Thugs
across America (to the tune of Hands Across America). Thugs across this
land I love. Thugs everywhere, especially in and near Ferguson, Thugs
across America...
Commentary on recent events:
Don't dress like a gansta and get all in the face of the self appointed Latino private community security.
Don't remove the orange end from a fake gun and then wave the now even more real looking fake gun around in a park.
My
view: I agree with Bill Maher that Mr. Brown Jr. was a thug. A
strong-arm robber (as per convenience store video) who was well on his
way to trouble with the police. The officer involved probably reasonably
felt threatened, after tussling with Mr. Brown Jr. in his car.
The
incident with Mr. Brown Jr. is a piss poor vehicle for the black
community to latch onto for "justice" or much of anything else.
The
strong arm robbery (meaning a robbery done using just mass &
strength, being a HUGE guy who pushes people around such as the store
clerk shown in the video) that happened just before Mr. Brown's
interaction with the officer involved:
A
piss poor vehicle for justice or anything. Yes it was sad that the huge
thieving bully thug involved got killed, but he was a huge thieving
bully thug who struggled with a police officer & so on.
My experiment with touching my toe into the pool of conservative ideology is largely over. One too many worshipers of Ayn Rand showing up on "The Atheist Conservative's" page? Was that the tipping point? Maybe.
Being away from wastrels from the past, and their abusive friends, has helped. Plus being married, having two kids, and a wife with zero association with all the crap I've seen has helped also. Still taking a step back. But becoming more compassionate & open to hearing what the left has to say. The right is generally increasingly poopy smelling. The left, not so much. So, I'm a left-leaning moderate as of now.
General commentary on the culture war, and general advocacy for conservative naturalism.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Comedy? Yes indeed. At least it a.) amuses my wife sometimes - very important, and b.) pisses off people who very much need it.
Listen if you wish... And if it's too long for you, and that annoys you, then my mission has also been accomplished. If on the other hand it causes you to question your paradigm, then that's good also.
Q. Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being anti religion?
A. Atheist / Humanist / Secular / Unitarian Univeralist groups all have the trappings of a religion. They are naturally & of course "anti" to other religions they disagree with, just as all religions are "anti" to other religions.
Not everything is equal. Some religions, including the religion of atheism, do make valid claims & contentions about the problems with other religions.
The UUs will admit their group is a religion, "but with no dogma." However that claim of theirs is basically a lie.
Most atheist & secular groups will & do have (unless great effort is made to avoid it) de facto or outwardly expressed dogmas, doctrines, tenants, heresy trials, excommunications, priests, elders, and prophets.
The trappings of religion appear to be part of human nature, and thus are VERY difficult to exclude from ANY social group formed by humans. Meme set (belief) maintenance. Heresy trials. Excommunication. And so on. These are a few of religion's favorite things.
The god thing is not so much an issue, really - when we consider how religious liberals use the term. The muff mouthed Templeton Foundation smoke generator Krista Tippett has shown us the way: for the liberal god can mean anything you want. She & her cohorts strongly want to continue to use the "g" term even if their definition essentially means nothing.
But in any case, like I say liberal religion (which includes most atheist groups) includes dogma, doctrines, tenants, heresy trials, excommunications, priests, elders, and prophets - and that's the main problem, and why they ARE religions in my view.
A "break" from the religious tradition would entail the following key principles:
1. Not being doctrinally tied to any one political AND social agenda.
2. Being willing to accept what honest science, honest experience, honest history, fully uncensored & open discussion, and fully open membership, may result in. A free & open exchange of ideas. A crucible. Science has shown as the way, as have people like Pinker & Hitchens.
3. Being willing to challenge our own suppositions, really challenge them & not just give lip service to such challenges. Are your beliefs falsifiable? From what I've seen many atheists do not maintain their beliefs are, not really. G term this G term that. It's not so much about the G term. It's about doctrines, dogmas, and ideologies, and agendas we ourselves are unwilling to question.
4. Not having de facto heresy trials for people who disagree with the group-leader's positions or beliefs.
5. Not having de facto excommunication trials for people who disagree with the group-leader's positions or beliefs.
6. God forbid, being willing to accept that some aspects of social conservatism may actually have some value to human happiness & well being. The fact that religion is a natural phenomenon (ref Daniel Dennett) cuts both ways.
7. However we have to be careful of the "naturalistic fallacy." Just because something is natural doesn't mean that activity is helpful to humanity. And yet, fully-naturally highly-valuable actions & activities can be fully couched within fully-natural religion. This is a hard pill for the recoverer from an abusive cult like Mormonism to accept. Mormonism by it's own actions is hurting the otherwise good causes they advocate for. Revisionist history. Harsh treatment of heretics. Child abuse. Their extreme abusive actions actually HURT the otherwise good things they may advocate for. Their way-over-the-top responses to things like masturbation, well, it pushes people WAY over to the other side - but the other side isn't any better. But it takes time for an exmo to learn this - via first hand experience, and taking a step back from ALL the craziness on ALL sides.
Additional related thoughts:
Humans are not a tabula rasa. Pinker showed this via his most excellent book.
Libertarians are "lightly" tolerated in atheist groups. Social conservatives are not. Such a state of affairs indicates a problematic naivete which is highly common among "liberals," speaking as a liberal myself perhaps for the most part.
Liberals don't know crap about what happens in conservative religions. They pretty much know nothing about Islam for example. AND they also know nothing about what happens within their own camp on the ultra-left side.
Conservatives have their problems. But the answer or solution to a given problem is not always the exact opposite view. Being willing to take a step back from our little realm & sphere of experience helps to see where the real truth may lie.
"...So who is to blame? The breakdown of families, the pernicious promotion of single motherhood as a desirable state, the decline of domestic life so that even shared meals are a rarity, have all contributed importantly to the condition of the young underclass..."
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater: hard work for an ex-religionist. But examining how other cultures work who have zero association with your former religion can help re-center and re-root yourself.
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.
Homosexuality occurs in nature? So what. Can I be a "black atheist" too?
From the Black Atheists of Atlanta: "The homosexual community is co-opting the whole atheist movement." And they present the view that there's a difference between "black" and "white" science.
I can very much see their point on the first item. Gay flags are popping up as the front face for several atheist groups.
Also I can agree with them that when hard natural science attempts to address issues which are also in the "social sciences," scientist's own presuppositions & biases can and do affect both the options they're willing to explore, and the outcomes of their research.
Their videos:
Greek Culture - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 05-23-11:
Ok, so when I left the Mormon Church, I rejected as much as I could of everything they said. That was the first starting point. But, as per Daniel Dennett, religion is a natural phenomenon. Not everything that comes from a religion is there because of the religion itself. Some of the ideas in a religion are natural, and those ideas are there for good naturalistic reason. Take away the religion, and the apparently built-in morals tend to remain - given time.
Religions can also warp a person's built in morality, but, and here's the key point, so can other ideologies.
Here's a picture of when I protested in front of the Mormon Temple Square in 1999:
...(oh my goodness, what a fat bastard I was in those days. It took a lot of work to loose 100 pounds and those thick glasses. Also I now consider Unitarian Universalism to be advocates for belief in and apology for bullshit. So that's been my evolution and Enlightenment process.)
So, when I was a Mormon they taught us that masturbation would lead to homosexuality and that it must be confessed to a Mormon bishop. So they taught me & others to fear thoughts of sex, and of what happens when you come of age. Being a normal "straight person who sometimes masturbates" was who I was. And the whole gay movement had a similarly themed agenda. "I'm gay and that's who I am, so you have to respect me."
But, now, after being out of Mormonism for several years, and after learning more about science & history & hearing from all sides including those who question liberal dogma, I've come to conclude that not everything is equal. Homosexuality is natural! - they say. So what. So is pedophilia. Oh, heresy, heresy, I've spoken heresy to an ultra-leftie liberal. But, hey, I've discovered the value of taking a step back, even from the presuppositions of the left!
Here's quotes of some one and two star reviews from Amazon.com of Bagemihl's book which I now largely agree with. See the original pages for author names:
Half-baked theory, July 28, 2004
The book's extensive documentation of homosexuality in animals may be valuable, but the book's style doesn't leave me with much confidence that its interpretations of the research are sufficiently unbiased to be relied upon.
The book's discussions of why it is hard to provide an evolutionary explanation of homosexuality are mostly reasonable, but the alternative to evolution that the book proposes isn't sufficiently well thought out to qualify as a testable scientific hypothesis. Evolutionary theory has a good enough track record at explaining things that appear at first glance to be counterproductive that people shouldn't reject it without finding an alternative with a good deal of explanatory power. But exuberance is an idea which explains very little. And anyone who has made impartial observations of typical natural ecosystems should see that the extravagance and waste that the book worships are sufficiently uncommon as to be hard to reconcile with the book's characterization.
So Much Written, So Little Conveyed..., December 27, 2004 Bagemihl belongs to the genre of writers who write a great deal but convey very little. His huge book is divided into two parts; the second part describes case studies of homosexual behaviors among several animal species, and the first part provides what could-with great difficulty-be called an analysis of these reports.
Bagemihl groups sexual behavior in terms of five broad categories: courtship, affection, interactions involving mounting and genital contact, pair-bonding, and parenting activities. Such broad categorization risks confounding social interactions with sexual behavior, possibly leading one to mistakenly assume that a preference for specific social partners is a sexual preference for these partners.
Bagemihl alleges same-sex sexual partner preference in at least some individuals in over 50 bird and mammalian species, based on five types of interactions: intersexual competition for same-sex sexual partners, sexual interactions between the object of intersexual competition and a same-sex competitor, repeated pair-bonding with same-sex individuals or repeated selection of same-sex sexual partners, reuniting with same-sex partners following prolonged separations with opposite-sex individuals, and engaging in sexual activity with same-sex individuals in the presence of opposite-sex individuals. Whereas these criteria are consistent with a same-sex sexual partner preference, none of them definitively prove a same-sex sexual partner preference, and an examination of the examples presented by Bagemihl reveals that the majority of the cases of same-sex courtship, mounting, and genital contact can be explained without assuming a same-sex sexual partner preference [see P. L. Vasey, Ann Rev Sex Res 13, 141 (2002)]. Besides, the large number of case studies cited by Bagemihl notwithstanding, his book cannot be used to claim that homosexual behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom because Bagemihl's case studies are drawn from a less than miniscule non-random fraction of the millions of animal species out there.
Bagemihl, failing to find themes behind homosexual behaviors among animals, offers a concept of biological exuberance, whereby homosexual behavior is pursued for pleasure and is a goal by itself that need not serve any purpose other than pleasure. Whereas this may be true, it is difficult to believe that this could be the result of normal developmental processes. Even among humans where much heterosexual behavior is non-conceptive, non-conceptive heterosexual behaviors typically occur as a prelude to or in conjunction with conceptive sexual behaviors. Additionally, the pleasure that accompanies orgasm not only prompts heterosexuals to repeatedly indulge in conceptive intercourse but also facilitates pair-bonding, which would come in handy if an offspring results from the union. Bagemihl's thesis on homosexuality, within a paradigm that he calls non-Darwinian biology, is meaningless for species that are capable of sexual reproduction only.
On the other hand, whereas Bagemihl fails to provide evidence for a same-sex sexual partner preference among the animal studies he cites, it has been proven that homosexual behaviors and a same-sex sexual partner preference are natural (i.e., occur irrespective of human intervention) in some individuals in some breeds of some animal species. However, nobody, let alone Bagemihl, has shown that homosexual behaviors are normal in some animals, i.e., result from development in accordance with design. Whereas the question of the normality of homosexual behaviors among some individuals of various animal species remains unanswered, a considerable amount of information shows that human homosexuality results from abnormal development, specifically prenatal developmental disturbances. See a newly published book in this regard: "The Nature of Homosexuality: Vindication for Homosexual Activists and the Religious Right."
Biological Exuberance or Scientific Burlesque?, June 15, 1999 This review is from: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Hardcover) I must admit that I find some satisfaction in being a thorn in the side of the homosexual fantasy, but I do apologize to all the honest readers of Bagemihl's work for exposing this "manual of gay opinion" for what it is. Although the second half of the book might serve as an excellent reference for students of ethology (and as a sidebar to one reviewer, there are many, many texts about animal sexual behavior on the shelves of the libraries I frequent; I suspect many from before the reviewer was born), the first half of this text is nothing more than opinion, or what would be termed "observational science." Most unfortunate is the fact the Bagemihl's opinion is actually a second-hand opinion, dependent on the first-person opinions of original observers. I do see that such an extensive volume could be a labor of love, since the homosexual fantasy does not separate sex from love or vice versa. As to whether or not homosexual behavior occurs elsewhere in nature, is there a true biologist, especially wildlife biologist, that believes otherwise? Every American farmboy can tell stories of observed homosexual behavior. Although it may seem a small step for Bagemihl to jump from adaptive homosexual behavior to homosexual orientation and lifestyle, this is truly a "giant leap for mankind." If one accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory, then at the species level all behavior serves one purpose: survival. Survival of the species depends on reproduction--asexual or sexual, and sexual reproduction exhibits a myriad of sexual behaviors all designed to enhance survival, specifically survival of the fittest. Most of the behaviors Bagemihl references have been described as enhancing reproductive success, e.g. female bonobo copulation prepares females for future mating and increase fertilization success (and may even stimulate male bonobos, thus enhancing copulatory success). I will admit that there is little hard core, or "conclusive" science to support these interpretations, but the point is that all Bagemihl does in this voluminous text is offer a different interpretation based on his opinion (or a minority opinion if you will). Other interpretations are based on far more knowledge, experience, and collective reasoning. Proposing consideration of modifications to traditional evolutionary theory based on his interpretation of other workers observations is a real travesty. If we were to modify our assumtions, hypotheses, and conclusions regarding evolution every time someone had an alternative perspection, evolutionary theory would be about as valuable as the theory of genetic predispostion to sexual orientation. We cannot construct science to fit any particular "perspective", such as the homosexual perspective, or it is no longer science, but politics, which is where the argument for homosexual equality should remain. At least in the political realm it is a valid argument. In the scientific realm, it has no ground on which to stand. Because of the very unscientific nature of Bagemihl's interpretation, I strongly suspect this work will go the way of the early 90's so-called genetic research on the origins of homosexuality--quickly and quietly discredited. It is unfortunate that the discrediting of such works in the scientific community does not receive anywhere near the media attention and fanfare that the original release of such garbage receives. To sum up, let me say that Bagemihl's work proves absolutely nothing and is more a product of a fertile imagination that of scientific rigor. Bagemihl does present a convincing argument, but he DOES NOT present any conclusive proof of anything. He is much more the marketer than the scientist. Homosexual behavior may (I emphasize "behavior" and "may") have adaptive significance as far as survival of the species. Most ethologists accept that humans do have bisexual behavior tendencies. However, sexual orientation or sexual lifestyle are human choices and deserve psychological interpretation, not biological. Rather than psychoanalyzing wildlife biologists and ethologists, Bagemihl should consider the psychology of the homosexual lifestyle, which in humans includes an emotional element not present in other species, because it is this choice, not homosexual behavior, that flies in the face of evolutionary theory, reproductive strategies, and ultimately, species survival.
Don't put any stock in this book, September 1, 2008 This review is from: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions) (Paperback) Interesting how "scientists" can prove anything they want. State a hypothesis, then go about collecting information, categorizing it to suit your purpose, then use it as "proof" of your claim. The reason this book is dismissed by virtually every true biological scientist isn't because of "homophobic academia," (like the book's advertising claims)-it's because true scientific academia can see right through his preposterous claims. Come on, use real science and we'll all get on board with you.
Damn right. "There's gay animals?" So what. There's also ducks who rape. Lions who kill. And humans who are "naturally born" pedophiles, sociopaths, psychopaths, and so on. The "machinery" of biology & evolution may result in some outliers, but just because outliers exist naturally that doesn't mean they should always be fully respected in all cases.
I rather think homosexuality comes from two sources: a.) an artifact (natural byproduct) of the sexual "machinery" built into humanity and of the ways sex gets "set up" in growing infants in the womb, and b.) social acceptance & ultra-left liberal education. Not all a choice, but not all born in. Exposure to hormones in the womb can have an influence. But socialization has a huge influence, much larger than the politically correct left says.
There is something to be said for examining how homosexuality is expressed, or not, in other cultures, so as to question ALL dogmas on the issue, including those on the left. And of course to not go the way of Uganda and have the death penalty for such things. But I have observed my gay nephew & his friends at many gay parties and some gay bars. I have learned that not everything is equal.
Being "gay" for many is this: a near permanent petty & vain childhood state. No opportunity to have their own children, really. Selfishness. Sex which is non-reproductive, and thus they're left in this state for the rest of their lives - unless I suppose they adopt. Sometimes unless biology & nature forces responsibility upon us, we may get sucked into the trap of an otherwise stunted life.
So, THIS is the type of discussion which should be able to take place in atheist groups and in society as a whole, without demonizing or attempting to shout down the person who surfaces the idea!
I can hypothesize what it may feel like to be a gay man who currently dislikes or is fearful of the idea of sex with a woman. But like it or not, from a biological naturalistic perspective, such a person is damaged. An animal that chooses to not reproduce of it's own accord is damaged. Can you choose to work to become less damaged? Yes you can. Not by kissing the bum of some god. Not by joining some church. But rather by opening up your mind to the idea that sex with a person of the opposite sex may not only be valuable, it may be fun.
Look, a lot of sex is in the brain. Maybe your brain was exposed to too little testosterone. Maybe some quirk, accident, or artifact of nature allowed you to consider the possibility of sex with someone of your same sex. But, so what. Consider the costs of just assuming that everything is equal: a.) a largely selfish & permanently-childish life, b.) no real biological flesh & blood children of your own, c.) having to associate yourself with ultra-left demonizing dogmatists who have their own core list of dogmas and heresies, d.) being a perpetual outsider, and e.) having to waste a lot of your life in a wrong-headed "crusade for justice" - just so that you can try and force others to justify what was, in the first instance, an unfortunate choice on your part.
Maybe you cannot "choose" if you happen to like people of the same sex, but I argue that in a lot of cases you CAN choose to open your mind up to enjoyable sex (& therefore reproduction & true marriage) with someone of the opposite sex.
If you're a man who at present is reluctant to have sex with American women, maybe the thing you really oppose is the omnipresent ultra-feminist easy-divorce disposable-relationship culture present in America. If so, there's hope: go overseas if you must, or search harder for a down to Earth woman here. But don't let the hateful ultra-feminists get you down. There are down to Earth real women out there who will value family and children over other considerations.
So, no, you aren't going to hell. No you don't need to be kicked out of your family. But yes, relationships which include the option of real reproduction are superior! That's my view, as a naturalist, "humanist," atheist, and Enlightenment advocate. But, I know these words are heresy to some atheist groups, and that they'd happily go on witch hunts against such views. In that way they ARE rather like controlling religions. Atheism Plus is one such new religion of the ultra-left. And there's others. But those of us who took a step back from one religion don't wish to be sucked into another de facto one.
A gay flag flying on the front page of your "secular advocacy" group means you're not for really for reason, fully honest science, or truly open debates about all issues. Rather, it means your group has been hijacked by people who have naive & foolish assumptions, and by people who will demonize & call out "heresy!" to people who disagree with their assumptions.
I am a human who took a step back from a cult, took a while to explore, and to find that what remains inside us, our desire to reproduce, is something good & worth valuing. It's core to who we are and who we should be. Survival. Life. And true & fully honest science will back this up.
To the Mormon wife whose husband is "addicted to porn:" 12 *real* steps that will help!
In response to: "Doug Robinson: One woman's crusade against the evils of porn" in the Deseret News. http://goo.gl/e0m9SL
The Mormon position on porn is basically this: Let us fit porn and human sexuality into our addiction paradigm so that we can exercise control over you.
Here's 12 steps for you, if your husband is viewing too much porn in your view:
Step 1: Stop assuming that the act of viewing human sexuality online is, in an of itself, something bad.
Step 2: Stop threatening your man with divorce over the issue.
Step 3: Stop wearing your Mormon underwear at night, and especially during sex. Go nude, 100% nude, at night, in bed, with your man, and during sex. Period.
Step 4: Engage in oral sex, and encourage your man to do the same.
Step 5: Don't be afraid to touch your man's genitals at night in bed.
Step 6: Be sexual with your man, all the time. Give him cues during the day, and be affectionate at night.
Step 7: Find types of porn which are more a.) educational, b.) produced by amateurs, and c.) does not require payment, and d.) may be produced by regular people as opposed to "porn stars." Watch these videos with your husband, and see if what you're seeing can give you some ideas of fun things to try.
Step 8: Stop asking that your children confess to some Mormon bishop regarding masturbation.
Step 9: Set boundaries for leaders in your religion. Do not let them pry into your private life, and especially not into your sexual life or the sexual lives of your children who're coming of age.
Step 10: Stop teaching your children, your husband, and yourself to be afraid of sexual thoughts & feelings - of *lust* - of being *an animal*. We ARE animals. Get used to it. Live with it. Learn to love it.
Step 11: If your man is engaging in video sex chats with other women online, ask him to stop. Tell him you love him and want him to be happy. Tell him that you're ok with watching some types of porn online, but that video sex chats with other women go too far.
Step 12: Reject 12 step programs which assume you can "give something away" to some fanciful god. You're it baby. You're god. I'm god. He's god. She's god. Sex is god. Love is god. And the only immortality you will ever experience is through having children via sex. So, sex is good, and it's there for very good reason. It's there to be enjoyed, for good reason. The Internet has brought new opportunities and new challenges to what it means and is to be human. We all agree that we need to keep away from the thieves while embracing the good. The same goes with porn online. Get an ad blocker plugin for your web browser. Block your kids viewing as you feel appropriate. But, realize also that some value can be had from exposure to more full details about human sexuality, with less shame, fear, ultimatums, and threats. Move forward in love.
On
the facebook page for American Atheists they don't allow links to other
sites to be posted. Science and human progress generally requires
having a free and open exchange of ideas. American Atheists' main focus
seems to be acting as props on Fox News, suing people over 10
commandment monuments, promoting the ultra-left social agenda, and not
much else. Is this "atheism plus," or atheism minus?
Pedantic motto of American Atheists: "I'm an atheist and I fight for equality."
Just because a human activity is natural doesn't mean we should embrace it 100%.
Maybe homosexual married couples should be required to adopt. How about that?
Just
because a person becomes an atheist after leaving a cult or an
ultra-conservative religion, doesn't mean they automatically become an
ultra-leftie.
Be careful of people who want to control
you after you leave a religion. Atheist plus people want to control your
speech, just as much as any ultra-leftie might.
A secular case against gay marriage:
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/
I'm
still somewhat undecided in general about gay marriage, but I'm not
just 100% "for it" just automatically by default. The inherently
non-reproductive nature of gay sex IS an issue, as are built in human
nature that may feel some amount of concern over gay sex. That's natural
too. Not everything is equal. Let's take a step back and not just jump
wholeheartedly into the arms of the ultra-left. Maybe, just maybe,
conservatives have something useful to contribute, even if at first
glance their motives are motivated by "religion." Since, religion is a
natural phenomenon, we cannot just fully dismiss out of hand every
single thing they're concerned about.
A brain can be
trained by genetics, socialization, and a combination of the two. During
the following talk Warren Farrell talks about how in ancient societies
homosexual sex which didn't include reproduction was discouraged: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4
I
don't wish to see anyone harmed by the ideas people like past Mormon
prophet Spencer Kimball, who equated masturbation and sex before
marriage as sins akin to murder. That goes too far. And yet, even the
happily free exmoron draws the line somewhere, between acceptable and
unacceptable human behavior, regardless of the naturalistic status of
that behavior. Of course it's all natural, and to some extent, so what. A
better question may be: what do most people do, and what helps the
species survive? Does this mean I advocate that gay couples separate?
Not necessarily. But men who're in hetero relationships should not jump
ship just because they find out they're gay. And already-gay couples
maybe should adopt, or find other ways to have kids. And gay men, and
rather self-centered straight no-children men & women, should find
ways to not spend their whole lives in highly childish games chasing
their own & other people's incredibly vain and shallow tails
forever. Eventually we all have to grow up. Sex usually, even today,
forces that upon hetero couples. It doesn't, automatically, do so for
gay ones - and maybe that's the point.
I'm a social moderate, and an economic liberal.
Here's for an open discussion, and being free from censors.
Well, on face value I'm happy with the sign. But there are some deeper issues at hand
also. The crazies who called her vulgar names acted inappropriately.
The people who advocate for *no abortions* are largely motivated by,
what is essentially in my view, conservative religion warping otherwise
normal built in human morality. Their religion forces them to take their
moral views to the extreme.
Religion is a natural phenomenon,
and so religious views can be "natural." So, if it's possible to take a
middle view on abortion, can we state that, yes, before viability, women
should have a right to choose? Can we also say that abortion should be
discouraged, but nevertheless available? Can we also say that
post-viability it's ok to have it banned?
Everyone draws the
line somewhere. Peter Singer and Margaret Sanger may well dray the line
at, or even shortly after birth. I think their views are/were wacky and
immoral, speaking as an atheist/humanist/naturalist &
Enlightenment-advocate myself.
The zero-tolerance for abortion people who view all abortion as murder are also wrong.
It's also wrong to assume that all anti-abortion views just come from religion, and therefore can be dismissed out of hand.
So, I'm just saying there is a more middle & moderate &
reasonable ground here which really isn't addressed by the media all
that often.
Yes, in my view, a view I advocate for, women do
have a right to choose before viability. Yes, abortion should be
discouraged but available. Yes, we should value life.
Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife, get aids, die, and leave your family with no father. And just because you like vaginas as well as dicks that doesn't mean you should cheat on your husband, and then go off to live with your lesbo buddy.
I'm an atheist and I don't believe in cults of personality, nor in being
drawn into the assumption that atheism necessarily leads to being
socially ultra-left. Being an atheist for me means being willing to take
a step back from all dogmas, not only from the right but also from the
left.
Criticisms of flying the gay flag universally, as doing so
may transmit the assumption that people in the flag-flying group universally agree with all aspects
of the perceived "gay agenda."
On when bi or homosexual men cheat
on their wives, get aids, die, and leave their families with no father. I believe we should be open to debate whether "middle children"
should be encouraged to live a straight life - otherwise we are having
unquestionable dogma points just like in a religion.
Just because a person is an atheist, a secular advocate, or an advocate for science & naturalism doesn't mean they embrace 100% of the ultra-left agenda.
Wives who're members of conservative religions should meet their apparently bisexual husbands half-way, by leaving their abusive conservative religions, and by not being upset about porn. And then the husbands should not cheat & go elsewhere.
