Conservative Naturalism: Culture War General Commentary - 5-22-2014

(link to video - especially for iphone users)
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.

For adults.

5-22-2014

Conservative Naturalism: Don't put your willie in the deadly destructive glory hole of the left. You might get both an STD and an MTD

(link to video - for iphone users and others)
Conservative Naturalism. Make some room please, in the universe of ideas.

[Collections of several recent posts from the past couple of days, advocating for the value of conservative naturalism.]

Here's one prime example of why the "secular left" is no solution or answer to the religious right:

http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/the-comments-pz-myers-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

P.Z. Myers. What a bummer.

No easy solution or social group to associate with after leaving Mormonism.

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

I question liberal dogma.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html

Can we find a cure?
http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/a-gay-germ-is-homophobia-a-clue/

...to the LDC?

Time will tell, as will reproduction.

Who will care that you were alive, in 100 years?

If you're straight, have some kids. Write a book. Create some good art or science!

If you're gay, devote your life to service oriented pursuits, helping everyone especially the crazy straights who happen to value reproduction (god fucking forbid!). Create, if you can, some damn good art that amuses & provokes both gay & straight people, and which annoys people also. Annoyance is the key to good art - both straight and gay. The more annoying the better. This advise holds for both straight & gay artists.

Try to help your kids learn about the value of science, so that we can help the garden we've been given survive.

Survival is the bottom line.

Sex is set up in humans to be selfish - WISELY selfish.

If we AREN'T sucked into kid stuff, it's EASY to lead a petty dead end life, straight or gay.

Dunk straight aunt with no kids, who used to call my father while drunk all the time?

A zero on the Great Mandala.

Angel Reading Gay Nephew with a convicted pedo for a friend, nephew who spends his life posting near naked photos on FB?

Mostly a zero on the Great Mandala.

Service oriented gay guy who helps us with we go on vacation, and who has a highly service oriented career.

A reasonable place on the Mandala tapestry.

Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde - mostly reasonable places from what I can tell so far.

Roman Polanski, should have his placed burned off the Mandala.

Joseph Smith also.

David Koresh also, and Jim Jones. Should be wiped CLEAN from the cloth.

What will your contribution be?

There are conservative fully naturalistic reasons to be concerned about birth control, sperm banks, and the forced equivalence of gay marriage & adoption.

If all respondents have in their tool box are ad hominem attacks, I'm acutely uninterested in those types of responses.

If you can change my mind, then change it. Otherwise, if I'm annoying, too bad. I'll still be on the net transmitting. Whether you listen or not is your choice. I just advocate that you find some useful place on the tapestry before your little tiny chance is gone.

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

Political history:

Dad liberal. He was always upset w/conservative stance of most Mormons.

I voted democrat while Mormon, and after leaving their church.

Went on an Alice in wonderland style journey after leaving.

Checked out nudists, polys, Portland sex party people, gay bars and parties.

Finally got married to a down to Earth socially moderate woman from China. She's atheist.

One kid. Another on the way.

Still like social welfare politically (Obamacare - w/a pref. for single payer),

Ayn Rand was an idiot who knew nothing about human nature. On the other hand Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist.

Perhaps like the South Park guys I hate conservatives, but I hate liberals even more. However I'm not libertarian, nor do I have "everything should be forcibly equal" gay colored glasses on.

I'm a truth and survival advocate. I care more about the truth (and general human survival) than group memberships or sucking up to any one group leader.  

Perhaps I am following in the footsteps of my rebel father to some extent. But I also highly value the life work of people like Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, and Carl Sagan.

I don't have empathy for wastrels. Take your place on the tapestry of life if and how you can, and while you have a chance.

I'm not a gaybot (similar to a mobot, but more gay).

Hey in a democracy in theory the people get to decide - except when naive judges take away our rights.

I know it's a balancing act between inherent rights and not. But until parthenogenesis is a natural reality, not everything will be equal.

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

Knock knock knock on the sperm bank door - the anxious lesbians wait outside. Non married to a person of the opposite sex women probably should be denied sperm from strange buildings such as those.

I can see why the religious right are upset. I'm not for a gay "marriage" ban. More for an alliance that promotes straight family life. The gays can do the interior decorating. That's ok. But regular natural families should be our top priority. Not STFU Parents woman on Jian G's show. 

Where's the socially conservative gays? Somewhere with the log cabin group?

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

Reach into the tool box of meme set defense mechanisms. Pull out one tool, after another, after another, after another.

Down deep in your meme set defense bag is the more heavy hammer & sharper instruments.

But, mostly what you've got so far is one logical fallacy, after another, after another. Smoke. Refusing to read what the other person says, or lazy name calling.

No wonder Mormons & other conservative religionists are wary of the other side. Wary for many reasons. And, regarding some of those reasons, I don't blame them!

They should fear for the safety of their children. Quite true. If your children get sucked into the "loving" arms of the LDC, they could well get AIDS or some other STD, become a druggie, "choose" to not have kids because of LDC ideology at school, "choose" to become gay or a mixed-sex freak, become destructive in other ways, etc.

Don't get an STD (sexually transmitted disease) or an MTD (memetically transmitted disease) by putting your willie into the glory hole of the left - it's no panacea.

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

What's the balance between straight marriage, straight family life, and not?

13.8 billion years to 10 years.

10 years or so of lesbians knocking, knocking, knocking on the sperm bank door.

13.8 billion where a woman had to find a man and vice versa.

Quite a comparison.

Liberal denial of human nature, and our long history.

Traitors to their 13.8 billion year history. A repugnant death cult. THIS is liberalism for you TODAY!

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

[Responding to a post by one man who is exhibiting traits of currently being held down by LDC ideology:]

Slow motion suicide, helping rob YOU of a place on the tapestry of life:

"...there are perhaps other reasons why homosexual behavior may be increasingly cropping up in human and other species. There is a certain 'carrying load' of animal species and homosexuality may actually be nature's way of bringing things back into balance."

"Humanity is in no danger of dying out from lack of reproduction. It may be seriously endangering itself though, through overpopulation. Personally, those who are hysterical about the 'gay agenda' are simply fear-mongering in order to exert social control over a behavior that they find...icky? I have many gay friends. Their agenda is quite simply. To enjoy the same legal protections in their relationships that heterosexuals enjoy. That is the sum total of their agenda."

"To assume that procreation is the only societally building relationship ignores all of the couples who are for one reason or another unable to procreate. The argument that homosexual relationships are unproductive are meritless since there are millions of gay people who are functioning and productive members of society."

Responses to the above LDC meme set collection expression:

1. Your answer proves my point. To support the equivalence of "gay marriage" you MUST advocate that most people NOT have children. You must advocate for the value of childless marriage - and that such a state may actually be good. Slow motion suicide. A death cult. No other words for it.

These people have a point:
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
and http://overpopulationisamyth.com/category/categories/pop101

Lurking behind LDC dogma are things like China's mandatory one child policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

Totalitarian eugenics.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/margaret-sanger-also-amoral-fuck.html
and
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/Margaret%20Sanger

An ideology of death, for the individual, and for society. The only fools who are listening are the liberals. Suicide for their own culture. Perhaps that's not so bad?

People WILL ignore you! They are ignoring you! They will continue to ignore you! Thank goodness!

Take your place on the Great Mandala, or Not!. It's up to you! I just advocate that you do. Don't allow yourself to be robbed of life & key foundational life experiences by LDC dogma!

2. Meritless?

False equivalences are the meritless, dangerous, destructive doctrinal points of the left.

Hey, I'm quite familiar with the dogma of the LDC. I've seen it first hand. My sister is a victim. My gay nephew is one. You are probably one too. I ask that you not be.

13.8 billion years. To 10. 13.8 billion years. To 10. Quite a ratio.

Traitors to life & to your own history.

"Carrying load" - may as well commit suicide now. Too many people? Let's be childfree.

May as well commit suicide. Hey, if your choice holds, the net-result will be pretty much the same.

But please DON'T! Have a kid if you can, using good old fashioned reproduction! And if you cannot, then help support those who do! Don't be a traitor to your own history.

Conservative naturalism. Advocacy for life. Honoring our true history, as 13.8 billion year evolved highly intelligent sexual animals. But sometimes our neural networks can send us right off the fucking rails and into a ditch. The LDC is one such ditch.

Please avoid it. Embrace life. Is that too much to ask?

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

Further liberal-meme-set expression posted:

"A.) Homosexuality is not maladaptive to psychosocial health. B.) There is no evidence that allowing gays to marry increases rates of homosexual behavior. In short, allowing gays and lesbians to marry the person they love will have no statistically significant negative impact on individuals or society as a whole."

My response:

A. Tell that to the people robbed of their place on the tapestry of life by LDC ideology.

B. Are we sure? The endeavor of science cannot yet be trusted on the question, because of the strong bias against a non-PC non-LDC honest answer from science.

No impact? Unless it does. Straightness is not honored in such a household. An imposition of destructive LDC ideology is by default imposed on the kid. Child abuse to grow up in such a household. More ready exposure to "gay culture." 
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/response-to-site-claims-attack-by-lds.html

A betrayal of basic human nature.

13.8 billion years. 10 years.

13.8 billion years. 10 years.

13.8 billion years. 10 years.

LDC denial of basic human nature.

What if a child needs a mommy & a daddy - by their very nature?

Can an LDC-member "scientist" ask this question?

Is the "right" right? Can you ask, as a true honest scientist?

Not easily.

Not and keep your current friend circle.

The Stonewall warriors are there, waiting to POUNCE on anyone who questions their dogma & agenda.

It's a war. And war is no time for science to inconveniently show that the leftist side may be wrong - wrong in ANY way.

Not science.

A betrayal of natural history.

A preference for slow-motion suicide.

A death cult.

Recovery from Atheists of Utah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belief maintenance. Heresy trials. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I like Duck Dynasty. 

Heresy for A of U.

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

---

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

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

Short description:

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

Long description:

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

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

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

Humans have in and out group morality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Related blog posts:

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

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

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

Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being antireligion? | Atheism is a religion

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate

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.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com

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

On Ukraine & Russia: Russia is lying.

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

The way you love does matter.

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

You can have abuses on both sides.

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

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

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

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

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

Having kids is a good thing.

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

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

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

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

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

On NPR - National Politically Correct Radio

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

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.

Star Trek; Sneaky Biology; Built in human morality; Fun includes work; Can I join your church?

Commentary on Star Trek Enterprise.

On the new Star Trek movie franchise: Not Star Trek - should instead be called "Kiddie Trek" or "Millennials Trek."

The original Star Trek is rather like Shakespeare. Should we change the stories of Shakespeare? No. Changing the basic story lines of the original story lines is not what they do with Shakespeare & it's not what people should do with Star Trek.

Roddenberry wrote cowboy stories. We need cowboys in space. If we use robots forever, what happens when the sun gets 10% hotter & the sun boils off? The childless liberal hippie may well be extinct, but the "breeders" won't be. Childless liberals get what they want: no place on the great mandala.

Biology can sneak up on everyone, left & right. Thank goodness.

See what birth control does now: We have people who think that the child-free life is just as good as one with children. Catholics have a point. It's not what's in the Bible - it's basic human morality, nature, instincts, and survival.

In Mormonism & other religions they teach you to be afraid of sexual thoughts.

If you're a Mormon wife, maybe you shouldn't wear your temple garments at night, or even during the day. Wearing them interferes with your ability to be intimate with your husband. No wonder he's looking at porn so much even though he's married to you.

Religion can fuck you up, but religion is a natural phenomenon. So we have to separate the lies from the truth. That's why I like Bart Ehrman. He helps separate the lies from the truth.

You have can you religion & your values. You can be pro-life, and wary of birth control. You can be wary of the homosexual agenda. Why? Because you can tie into natural normal human morality & human nature. You can use your brain to evaluate the outcomes of various activities & thought processes.

You don't have to believe in the lies of your religion to hold onto your values. True humanist values! True naturalist values! Being natural includes having stigmas for destructive behaviors - that's the key epiphany that I've had.

We don't have to lie to say the truth.

Can I join your church? If I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but I think there's some valid & good human values in the Bible & in other books that humans have written?

Humans write human stuff. Some of the groups that have Bart Ehrman debating, I think they actually believe the guy. They can't move along the road because they're afraid that without their god everything is permitted. They look at the ultra-leftie liberals & thin this. But, you can codify your values without having to believe in lies. Examine things objectively and make judgements. Judging can be highly valuable.

Remember the Great Mandala song by Peter, Paul, and Mary. "...Win or lose now you must choose now..."

Fun includes work, hippie, and not just staring at your own naval all your life.

September 4, 2013 7:37am

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

Family Values Atheism: path to immortality: children; religion is a natural phenomenon - it cuts both ways; thanks black atheists of Atlanta

Family Values Atheism:

Religion is a natural phenomenon - it cuts both ways

The dogmas of a religion can actually be natural

Concern about non-reproductive sex can be natural

Maybe a children need a mommy & a daddy

Maybe if you spend your life in a non-reproductive hole you'll be unhappy as a result

Why I've become more socially conservative: several years of observation of the gay community.

Thanks black atheists of Atlanta, for introducing some much needed skepticism into the "atheist movement."

Bad ideas & dogma can come from anywhere, including the left.

On the left we have dogma, elders, inquisitions, heresy trials, and witch hunts.

Go question liberal dogma in a group of liberals and see what happens.

Excommunication trials - only in Mormonism? No, liberals will happily do these as well.

The only real immortality we can ever experience comes via having children. I'm for questioning liberal dogma that draws us away from that. True & honest & enlightened naturalism, atheism, and humanism means this to me.

Can we open a "Friends of the Black Atheists of Atlanta" branch here?

Maybe if you work to be an ex-gay, maybe that's a good thing. Since I spend several years closely observing gay culture, I feel the need to mention this. Also ready heresy trials will quickly happen if you question this key liberal dogma point.

http://narth.com
http://pfox.org/default.html

Without god is everything permitted? If you listen to the liberals you might think so. But no, we're talking about humans. Humans have built in morality. Without god not everything is permitted - even if the liberals might think so, or act like this is true.

If you force yourself to believe a certain thing - a more deep part of human nature, that can make you unhappy. And being in a dead-end non-reproductive loop can, indeed, make you and everyone unhappy.

Tying into 14 billion years of evolution, directly, by having children is of value. Immortality - great value. More valuable than chasing your tail all your life, and trying to force others to state that your "choice" is just as valuable as any other choice.

Not all things are equal. Not all choices are worthy of respect.

Family values atheism - thanks black Atheists of Atlanta for reminding us that it's possible to have these words exist together. And, we can also thank the people in other countries who aren't members of the American-liberal-dogmatic church - people who may value family over forced relativism. How's that for naturalism & humanism? Examining what people *actually do* and making note that sometimes there's damn good reasons for stigma to be assigned to certain activities. A very hard thing for an ex-religionist to realize.

If you're not careful, a liberal-dogma-questioning epiphany may cause you, Mr. & Mrs. Leftie, to be subjected to a liberal heresy trial. But, you jumped out of one church, you may as well be prepared to jump out of another.

Free speech. Free thought. Freedom from religion, on the right and on the left. And thankfully we're human, so without god not everything is permitted - even if the lefties may de facto act like it is.

8-16-2013 7:38am

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

We've got bigger things to tackle than Anthony Weiner's weener.

Anthony's weener re-emerges.

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6MJzyx9UY

http://dictionary.babylon.com/weener/
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/weiner

"These things" aren't behind him. They're right in front of him.

Taking a step back, it's interesting how worked up people get about penises.

I don't agree with the cheating aspect of his actions. On the other hand I am pro-nudist pro-naturalist anti-sexual-shaming, and I don't think nudist events ever have been nor ever will be "not about sex."

Anyway, as long as his own wife can deal his actions I don't have a huge problem with his actions. Get on with it. We've got bigger things to tackle than Anthony's weener.

Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife - and comments on the gay flag

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.

July 19, 2013 - 7:44am

challenging liberal dogma points - promoting naturalism. can a conservative be a naturalist? homophobia. islamophobia. gay marriage. children.

July 11 and 12, 2013 video commentaries:

challenging liberal dogma points - promoting naturalism

can a conservative be a naturalist? homophobia. islamophobia. gay marriage. children.

atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights

As an atheist I whole heatedly disagree with Peter Singer’s positions on abortion, infanticide, and human rights.

Notes from video commentary, with additional thoughts:

Religion is a natural phenomenon. So the good that comes from religion is natural. There are atheists who are concerned about abortion, and who absolutely do not agree with Singer.

Without god everything is permitted? No. There is no god, and not everything is permitted. So the answer is no to that proposition.

In Averick's article on Singer he doesn't need to paint all atheists as immoral. We aren’t - we’re human just like him, and humans have human morals.

And as for Singer, I recommend you read this post and an earlier post, which includes notes on Sam Harris & Christopher Hitchens, on the problems with moral & cultural relativism, and an advocacy for discouraging abortion.

Can a middle road be taken on abortion? How about: First & second trimester: legal but highly discouraged. Third trimester: illegal. After birth abortion: equivalent to murder. How's that?

Morality comes from a combination of socialization and genetics. Check out Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, & Daniel Dennet on the subject of morality, religion, and the thankfully evolving & improving moral zeitgeist.

I admit that I have built in morals, as do most people except for sociopaths, and except (in part) for people currently tied down by meme sets that are infecting their brains & making them less moral than they would otherwise be.

Religion can make people less moral than they would otherwise be (eg: suicide bombers as one example). The ivory tower of academics can do the same, for example where students learn the "value" of moral & cultural relativism, and the lie of the blank slate.

Did your god have sex with Mary the mother of Jesus? Does your god live on Kolob? Is Mohamed god's messenger? If you don't believe any one, two, or three of these three points, then maybe it's not illusory to be a so-called atheist.

Stop mutilating the genitals of kids. There's plenty of people who're atheist with regard to many gods including yours, and yet they have just as much "family values" as you have.

Nihilism is not an appropriate response, not from atheists or theists or anyone.

A set of memes can put you off the rails of natural built in morality. So watch out & don't be sucked in by anyone.

Additional blog post on these issues:

Peter Singer is an amoral fuck -- speaking as an atheist. On morality, children, infanticide, and abortions.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singer-is-amoral-fuck-speaking-as.html

My additional writings:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com
http://corvus.freeshell.org

And from people I generally admire:
http://www.samharris.org/media/video
Hitchens:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hitchens&oq=hitchens&gs_l=youtube
Pinker:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steven+pinker&oq=steven+pinker&gs_l=youtube
Dennett:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=daniel+dennett&oq=daniel+dennett&gs_l=youtube

We aren't required to choose between the ass hole tea baggers of Fox News & the current Republican Party, and the similarly anally retentive feminazi zero population growth ultra lefties who love PETA and similar groups, and who believe that women who're homemakers are selling themselves short. A pox on both of their houses. We're moving forward, as natural humans who're interested in truth and what science reveals about everything. And when your preconceived or inculcated notions are debunked, then drop them. I'll try to do the same.

Rationalism, Naturalism, Cultural Relativism, and having an accurate view of the world

The rationalist may not enjoy admitting to the biological evolutionary naturalistic roots of what he concludes is "rational." A good analogy is how Spock was portrayed as viewing the world: logical until mating season came around, but even then his actions were in the end logical to him.

It's is indeed rational to eat, breath, have sex, love, make babies, have fun, and so on - so the rationalist will naturally conclude because his brain and being are coded to conclude as much. So be it. Humans aren't fully rational though, whatever the fuck rational may actually mean.

In any case, the idea that we can divorce ourselves from emotion is an illusion and is in many ways a potentially damaging self deception. Go without food long enough, or other of our primary biological needs, and the supposedly strict rationalist will very quickly go right off the rails. Pretend like you've got a "rational mind" divorced from your "emotional mind" and you're frankly drive yourself and others crazy.

On cultural relativism: I don't have a problem with judging how people acted in the past. There's a limit to my own tolerance regarding past behavior, and I believe everyone has a limit. My mentioning of Mohamed's 9 year old wife was to show one example. Maybe people did marry at 14 in the past more, but there's all sorts of things that used to happen which we now have concluded were incorrect actions. Incorrect now, and, incorrect then. For example: slavery, the oppression of women, having kings rule with an iron fist, and so on.

Pinker has spoken of an progressing moral zeitgeist as has Dawkins. Also Harris has some good ideas on a science of morality. Thank goodness we now have a much wider scope for our in group morality.

Down at BYU in the psychology & religion departments, they may strongly decry the "hedonistic" nature of "the world," and try to get their students to be wary. They go to their churches on Sunday where Mormon bishops interrogate youngsters about masturbation, and where all the youngsters learn to fear normal natural human sexuality. But, meanwhile, their founding prophets have been reasonably documented as doing things which the Mormon Church would excommunicate people for. So that's the point. Hypocrisy.

Don't masturbate Johnny, but meanwhile worship a god who had literal sex with the wife of another man. Don't have oral sex, Julie and Jim, but meanwhile Brigham & Joseph got to have sex with the wives of other men and with under age girls.

My own experience with Mormonism has made me more of a strong naturalist, on both sides of the cultural spectrum. So for example I'm all for people having as many babies as they want - if that's what deep down they feel like doing. The exuberance of the gays has a companionship with the exuberance of a large family. I try not to disparage either course of action because deep down people are doing what they feel included to do as animals. So be it. And, as rather intelligent animals maybe in the long term we can engineer and way to stay alive when the sun gets 10% hotter.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html

The bottom line is that I don't think everything is relative. All societies past & present can for example be evaluated against the following yardstick: How well did each help humans be happy & thrive, and how much did each hold people down & make them unhappy?

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