend or propensity within some parts of “gay culture” to be accepting of child abusers.

2. Having children is a good thing. People who "choose" to not have them are making a huge mistake, in their own lives, and for humanity as a whole. Also people who don't have kids due to environmental concerns are also highly misguided & deceived.

3. Maybe human children really do need a father & a mother, normally, and ideally. Children can adapt, but I'm talking about what is "preferred" and "ideal."

4. What if science of any reasonable flavor disproves progressive or liberal dogma or presuppositions?

5. Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. What can be "instilled" by a religion, can nevertheless be fully natural with fully naturalistic roots. Concerns over masturbation & pornography. Concerns over non-procreative sex. Concerns about preserving life. It's simply too easy and lazy to state that all such concerns can be dismissed out of hand because leaders in a given religion express concerns. For me, as an ex-Mormon, it's a matter of balance.

Should children be shamed for masturbation? Should adults be prevented from viewing porn? No to both. But on the other hand, both pursuits can be detrimental if they prevent someone from having real meaningful interactions with another flesh & blood human being.

Should life be valued? Yes. In my view abortion should be discouraged, but not illegal before viability.

And so on.

It's very hard work for an ex-religionist to find what really is of value, from a human perspective, amongst all the chaff & lies in their former religion. With religions like Mormonism this is a particularly hard task because of the incredibly strict & controlling nature of Mormonism. When one leaves such a religion one can naturally feel the need to let it all hang out & to rebel as much as possible. On the other hand, if you let it all hang out for too long, you may either a.) cheat on your wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father, or b.) spend your life as a morbidly obese virgin who's obsessed with porn & masturbation - to the exclusion of normal & healthy flesh & blood human relations.

Do humans have a right to marry if they're gay? Perhaps. But regardless enough people now feel as if their "moral zeitgeist" has moved along such that they now feel self-professed gay people should be able to marry legally. Most any opinion can be justified by case law, left or right or otherwise.

Should gay couples adopt children? Maybe. I suppose if abusive straight ones can adopt & take in foster kids, then more reasonable & kind gay couples probably should be able to. But it's still an open question for me as to whether having a lack of gender balance with parents has a negative or detrimental effect on children. It may, at the very least, allow the brains of children to be drawn more readily into them considering themselves to be “gay,” when they may accurately be more “bi” or a mix, or both, or able to go either way – reasonably. Being "gay accepting" can allow for the brains of children to consider "gayness" as more of an option. There are gradations.

People can choose to become "ex-gay" or to live the life of a straight person - and be happy.

Saying all these things is heresy to the Stonewall liberal. Non sequitur assumptions, accusations, ad hominem attacks, black listing, and heresy trials – leftist style, can quickly and easily begin when a person says much of any of the above. But, in my view we need to nevertheless question liberal dogma points as well as conservative ones.

The person who angrily tells either side to just "shut up" goes too far & needs to be militantly ignored. Both the conservative preacher and the politically correct liberal need to be ignored & pushed past in my view.

Anyway, I appreciate hearing what you have to say in most cases. I’m simply trying to convey that it’s too simplistic to state that conservative views can be dismissed out of hand because people who’re currently religious happen to make such claims. Dennett’s truth about the natural state of religion does cut both ways, and should give pause to the liberal as he may be working to fervently adhere to his own dogma points.

What comes out of the mouths of humans is always natural. I think we can be more kind & compassionate though, and expand our in group morality. But we also need to be careful. Warnings from religion can have value & can be fully natural & reasonable. It's hard work to separate the lie-infused covering from the nevertheless-naturalistic-truths which may be inside and which need to be considered even if they were inside of the Mormon or Catholic burrito. My apologies to Mexican food. I prefer human free thinker atheist Chinese burritos myself. Much more tasty.

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

1-16-2014 afternoon addendum containing a discussion exchange:

Another person wrote:

>I do think it's a good idea to be very skeptical of ideas promoted by religion. <

My reply:

Skeptical, but not dismissive just because the ideas happen to be harbored within a religion. Does Thor exist? No. But natural human morals & ethics existed within the religion which loved him.

It's hard work for a liberal to be skeptical of liberalism. Pinker / Harris / Dennett / Dawkins have been skeptical of certain aspects of "liberal" as well as "conservative" thought.

>It can be very hard to know which of your values have been instilled by your upbringing and which have rational justification. <

Taking a step further back, away from Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, helps one to see the forest through the trees. If all the cultures I had examined thus far were Mormonism followed by ex-Mormonism, more of my views would probably lie firmly within the liberal camp.

<clip>

>In particular on masturbation and pornography<

<clip>

I'm a masturbation advocate, as well as a marriage, life, and children advocate. I'm also appreciative of the fact that certain forms of porn can be useful, to adults, and in moderation. But what I'm trying to say is there's value in making note of why people say the things they do. When people express concerns over non-procreative forms of sexuality, why do they do that? Because their mommy said so? Because the Bible says no? What I'm saying is that the answer seems to be, n-o - no it's not that simple.

The lies expressed by religion, especially by religions like Mormonism, have tainted the well of conversation. Their lies & controlling nature have made it more difficult to sift & see if, and what, they may be saying may actually be of value. How can we free ourselves of this problem? Go visit China. That's one way. Perhaps 99% of Chinese people have 0% exposure to Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. And yet, for some reason, they do express concerns about destructive or non-procreative forms of human sexuality. Why is that? Maybe because they're human, and such concerns have naturalistic roots.

It's rather highly inconvenient to be a liberal and to find out that some of your own suppositions & opinions as a liberal may in fact be wrong, unfounded, or damaging.

<clip>

>... it really does seem to me that you are left with a lot of overly-conservative values that need to be re-examined... <

After leaving Mormonism I did a fair amount of exploring. Time & experience has allowed me to take a step back from the letting it all hang out "phase" of my departure from Mormonism. I ain't goin' back. I also am not going to kiss the rear end of Jesus in the future.

I don't advocate the type of concern level expressed by people in Uganda for example. That goes way way too far. Mormon Prophet Spencer Kimball's book Miracle of Forgiveness also goes way way too far in the level of concern expressed. But, on the other hand, I've also seen what happens when people let it all hang out in their rebellion.

The death of my uncle who died of AIDS is one example. He was perhaps a victim of the strictness of Mormonism. Perhaps he would not have rebelled quite so much if either a.) the Mormon Church were itself less strict on sexuality, or b.) his wife had met him part way in his exit by leaving Mormonism herself & being more open sexually with him. It's a valuable thought experiment to consider - post mortem iudicium of rebelling too much and getting AIDS & dying as a result.

> Your overly negative stereotype of masturbation, <

There's no need to personalize too much on that point. I'm advocating looking at what non-Abrahamic cultures do & think. Masturbation can lead one to very much want a real relationship - that's also true. It can enhance a real relationship. But there's destructive forms of the activity which can also lead one away from a real relationship. Do you have enough "sexual energy" left for the date you're about to go on, or are you pooped out? That's one small example. But again I'm advocating taking a step back from American / Christian / Islamic / Jewish myopia on this & all issues. What do non-Abrahamic cultures do & advocate in countries which have had little exposure to the religions of our youths?

>I mean, why should it be?<

Are humans more happy when they are led or lead themselves into a relationship which is inherently non-reproductive?

Is being straight "better" than being gay? Exclude the outliers (psychopaths, etc.), what if the answer is yes?

Is the "childfree" life better? No. 

Would it be better if humans had never existed? No.

But liberals tend to answers these questions differently.

Rejection of the nihilism present in Evangelical Christianity is a happy activity of some atheists. But how about a rejection of the nihilism & defeatism of the left? Who's advocating for that?

Only the "Black Atheists of Atlanta?" I'm not a member of their group, and some of the stuff they advocate for is quite nutty. But, listening to them at the very least provides an opportunity for your average ultra-liberal rebelling atheist to take a step back and question liberal presuppositions as well. And perhaps more importantly, listening to my own wife who had zero exposure to all the (admited & acknowledged) crap I was exposed to as a kid, has helped me take a step back as well.

What I'm advocating for is that the questions of whether elements of conservative thought are actually valid should be *on the table* so to speak, and not swept under the carpet out of fear of offending the new self-appointed leaders of dogmatic liberal de-facto religion. One way of sweeping them under is to try & dismiss them out of hand "because a religion advocated for a given point." It's not that easy or simple is what I'm saying.

Church History museum; Chinese family values; atheist & humanist groups are religions too.

Commentary on our visit to the LDS Church History Museum and to Temple Square. We saw the new Boy Scout exhibit at the museum, the golden plates, the angel Macaroni (I mean Moroni), and so on.

Built in human morality fully exists within religions, and also in less religious societies like China. How can we separate the useful facts of human morality in religion from the lies? It's hard work.

Mormonism is a modern cult - a cult in a suit and a tie. But new atheist and humanist groups are religions also - where you have lies you cannot question, and where you have to be politically correct for fear of not being a "genuine" atheist or humanist.

Religions do have some good ideas, but you wouldn't realize that unless you: a.) spent several years checking out all the hippie crap, and b.) going to gay bars & parties with your gay nephew, and c.) making note of how a convicted pedophile was gladly accepted back into your nephew's friend group after leaving prison, and d.) going to Portland and seeing what people do there via an Alice in Wonderland style journey, and e.) marrying a woman from China - where they never heard of Joseph Smith and very little of Jesus. Also making note of how your gay uncle died of AIDS leaving his regular normal family with no father will help expand your perspective. So, in spite of their bullshit, the Mormon & Catholic churches do have some very good ideas and ideals.

Why do religions have to support themselves with lies? Even the atheistic versions of religions have lies? Lies about the negative impacts of the ultra-left agenda.

The crazy ideas are mixed in with some good and useful truths. It's all integrated together. So, how can we separate out useful fact from harmful fiction? Perhaps one key way is this: refusing to be politically correct!

Maybe China is showing us the way: family values! They don't believe in Jesus or Joseph Smith, and yet they have a great deal of good valuable down home family values. They aren't perfect either, but they do value family.

But: Shhh! In atheist & humanist groups have to be very quiet about what you really think - and so such groups are religion also. So watch out!

Reject political correctness and embrace family values.

8-27-2013 7:32am

Yelena Isinbayeva - You Go Girl! -- Questioning Hippie Dogma.

On the film "Plan 10 From Outer Space."

Thoughts on Yelena Isinbayeva: you go girl! Thanks!

News reference: "Russian pole vault champ Yelena Isinbayeva condemns homosexuality, supports new anti-gay law"
http://goo.gl/0dQPXO

Related comments about Yelena's actions:

Courageous. Wonderful. Thanks Yelena and Russia. The same could be said of China perhaps - a similar cultural & very *human* understanding of the situation.

Children are, after all, the future, and a couple who can naturally have them together is of most value...

Calls for "shame on Yelena" you'll notice, are coming from the de-facto religion of the cultural left in the West. They have their own dogmatic religion, heresy trials, witch hunts, elders, and core unquestionable dogmas. But theirs is a religion (culture - meme set) which doesn't value life. Instead they dogmatically value relativism. But not everything is equal.

Thanks Russia. Thanks China. And thanks to many black people in America who also have the courageous view that we should be valuing life by honoring where it comes from, honoring how we all got here in the first place, and valuing the fact that children are our only path to real flesh & blood immortality.

---end of quote

Nationally led atheist (humanist, naturalist, Unitarian Universalist) groups tend to be centered around the political and social ideology of their leadership.

Questioning the dominant paradigm - isn't that what rock music was supposed to be about?

Can we question the new dominant paradigm in the west: Hippie Dogma.

Here are some hippie dogmas worth questioning:

Hippie dogma number 1: Whatever you do is up to you - it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Hippie dogma number 2: All cultures are equal. You cannot question another person's culture.

Hippie dogma number 3: The "native" people are very noble indeed.

When you grow up, you can realize that all the hippie dogma is a bunch of bullshit - 80% of it. 20% is ok.

Compassion for your fellow man is ok, & trying to keep people from having to go to church just so they can get a meal - yes that's ok too.

I like art museums, pretty rocks, and incense. But poor & religious people should be able to have as many kids as they damn well please. Don't let hippie dogma make YOU a zero or a near zero on the great mandala!

8-20-13 731am

More info:

advocacy for having children:
http://goo.gl/BVCy4u
and
http://goo.gl/rCtjTm

American Indians: No group of humans are uniquely more noble
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-indians-no-group-of-humans-are.html

Thoughts on hyphenated Americans, racism, and cynicism
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/08/thoughts-on-hyphenated-americans-racism.html

Islamofactia, Islamotruthia, Homofactia, Homotruthia - and the Black Atheists of Atlanta

The page:
"Nothing Atheist About “Real” Black Atheists"
http://spiceislandatheist.blogspot.com/2013/04/nothing-atheist-about-real-black.html

My response:

I can see why black atheists in Atlanta are inclined to be nationalistic. I don't agree with them that every aspect of European culture is inherently evil. However listening to their views helped me take a step back & realize that many atheist & humanist groups in America are dogmatically, politically, and socially ultra-left - and de facto religions themselves as a result. If you find yourself to be an atheist who's not socially ultra-left, you will be kicked out of such groups. So, the new atheist groups are now in my view religions in and of themselves.

Given enough education about Islam, and one may advocate for Islamofactia and Islamotruthia, rather than being guilty of "Islamophobia." The same can go for homosexuality. "Homophobia?" In my view it's more like homofactia and homotruthia - when given enough knowledge.

Political correctness & towing the party line IS a part of the atheist "movement," and thus we don't have rationalism or skepticism, - instead we've got just another religion.

Can you question your dogma? The atheist may well want to accept all of the "yes you can do that" precepts in all cultures, but they're rather loath & unfortunately wary to realize that sometimes there's also value in having stigmas associated with destructive human behaviors.

It's taken me a LONG time to realize this, after taking an Alice in Wonderland style journey through some "let it all hang out" type activities, and having a gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his regular family with no father, and a gay nephew who spends his life in petty dead end pursuits (eg: posting near naked pictures of himself on facebook & near constant talk of sex with "boys," plus he & his friend's acceptance of a convicted pedophile back into the gay community after he was was released from prison).

So, given enough knowledge, even a liberal can wise up and realize that not everything is equal... Black Atheists of Atlanta helped me realize this, along with my wife who comes from another country - where they never heard of Mormonism and very very little of Christianity.

Daniel Dennett showed us that religion is a natural phenomenon - a realization that can cut both ways.

So, human nature & human morality can be expressed in religion. But just because a given religion says something is bad - that doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. They can merely be expressing a key part of human morality & human nature.

many atheist groups ARE religions: gay marriage & liberal dogma

Example of the new de facto religion present among some atheist groups:

"Genuine Atheists and Illegitimate Christians Support Gay Rights."
...by Minnesota Atheists

Shaming. Fear-mongering. Belief Maintenance. Do people in China read the Christian Bible? Not much at all. How about in Russia? Not much. Also, once again, since religion is a natural phenomenon human morality CAN be and IS expressed in religion.

Video response then more commentary:

Quote of comments posted on the Minnesota Atheists page:

Sounds like a religion to me - the religion of the left. "You're not a 'true' atheist or humanist if you don't agree with 100% of the homosexual agenda." Indeed.

Dogma. Heresy. Excommunication. Sounds like a religion. Since religion is a natural phenomenon perhaps we need a new term. How about: "Meme set backed up by dogmas, heresy trials, witch hunts, and virtual or de facto excommunication courts."

Having examined the gay "movement" first hand for several years via a gay nephew & an uncle who died of AIDS, I can attest to the fact that it's rather highly unsavory & petty. It's also, in my view, a "death cult" - part of the more general "death cult" of the left, which embraces other views such as how concerns about overpopulation should mean YOU should not have any kids. A religious dogma that leaves you childless - sounds like a bad one to me.

...speaking as an atheist, and an enlightened humanist & naturalist.

Humanism / naturalism / atheism / science & Enlightenment advocacy does not mean embracing the homosexual agenda 100%, nor the other dogmas of the liberal death cult - not to me, as a human who values life, how we got here, and not wasting the little speck of time we have here.

Examples of atheist groups that are actually religions:

Minnesota Atheists
American Atheists
American Humanist Association
Atheist Community of Austin
Center For Inquiry

We already know Unitarian Univeralism is a religion. It's just that these other groups have now become one also. Leftist religion - still a religion nevertheless, with unquestionable dogmas, elders, and de facto heresy & excommunication trials.

The "gay marriage" question has become a watershed issue, showing not which destructive outlier human behavior "deserves" the "right" to indoctrinate all and suck children into the cult of homosexuality, but rather, to show which supposedly "objective," "skeptical," "free thinking" groups actually, in fact, have any real connection to reason, objectivity, skepticism, free thought, and what could be called: honest true enlightened humanism and naturalism.

Human groups have taboos against destructive behaviors for some damn good reasons. This fact seems largely lost on the naive leftist new-atheism-religionists.

According to a political compass I'm still a leftie in some respects, largely on economic and social welfare issues (eg: the dole, social security, and advocacy for single payer healthcare). On abortion I think it should be discouraged, but legal before viability. On gay marriage I'm against it. Contractual allowance via civil unions - maybe. But marriage's primary focus is and should remain children and continuing the human species. Homosexual sex is inherently non-reproductive, and homosexual culture is generally speaking destructive & petty. Children should not generally speaking be exposed to such culture.

Still a leftie?

Well, since I don't agree with gay marriage, according to the lefties I've spoken with I'm now in the same camp as the ultra-right. Ok, well, on that issue maybe I am - and maybe that fact speaks to the bogusness of the above scale. Maybe "post-modern?" But reportedly post-modernists agree with gay marriage. So it's all rather too simplistic. How about: Honest human?

Take in enough data & maybe you'll change your mind. An honest human would & should do that.

more references and links:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html

8-19-2013 4:44pm

Embrace life: What will you do with your speck of time here?

Advocacy for a enlightened naturalism, humanism, atheism, and memetics ROOTED in human nature, flourishing, life, honest science & history, and in the revolutionary concept that because religion is a natural phenomenon, many of their stigmas & taboos have damn good reasons for being there.

TheGreat Mandala - taking your place on it.

"Liberal values" reportedly includes advocacy for "diversity," but only a diversity of acceptance. What if a given culture has good human-centered reasons for a given taboo or stigma? Does your advocacy for "diversity" include allowing around you people who believe that certain human activities very much need "shame" attached to them? Examples: adultery; wild sex with many partners with no commitment; sex with underage people; and even, heaven forbid, sex with people of the same sex. What if another human culture draws the line of acceptable behavior at a different place than you? Will you welcome into your "big tent" of supposed diversity such cultures & people?

The word "bigot" implies a lack of knowledge. But we have knowledge. Cultures which ascribe shame to some or most all of the activities mentioned above (adultery, homosexuality, etc.) have knowledge - human knowledge about impacts. Belief in some god is just the WAY some humans otherwise preserve  ideas which offer protection from harm & damage, and it's simply the WAY they promote life. But, come to find out (and this is also a revelation for the religionist also), *humans who have no exposure* to the Christian Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, ALSO have stigmas & taboos regarding the exact same destructive behaviors you're concerned about!

So, we're not talking about Biblical morality, or religious morality - rather, for these widely shared stigmas & taboos, we're talking about HUMAN morality! How's that supposed "humanist" & "naturalist" in America? Can you accept the key concept that being human does, for good reason, include having stigma for behaviors which you currently want to advocate for - for "equal rights?" But not every human behavior is worthy of respect. And it's not bigoted to say this - it's just the facts. Human facts. Natural facts. Human animal facts.

CAN an atheist, an ex-conservative-religionist, look back and realize that at least some of what they were taught while in a cult was in fact stuff rooted in human nature (& therefore worth considering & valuing), as opposed to stuff that was associated with the lies that were in their former religion?

There will be push-back from people who are still very angry at being lied to. I am still angry about this also. But, having examined countries who have zero do to with the religion of my youth, when I examine what THEY do, it makes me more fully realize that the list of taboos in a given religion CAN actually be beneficial to human survival, thriving, and happiness.

14 billion years of evolution by natural selection. You're here. You have one little speck of time. What are you going to do with your time here?

August 19, 2013 7:57am

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

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

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

Examples of liberal dogma:

1. Everything is equal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

video made August 12, 2013 7:41am

further links:

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

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

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

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

Is Homosexuality Destructive For The Black Family?

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

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

Related previous post with more links & videos:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their videos:

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

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

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

Part 1:

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

Part 2:

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

Part 3:

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

My response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Half-baked theory, July 28, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biological Exuberance or Scientific Burlesque?, June 15, 1999

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional post with more thoughts:

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

response to: '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.

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

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

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 30, 2013 afternoon