Here's a copy of a forum exchange, regarding a post I found from the group
Seculars Against Same Sex "Marriage:"
My post:
Marriage is about children. I agree with that... Also children may well need a mommy & a daddy. Sounds good to me. 13.8 billion years. So far so good. Compared to ~20 years of denialism and knocking on the sperm bank door.
Quotes from where I found the link:
----quotes begin
Paddy Manning, who is same-sex attracted and against same-sex “marriage,” debates and explains why he opposes it:
----
*5:30-8:01 “Marriage is a uniquely child-centered institution. It is the only place in our society where children can be created, reared, and socialized; and the institution exists for that. If we move to a status where we have a one-size fits all marriage (institution), we part the idea of children and having children from marriage. After that the state gets to decide what your relationship is with the child. Natural parents never require that decision.
-----
*Let’s be clear, nobody is blanket opposing same-sex adoption. What we want is the recognition that a child has a right PRIMARILY to a mother and father...Do u want to enshrine in law the accidental?
----
*You don’t like the idea that children might have a right to a mother and father; which they do. PRIMARILY the law should recognize that. Everything else comes after that.
-----
*In response to the elderly couples who get married past child-bearing age: “It doesn’t affect the institution."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h6yX4dY1Qs
----end of quote
In response to posting the above I received the following response:
But
this only works if every single person has the goal of making sure that
life goes on in the same way it has for 13.8 billion years, as you say.
"...that a child has a right PRIMARILY to a mother and father..." is a
statement that just goes along with that same theory. All Children have
the right to proper nutrition as well, but plenty of kids have died from
malnutrition for 13.8 billion years. Only recently has the world tried
to stop that. But maybe we are messing with something that was working
just for for billions of years. Should we let the kids be? All I am
saying is that change is okay, even if that changes the course. We have
no inherent responsibility to stay the course.
==============
And here is my reply to the above paragraph:
Hi.
You wrote:
<clip>
>if every single person
Humans have built in traits which come from nature, evolution by natural selection, genetics and memetics.
The traits babies are born with fall onto a bell curve graph.
Outlier traits are less common. More common traits tend to increase genetic/memetic frequency.
Humans are animals, just as much animals as are salmon that swim up stream, birds that sing, and we share a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. Humans are not bonobos, nor are we chimps, but our nature appears to like both in between and beyond.
>has the goal
The goals of humans come from a combination of genetics & memetics.
>of making sure that life
Most humans within the larger set of more common traits tends to value the continuance of life. If this were not the case, humans would go extinct.
>13.8 billion years
It took ~13.8 billion years for you and I to be here today. The so-called big-bang. Stars living, then exploding. The exploded star matter reforming into new stars & solar systems & galaxies.
A very long process indeed.
>a child has a right
Children generally have several key rights. A right to life is one. I argue that it's fully reasonable, and naturalistic, and human, to just assume, by default, that children need a mommy and a daddy. Plus my own observation of outlier-groups who wish to claim the right to raise children, my observations have yielded direct evidence which I'm generally satisfied with, which show to me that outlier-trait-human-culture, such as it is, is not a particularly healthy environment for children. Also, there are the basic needs of a child, who, more commonly, would be born with the more common trait of being straight. Within that context, a child's "straightness" would be most valued within a house who's parents also fall within the general more-common-trait set. Also, the basic healthy brain & psychological development of human children may well require, ideally, the presence of a male & female in a house - both sexes, not just one or the other, ideally.
So there's several needs & issues at play. What do children have a right to. What does the human animal, in the form of growing children, really need.
When it comes to the current situation, there is incredible pressure to not be honest on these points - not in the secular community.
The so-called secular community is so very angry at being lied to about the presence of a god, and about the bad aspects of religion, they have come to incorrectly include that
all allowable answers
must oppose what religious people may advocate for.
So, regarding physics, cosmology, and basic biology, yes on those topics your average scientists has no issues with being more objective. However, when it comes to social issues, the left-leaning scientists will introduce confirmation bias, and denialism, into his or her interpretations of evidence, what questions to ask, what studies to do, what conclusions to draw, and so on.
For many years the so-called "right" denied human nature, or connection to other animals, and so on.
Now, today, the left
also denies human nature, the fact that religion is a natural phenomenon cuts both ways - in that fully natural human morality, morality which can otherwise protect us from dangerous outlier behavior, is fully rooted within middle & right religion.
Confirmation bias can also be seen in the study of anthropology. Yes, the 60s era hippie scientists/anthropologists go to visit tribes who happen to agree with their hippie views on life. But what about the "aboriginal tribes" who created the Bible? What about the "aboriginal tribes" who live in rural China - people who've had zero contact with the Bible or the Torah? What do
they advocate for? What do
they think?
Honesty about why people do the things they do. That's what we need more of.
The religious may well have their religion because it helps them better survive. Some lies, and a lot of truths, all mixed together - helping humanity survive.
Rip out one part, tear a person away from their religion, and they
can go right off the cliff! Yes, this is quite true.
I've personally gone on an Alice in Wonderland Style Journey. Gathering data over several years. Seeing what different groups do. Nudists. Polys. Sex party people. Gay house parties & bars (via my gay nephew). Making note of what happened with an uncle who grew up in Manti, but who fell prey to what happens when you jump to the extreme opposite side.
In the case of Atheists of Utah, they celibate the fact that they were nominated by Q Salt Lake to be the best religion, and a runner up for the best social group. Parties centered around raffling off wheelbarrows full of booze. They see themselves as the
key answer to Mormonism!
Where does such a generalized status leave humans born into the more-common less-of-an-outlier set of naturally I-want-to-reproduce set? The set that helps keep humanity alive?
Saying "there's plenty of other people who breed, why do I need to?" is an incredibly crass & nihilistic & abusive way of looking at the world, and at your own life. People who say this are frankly victims of a slow-motion-suicide destructive meme set on the left.
So there's several issues at play here.
Societies
can become ill, sick, defective. Honesty is one way to fix problems. And for me, listening to people like Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens,
plus also listening to what the middle & right say - really listening & trying to understand
why they say the things they do, plus also having a direct connection to Chinese-aboriginal-culture which states that non-outlier naturally-reproductive human culture & activity
is more valuable than forcibly embracing outlier activity like the left does in America & Europe.
So, tearing someone away from their religion
can screw up their life, or even kill them. It can cause them to lead a petty dead end life. And I say this fully realizing that religions also can destroy & grind down people. What's the cure? More honesty on all sides. The type of honesty that realizes that yes, very damn good parts of human morality & nature, the parts which help us avoid destructive behaviors & protect us from outliers, do fully & naturally reside within religions. The type of honesty that recognizes abuse where it's present, on all sides. Honesty about there being no god, the fact of evolution, and the lack of divinity of scripture. But also honesty that fully natural & useful human nature came up with some pretty damn good rules to help protect us.
Humans, writing things down, for very human reasons. Some of the things they wrote down
do help people survive & thrive. Embrace those things. And try to reject the more destructive things.
>plenty of kids have died from malnutrition
What is the most common desire of parents in this regard? To help their children live. What does a healthy society advocate in this regard? To ensure that all children get enough food. What do other animals advocate for in this regard? The same.
>Only recently has the world tried to stop that.
Hardly.
See above.
>maybe we are messing
Yes, we are "messing." Denying our history. Denying our nature. Denying what may well be the most-healthy nature of our kids. Denying what kids may well need. Denying the abuse that happens, very commonly, today in outlier sets. Denying our place on the great mandala - the tapestry of life that we can either choose to be a part of, or not. I advocate that we choose life.
>Should we let the kids be?
"Letting them 'be'" would mean letting them grow up in a traditional long standing history most natural most common household, for their own good (for many reasons, including their own needs, plus the more common directly observed problems with outlier 'culture').
Fucking with them, would mean forcing them to grow up in a two mommy household where one mommy had to knock on a sperm bank door, and having no father in the house. Plus not helping a straight child growing up in a house which values & honors & promotes straightness (eg: the most common productive, more-healthy, set).
>We have no inherent responsibility to stay the course.
Responsibility comes from several sources. Being true to ourselves. Getting along in a community. Helping ensure that other people don't go off a cliff.
Sex, in the more common set, is wisely selfish. Even an Randian objectivist could appreciate that (even though Ayn Rand was a complete know-nothing idiot). If we AREN'T sucked in, by nature, to reproduction, we may well, and can easily, lead a petty & dead end life.
So, why are Catholics concerned about birth control?
Why does sperm bank use by single women & lesbians cause people to be concerned?
Why do people get concerned about homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, sociopathy, psychopathy, schizophrenia, and other outlier-traits? Why do most all human cultures have rules & recommendations & concerns about these outlier traits which some people are either sucked into, or born into?
We don't want to see people go off a cliff.
Discounting the rules & prescriptions & suggestions of the religious, just because their god may not exist, is far far too simplistic - and is usually a completely
wrong evaluation of what is actually happening.
So, honoring our history. Honoring & supporting life. Remembering that it may be dangerous to stray too far from our natural path. And remembering that, damn it, even the fucking right is "right" on some things. Damn, that's hard to admit, but it's true.
==============
Further response received on 5-29:
Seculars
against same sex marriage. That is pretty ironic. I don't think they
actually have any good arguments... but that is just me.
I doubt they have that big of a group.... most secular people are for equal rights of gays.
This idea that children deserve a biological mother and father to best succeed is not proven.
If it were, you would still have to deal with single parents, grandparents, foster parents, etc....
So if you oppose gay marriage, do you oppose these OTHER things as well?
My response:
Points raised & my responses:
Point 1: Most people believe in X.
Response:
Argumentum ad populum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
"...In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it."
2. Ironic.
Response:
There's many ironies to life.
Explore some: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
3. What about equal rights?
Response:
Equal rights should be given when equality is deserved, warranted, healthy, safe, valuable, and applicable.
The right to civilly unite? Ok. Whatever.
The right to use the "marriage" term, which implies access to children, not so sure.
Doesn't matter how many naive judges are convinced, or the number of naive liberals jumping on board like lemmings.
I've
acquired enough experiential knowledge & expertise on the subject
at hand to change my position - change from the oh-so-predictable
position of the naive left, to one more in the center or right, on this issue.
Leftists are naive about many things.
Leftists run the Salt Lake City Library.
Muslim Journeys:
http://www.slcpl.org/events/view/2945/
and this fool:
http://www.slcpl.lib.ut.us/events/view/1965/
A response to the leftist love of Tariq Ramadan:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/09/islamism_goes_mainstream.html
The primary Muslim journey that comes to my mind is when several adherents flew planes into buildings on 9/11. That is the preeminent "Muslim Journey" of our age.
Also, Mohamed was not an advocate for social justice.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-new-creed-of-unitarian-universalism.html
Come to find out liberals are naive about gays as well.
Knee
jerk liberals. Yes, Mr. & Mrs. Conservative, I'm starting to
understand now. And I say that as a guy who's for single payer and who
fully maintains that Ayn Rand was a complete & utter fool.
From
Jesse Bering: "...Even in societies where homosexuality was tolerated,
such as in Ancient Greece, men tended to engage in pederasty with
adolescent boys while maintaining wives and families at home..."
from
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/
Yet another connection between homosexuality & pedophilia. My goodness. Not so good of an environment for kids.
Are Mormonism & Catholicism homosexual & pedophile generators? | Connections between homosexuality & pedophilia
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/are-mormonism-catholicism-homosexual_24.html
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/pedophilia
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/homosexuality
Also Bering has written the book "Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us."
I
guess he'd know, as per even his direct stated connection between homos
and pedos (my apologies to liberal sensibility for using the short word
homo, but it seemed apt given what's being discussed) listed above - and since he's a homosexual.
Don't fuck animals. Hey, the Bible was right! Don't put your dick in an asshole! Damn, how'd they figure that one out?
Even non-Biblical cultures have figured these key truths out. Why is your average liberal in denial?
4. Noted annoyance at discovering that there are "seculars
against same sex marriage."
Response:
Bursting the bubble of the liberal meme set is unpleasant also, for the liberal.
"There's people who disagree." Hmmm. Honest scientists may not be surprised. But "skeptics," no, they should never be presented with evidence counter to their suppositions.
5. Children deserve a mother & father, ideally is not proven.
Response:
The left cannot be trusted to provide an unbiased response on the matter.
Hey, maybe a kid ideally needs a mommy & a daddy. Damn, that's a
hard one. We need to go to the lab to study that one.
Lame retrograde denialism.
The simplest, & most healthy, ideas from religion, discounted too soon & too quickly by your average secularist.
Do we need to prove that children need air? Water? Food?
How
departed from our natural history, examining what all cultures do &
advocate for, and what all people think on the matter, do we have to
be?
I'm
skeptical of anything but the default position: male & female
raising children, for several reasons. One reason is what the child may
need. Another reason is what I've observed first hand - observed things
which most secularists / liberals have not observed.
Even
if we want to test: It is unethical to "test," even though de facto
tests are going on right now. I have a cousin lesbian conducting such a
test right now. The daughter of my uncle from Manti who died of AIDS. Of
course she turned gay. No problem there.
updated religious and political views... an atheist moderate / conservative
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/updated-religious-and-political-views.html
We
can gather relevant evidence by a.) examining our own long standing natural history, and b.) examining what all cultures do in
this regard - not just the ones that happen to agree with the leftist
relativist hippie position, and c.) examining what other animals do, and d.) asking the children of gays what they think, and e.) making note of
the probably-inherantly-abusive nature of "gay" culture.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/not-all-children-raised-by-gay-parents-support-gay-marriage-i-should-know-i/
A
very high level of skepticism regarding anything but the default
natural position. Gathering evidence from all sides & all tribes.
Personal experiential evidence. All this has led me to conclude that
children need a mommy & a daddy, and should not be placed in gay,
nor single parent, households, period.
6. Single parents.
Less than ideal situation. Most everyone agrees with this.
Grandparents. At least it's usually a male & female, and they're grandparents after all.
Foster parents. Male & female.
7. If you oppose gay marriage, do you oppose these OTHER things as well?
Response: I'm
highly skeptical of gay "marriage," based on first hand experiential
knowledge of gay culture, plus what I've learned from others about the
issue, plus what I know about biology & evolutionary history.
I oppose any use of sperm banks, except for male & female couples.
I believe abortion after viability should be illegal, and before viability discouraged.
I believe birth control should be legal, but discouraged.
I believe that the entirety of liberalism is, in part, a death cult - engaging in advocacy for slow motion suicide for everyone.
I have observed that liberals are denialists about human nature & natural history just as much as conservatives have been.
8. Do you also oppose people that cannot have children getting married? Why not?
Response: Adoption is ok, with a male & female adopting.
I oppose single female, lesbian couple, and gay male couple, use of the sperm bank or adoption.
The courts have decided trivially that tomatoes are vegetables.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/26/256586055/when-the-supreme-court-decided-tomatoes-were-vegetables
Putting on robes and being a pompous know-it-all doesn't mean you know anything.
The destructive memetic infection has reached conservatives & libertarians, passed on to them from persistent liberals.
Denial
of human nature. Ignoring our natural history. Toying with the lives of
children. Ignoring huge problems with gay "culture."
What
are the facts? What do people observe? Do you listen to what they say?
What do cultures do who don't agree with your suppositions? Do we want
to toy with the lives of children?
It's
not my fault that atheism does not imply skepticism, and that
skepticism does not imply free thought, and that free thought does not
imply honesty - when it comes to groups who use these words as part of
their names.
I'm not a libertarian, but Shermer has a point:
Michael Shermer on confirmation bias, on the left:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/
The Political Brain
A recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
People
are born dumbshits. That's why god invented Christopher Hitchens,
Steven Pinker, and Daniel Dennett. All of those dudes may be more
accepting of so-called gay, butt fuck, marriage than I am. But I've
gathered more direct data than probably ALL of them combined - except for Hitchens possibly.
In any case I'm satisfied &
generally happy with my transition to the
skeptical-of-gay-marriage-and-adoption meme set / camp. And I have one
advantage that many others do not: I've already been through the pain of
leaving an abusive meme set (eg: Mormonism). Thus social cajoling, pressure, and attacks are
far less able to affect me.
I'm interested in the truth and in honesty, even if that means that my previous
liberal suppositions are overturned in part.
