Thomas Rowlandson's erotic engravings.

Thomas Rowlandson (1756-1827), erotic engravings.

From http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rowlandson_erotic_engravings

To view larger versions of the images, use Firefox or Chrome, then right click on any image, and select either "view image," or "open image in new tab."

the sexual, mostly positive, but sometimes negative, art of Mihály Zichy

The sexual, mostly positive, but sometimes negative (but honest), art of Mihály Zichy

Mihály Zichy (1827 to 1906).

Born in Hungary.

Drawings as in the book Liebe (the quality of love, pleasure, joy, favor, love).

Full title: Liebe. Vierzig Zeichnungen

http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy-mih%C3%A1ly
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/2
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/3
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/4
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/5

A few of the drawings are a bit disturbing, in that they show the more deviant (justifiably-lockable-up) side of human sexual behavior. But there's healthy depictions in other drawings.

It's worth making note of the truth (and locking away the abusers when necessary). Celibate the good & healthy. Lock up the abusers though. His drawings show both sides.

Found a few copies of the book:
http://www.en.zvab.com/advancedSearch.do?title=Liebe++Vierzig+Zeichnungen&author=Zichy

whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy

In school, they completely whitewashed history.

Check out these caricatures through 1827 by Thomas Rowlandson...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rowlandson

In listening to Sister Wendy at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a4GbfVBEjs&t=1m32s
she complains of Puritanism AND feminism. Why is that?

Disgust about shame regarding sex from the right AND the left. I think that's what makes Sister Wendy upset.

From the 1524 book I Modi (The Ways):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/EneeDidon.jpg

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

...found one copy for $50:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=12297590527&searchurl=kn%3DI%2BModi%253A%2BThe%2BSixteen%2BPleasures%26amp%3Bsts%3Dt%26amp%3Bx%3D0%26amp%3By%3D0

We recently watched the documentary at
https://indieflix.com/indie-films/beyond-naked-35063/
(log onto your local library website first to view it free).
...Beyond Naked - about nude biking during an art festival in Seattle.

One key thing that struck me about the film was when one very fat woman, who's nude with her husband at home 99% of the time, offered fearful & crass advise regarding penile erections to the participants.

A very unattractive fat woman with rolls and rolls of fat is going to offer advise to men about the state of their penises when they're nude?

Ironic. Strange. A leftist hippie form of sexual shaming. And key denialism from the "nudist" camp regarding what nudity is always partly about, that is when adults are present and can see each other - you know, the S word that they fear so much. 

Related links:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/06/explorations-activities-after-leaving.html
http://agalltyr.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/nudistsnaturists-are-not-special/
and http://drglennsmith.co.uk/RES-000-22-0569-5k.pdf
..."Mainstream  naturism  relies  on  discriminatory  and  dishonest  practices  to  manage
sexuality that limits the diversity of the  naturist population and presents  an  image and
culture that lacks integrity and transparency..." Damn right.

Am I for 100% nudism all the time? No. Why? Because there's crazies in the world who will do worse things than what they're already doing if everyone were nude. You know, the homeless nutjob who goes pee in front of your local Walmart, and worse nutjobs lurking. There's always a certain percent.

But, on the other hand, viewing films like The Good Old Naughty Days (available at many public libraries), and learning of the art in Pompeii, and the above more contemporary links, and books like the Kama Sutra are enlightening and eye opening & incredibly important as well - as are the works that Sister Wendy has shown us.

Life is a balancing act. How to balance between the Puritans on the right and the anti-porn anti-freedom hysterical feminazi hippies on the left? How to reject shame from the right and the left, while still remaining healthy, and free, and happy? It's hard work. But I think we need to be honest.

Humans very thinly hide their sexuality for some very good reasons. But on the other hand, if we hide it too much we can also become fucked up...

When naked adult humans can see each other, and one or both are not 100% ugly, there is a sexual component present, even if the participants are fundamentally dishonest about their status & state (eg: your average nudist in America & Europe).

Sex is hard wired into us. Hysterical leftist hippie nudists cannot rip that wiring out, any more than rightist Bishops & Priests can. It's there. There's no denying it. It does need some management I agree. But we can go too far either way. It's refreshing to know that our ancestors were obsessed - and for good reason. We would not be here otherwise, probably.

The selective erection of the U.S. Border, for liberals -- We all live in one country? Yes! No double standards.

BBC news: The world is going to hell in a hand basket. We all live in one country. When a medieval / stone age barbarian kills people in "another country," they are really killing people in "your county," in our country too.

When it comes to illegal immigrants, liberals believe in erasing the border.

When it comes to people being killed in Iraq, boy howdy that U.S. border goes up damn quick for them.

Speakin' as a (now former) liberal myself - well a modified liberal who wants nothing to do with Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, or etc.

An atheist watches Duck Dynasty, and likes it!

We watched Duck Dynasty last night, for the first time. A great show.

My wife enjoyed it very much. I remember when I was excommunicated from Atheists of Utah for expressing my appreciation for the duck people's general stance of challenging the new dominant paradigm, and advocacy for good old fashioned family values.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/duck-dynasty-pride-month.html

Hitchens quits the Nation.

http://www.thenation.com/article/taking-sides

"...In the past few weeks, though, I have come to realize that the magazine itself takes a side in this argument, and is becoming the voice and the echo chamber of those who truly believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden..."

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

http://www.salon.com/2002/10/29/hitchens_6/

Juan Williams got tossed out of NPR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76KH0Ym51yQ

Where's a Hitch when you need him?

Maybe my views on the whole gay thing are softening a bit, but the de facto cult status of Stonewall is still ringing in my ears. I know of the gentle service oriented gays. But I also know of the wastrels who happily befriend convicted pedos. Can we separate the Truman Capote types from the service oriented ones? The people interested in real service to humanity, instead of vain wastrel tail chasing bullcrap?

August 8, 2014: Moving left

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.

Happy 4th of July! Human are humans, in a tipi or out.

On the 4th of July liberals are upset about America even existing at all.

Should the borders be fully opened?

Mexican drug gangs that kill en masse would move right in, more than they already are in Mexico.

As for the "indigenous" "native" oh so noble savages:

Using heads in football:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_ballgame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_ballgame#cite_note-56
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Maya_culture

More:
http://tvliberty.blogspot.com/2007/09/steven-pinker-debunks-noble-savage-myth.htmlhttps://twitter.com/sapinker/status/298096581293535233


Human are humans, in a tipi or out.

Humans will migrate & expand. But once a certain saturation point on the land has been reached, they'll erect borders so as to protect what's already been set up.

Does this mean I believe there should be no immigration from the south? No. But not everything is equal. And there was actually some value to the landing of Columbus, even if it also had a terribly high cost.

The movement of humans across the land & sea, due to increasing technology, was inevitable.

If the so-called natives had had guns & so on, they could have fended off the conquistadors.

Why weren't pre-Columbian American cultures as technologically advanced as Europe? Probably: resources & agriculture available in Europe.

Any person who's born in a place is a native.

Everyone is racist, especially people who claim they aren't.

But travel and first hand exposure to other cultures, does widen the mind, and it also widens our in group morality.

Whitees today are not responsible for the sins of other humans who happened to be white. To claim as much is not only intellectually dishonest, it's racist. On the other hand I'm very much for reparations for slavery, and for the genocide committed against the American Indians. That's fine. Doesn't mean "whitey" is responsible. But the sins of past humans, which have placed certain other groups of humans in a hole - those sins need to be made up for, by the society as a whole, by working to repair the damage.

On the other hand if you make a person or group too dependent, that can also be abusive. So a one-time-very-large reparation should probably be done both for blacks & Indians in America. Maybe giving more valuable city & farm land to Blacks & Indians, instead of just way-out-in-the-fucking-boonies away-from-everything dry desolate unfarmable land. And the Indian Health Service is a very good thing.

What did the Romans ever do for us?

Additional thoughts in a related post:

Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/noble-savages-edward-snowden-julian.html

commentary on: 300 Articles You Have to Read to Understand What Is Meant by the Term "Homofascism"

Commentary on the following article:

300 Articles You Have to Read to Understand What Is Meant by the Term "Homofascism"
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2014/07/300-articles-you-have-to-read-to.html

The first article about the 14 year old is a prime example of why I now disable comments on most of my youtube videos. I've left commenting enabled on my blog. But a certain percentage of all people are sociopaths & so on.

My own personal experience of expressing some much needed rebellion and skepticism within an atheist group:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html

The rather ironic thing about the group in question is this:

When a previous leader of a leftist atheist group he took over has a kid with an excommunicated-from-another atheist group pro-life atheist woman.

A of U unilaterally absorbed into themselves a long standing group formerly known as Salt Lake Valley Atheists. During an SLVA meeting about four years ago a rare pro-life atheist woman was told she wasn't welcome because SLVA had determined that ultra-liberal politics & social policy advocacy was a key thing they were about. Atheists of Utah was headed up by an older guy whose wife was dying. He hooked up with this pro-life atheists whom SLVA kicked out & had a kid with her. He also did outreach work to the gay pride festival here. The legacy of his outreach work was this: Only a few years later Atheists of Utah had a.) unilaterally dissolved & absorbed SLVA, and b.) become headed up by mostly people from the local Stonewall center, and c.) determined that they would incorporate into their whole being the ultra-liberal social & political stance of SLVA whom they had absorbed into themselves.

Why is this ironic? Because the guy who headed up A of U only a few years before had a kid with a pro-life atheist woman whom herself had been previously rejected by SLVA.

Seculars do need to have more kids. The ready acceptance of gay "marriage" is a symptom of a much larger problem with the left as a whole.

Slow motion suicide.

http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Europes-Motion-Suicide/dp/B0096EPE48

Many former LDS move to the LDC.

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

...and end up having zero kids of their own.

Here's a prime example of this in leftist atheist culture:

A-hole (IMO) P.Z. Myers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ch1XFqmGeM&t=19m10s

Oh my god listening to this man makes me sick. I can only take about 4 minutes of the guy and then I feel like I'm going to throw up. He of course directly discounts the fact that his 13.8 billion year evolved body managed to produce children. His views & protrayal of this KEY part of human existence is sickening and sick.

More examples of scummyness of the man:

PZ Myers isn't a feminist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OhbLDFeE4w

PZ Myers accuses Shermer of rape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WA4qtemcUs

13.8 billion years, and then there's this guy. A shallow and petty view of evolution by natural selection, from a biologist. A biologist who's been fully brain washed by LDC dogma.

Remember when the four horsemen came out with their various books? Dawkins. Hitchens. Harris. Dennett. Those were the days. But when atheists form social groups they almost invariably integrate their dogmatic political views as key agenda points in their groups. Shermer may have his head in the sand about gay "marriage," but he does have a point about confirmation bias:

http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/

The ready application of the use of the word "marriage" to gay civil unions really is about denying basic human nature. Active denial, and being a traitor to, the 13.8 billion year process that brought you and I here today. A person can either tie directly into that whole process, by reproducing themselves, or if not they can sometimes (and often in leftist-circles) buy into a whole culture that is in active rebellion against that 13.8 billion year process.

Is sexual reproduction trivial?

Do children need a mommy & a daddy?

Is everything equal?

No. Yes. No.

Gayness is a side effect of how sex gets set up in humans. A side effect. Not a primary effect. The primary effect results in reproduction. Children come from reproduction.

Any oh so natural vegan, and Whole Foods shopper, should recognize the high value in raising children in a more natural & healthy way. And adopted kids should have an environment which most closely matches the natural & health way.

Federal Appeals Court: Gays Have Right to Marry, And Everyone Has AIDS!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/federal-appeals-court-gays-have-right.html

Why is "gay pride" so strong in Salt Lake City? Because of the abusive stances of BOTH the Mormon Church and the Stonewall responders.

"The faith and family (formerly) left" is the group which most closely matches my views...

America's mushy middle: eight types of voters:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28025641

Thanks 1.3 billion Chinese, oh and the Black Atheists of Atlanta, and even your average Mexican, for helping me question the leftists who hate "breeders," and life, and who are essentially wastrels part of a destructive death cult.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/forget-republican-or-democrat-americans-divide-by-their-values/2014/06/27/00e86ac4-fe2c-11e3-91c4-01dcd9b73086_story.html

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/am-i-a-faith-and-family-leftist/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=am-i-a-faith-and-family-leftist

There's often zero room in your average atheist / humanist / Unitarian Universalist group for people who question the incredibly naive, dangerous, destructive, denialistic, nihilistic, narcissistic, denial of human nature, history, evolutionary biology, and so on, social positions of the left. The leftist death cult. Yes, I'm skeptical of that! Life is more important than these wastrels & their kin. Oh, but wait, they usually don't have children. But breeders will inherit the Earth...

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/breeders-will-inherit-earth-problems.html

Additional thoughts including how Unitarian Universalism and the ultra-left is very similar to the Shaker religion.

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

All the many grey haired people at the First Unitarian Church in Salt Lake City. Very few children. And a general cultural hatred for having children.

STFU Parents:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/stfu%20parents

Childfree:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/childfree

De facto celibacy. Slow motion suicide.
http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Europes-Motion-Suicide/dp/B0096EPE48

Childfree yourself & everyone afflicted by the memetic dissease that infects your brain, right out of existence...

And Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/margaret-sanger-also-amoral-fuck.html

These people just don't get it:
http://www.meetup.com/aofuslc/events/117023522/
http://www.slugmag.com/uploads/photos/img19665.jpg


Good without god? Well, maybe not.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html

Doesn't mean there is a god. But humanity may not quite be easily readily to go without this fully natural evolutionary trait (religion), like it or not.

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

July 2017 addendum:

I'm not longer in the leftist camp at all.

From socialist to very pro-capitalist.

From social leftist to social consevative.

Pro baby killing to pro life (with caveats for incest and rape, and only during very early pregnancy).

Against outlier 'marriage.' Children deserve to be in a normal-for-them environment, one which honors 1.2 billion years of sexual evolutionary history.

When leftists control the government they operate it in such a way which serves to deny their own evolutionary history and nature.

Federal Appeals Court: Gays Have Right to Marry, And Everyone Has AIDS!

Federal Appeals Court: Gays Have Right to Marry
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/court-utah-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-24298290

And everyone has AIDS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StPTCo5qk8E

The extreme naivete of Unitarian Universalism, expressed yet again by having one of their churches headed up by a freakish extreme outlier:

http://archive.sltrib.com/images/2009/0619/gayunitarian_0620~3.jpg

...a particularly & acutely unattractive woman to man experiment.

How else UUs are naive:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-new-creed-of-unitarian-universalism.html

Heard that Mohamed was an advocate for social justice crap at the SVUUS.

This guy is welcomed into the gay community:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695261750/Secret-shame-Predator-was-coach-Scout-chief.html?pg=all

Gay "marriage" is a key indicator of how the left is in near complete denial of human nature, and evolutionary history.

It's still Duck Dynasty Pride Month:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/duck-dynasty-pride-month.html

And with the passing of Christopher, his brother Peter is becoming more appealing every day, even if he himself doesn't accurately identify where his own morals come from:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/im-in-hitchens-camp-christopher-before.html

Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea is one key: Religion is a natural phonomenon. Thus fully natural & useful human morality exists within religion.

We need protection from the pitfalls of human nature. Protection from outliers. Yes religion & culture help manage all this, for very natural & reasonable & rational & evolutionary reasons. An evolutionary response to how evolution has set us up.

So, judges can be incredibly naive. Even conservative ones. Outliers naturally come about. But they need to be a.) classified & identified for what they are, and b.) curtailed when they're destructive or dangerous. Not forcibly treated as "equal" in all venues IMO. For example maybe a child needs a mommy & daddy, ideally, for it's own best welfare & development - as a normal non-outlier child. Can the left (& libertarians) question their own presuppositions? Are they in denial about human nature also? I have observed that they are.

"Freaks Welcome Here." This is the key motto of the SVUUS, and of Unitarian Universalism / leftistism / atheism plus / most atheists groups. De facto.

But outliers won't inherit the Earth.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/breeders-will-inherit-earth-problems.html

I agree with Adam Corolla on this point: "...I don’t want to be lying on my deathbed and realize gay marriage and legalization of marijuana is all I discussed the last half of my life..."

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/19/adam_carolla_where_are_all_the_jewish_roofers/

The UUs and their kin keep up the pressure.

Apartments? Ok. Jobs? Ok. Being funny? Yes please. Making art. Ok, good.

But raising kids? Not so fast.

When two John Thomases or two hoohaws can produce babies naturally, then there will be gay marriage.

Kids may well need a mommy & a daddy. 13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection. Is that enough "proof?" Hey at least let's be skeptical of ripping children away form this long established fully natural non-outlier more-healthy norm, ok?

Even Dan Savage says that gay men are "pigs." Should two pigs raise a kid? Where's the naturally moderating force of a female human? The lesbian friends of the Dan-Savage-gay-couple? I don't think so.

Many gay "marriages" cheat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Is a cheatin' marriage a good healthy place to raise kids?

A fully rational response:
https://4simpsons.wordpress.com/tag/same-sex-marriage/

And more general fully rational & reasonable responses:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Seculars-Against-Same-Sex-Marriage/293011477509961

http://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/marriage-is-masculinity-and-coverture/

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Its-Enemies-Confronting-Institutions/dp/1610170709

Gayness is not a race:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/

Neither is Islam:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/08/islam-is-not-race-not-ethnicity-salt.html

Gayness is a side effect of how sex gets set up in humans. A side effect. Not a primary effect. The primary effect results in reproduction. Children come from reproduction.

Any oh so natural vegan, and Whole Foods shopper, should recognize the high value in raising children in a more natural & healthy way. And adopted kids should have an environment which most closely matches the natural & health way.

Not a single woman who has no intention of having a man around, knocking on the sperm bank door.

Not two men, or two women, knocking on the sperm bank or adoption agency doors.

Leftist denial of human nature & evolutionary history, all so they can claim to be protecting everyone's rights. What about the right of the majority to be protected from dangerous or destructive outliers? Indeed. We have that right too.

I'm in the Hitchens camp. Christopher before. Peter now. Leftist denial of human nature.

I'm in the Hitchens camp. Christopher before. Peter now.

It's what happens after starting a family with a socially conservative atheist from rural China. No Bibles there.

Peter Hitchens vs Dan Savage


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQY4BuYWD4s
Listening to the incredibly crass way Dan Savage conducts himself is revealing. One wonders if he even knows where babies come from?

The left is in denial about human nature. Built in by evolution by natural selection good human values. Active denial. Dangerous denial. Abusive denial.

Agreed the Mormon Church abuses people. But so does the other side. It's hard to hold onto basic good human values when you've been so severely lied to & deceived. Takes time to recover. And then to recover from recovery.

Both the left & right are in denial about human nature. Both are rather highly upset at the prospect of admitting that we are human, set up by evolution by natural selection, to have build in morality, and an apparent propensity or high susceptibility for mysticism. The right doesn't like admitting that we are evolved animals. The left doesn't like admitting that we are evolved animals with built in morality & evolved culture - culture which helps us avoid the pitfalls built into human nature. Religion (AKA culture - ref Daniel Dennett) is a fully natural effect of how we've evolved.

Outliers naturally come about. But they need to be a.) classified & identified for what they are, and b.) curtailed when they're destructive or dangerous. Not forcibly treated as "equal" in all venues IMO. For example maybe a child needs a mommy & daddy, ideally, for it's own best welfare & development - as a normal non-outlier child. Can the left (& libertarians) question their own presuppositions? Are they in denial about human nature also? I have observed that they are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/

And back to Peter, he was a leftist, then he moved more right. Same with me, after I met a socially conservative completely-non-bibical atheist from rural China.

My legacy website, more reflective of my first state after leaving Mormonism (ultra left after being ultra right):http://corvus.freeshell.org

Current blog - reflective of my recovery from recovery, and finally growing up:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com

Resignation from the FB group Uncensored LDS/Mormon Discussions

Today I resigned from the group Uncensored LDS/Mormon Discussions.

Why, might you ask?

Oh my god. The answer is so easy: Because the group has censorship!

Here's a copy of the letter I posted:

Ok I'm out of here. I returned to the Mormon pie for a while. Now it's time to leave I can see.

Previously I had mostly moved passed the need to constantly chat about the Mo church. Then I was invited to join this group. I was attracted by the "uncensored" label, and found some joy in being in a place which I thought was truly uncensored. An open forum. And so on.

My experience here was not fully pleasant. Personal attacks - once I questioned some people's dominant paradigms. Then having to block several people who either were directly offensive, piling on, and then as a defense to block a few others who looked to me like they probably were good candidates (because they probably wouldn't like hearing from the "other side" of a given issue as per their own profiles).

Many admins are still too "new exmo," or they've landed in a place where their whole being cannot easily tolerate criticisms of where they've landed.

I have no idea why I blocked one of the admins. But at the time I probably had a good reason. Maybe it's time to search for forums outside the scope of FB again. More anonymity. More freedom. Less control, in general. But mainly more freedom to speak.

FB does have a "blocking" feature. IMO it's generally an abuse to force people to refrain from blocking "all admins" on a given forum (especially when a given forum has many admins), if some of those admins are either a.) the attacking type, or b.) engage in admin-enabled pile ons, or c.) appear to be a person who probably would engage in an attack based on their own strong positions unyielding positions on a given issue.

Ok, so we'll see you on the flip side. Enough of the Mormon pie.

Recovery from Mormonism.

Recovery from the Exmormon Foundation.

Recovery from the Unitarian Universalists.

Recovery from the "PostMormon" coffee group.

Recovery from Atheists of Utah.

Recovery from naturalist & humanist groups who are religions unto themselves.

Recovery from a temporary wade back into the deep waters of Mormonism via this forum. Time to depart...

Don't stay too long w/recovery groups - for your own well being. Move on to greener pastures... That's my advise. I have. I need to remember that. Bye.

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

Anyway it's quite sad really. When Mormons leave the Mormon Church they easily retain their propensity to control & censor others. Is the reason for this that religion is a natural phenomenon? Perhaps. Perhaps it is simply natural to try to control other people. To try & force them to your own meme set's rules & ideals.

The "Uncensored LDS/Mormon Discussions" group is still hierarchical. Thus they MUST censor to maintain their hierarchy & leadership. Disrespect (or block for whatever reason) one of five admins, and you're out. That's censorship.

Also the group constantly chats about Mormon stuff. Really, I was mostly past the need to chat about Mormon minutia. I've got bigger fish to fry & better things to spend my time responding to. So really, it's perhaps a blessing in disguise that these ex-Mormons acted exactly like many ex-Mormons do: They act exactly like Mormons. So, time to move on past these people. And by the way, many other religions act like Mormons too. Heresy trials. Excommunication. Even liberal groups do this! That's why it's important to try & move beyond religion, where possible. To embrace fully free speech. Even free speech for those who hurt the feelings of others.

Honesty must take precedence.

The Mormon Church is not pro-family. | The old farts cannot stop us! | Moving forward.

Quotes from the Church of the Fridge

Under the Pretense of Love

"Yesterday the NY Times reported the purge of three notable voices who spoke out on real Mormon Issues from within the LDS church. John Dehlin of Mormon Stories, Kate Kelly, founder of the Ordain Women Movement, and Alan Rock Waterman of Pure Mormonism were delivered letters summoning them to church disciplinary councils where they are to be tried for apostasy. The news hit me harder than I expected it would. I have not met any of these people. But I know intimately the emotions they are facing in this moment..."

----end of quote
http://churchofthefridge.com/blog/2014/06/12/under-the-pretense-of-love/

Tearing families apart, while claiming you're trying to help them be together forever.

Directly putting a wedge between husband and wife, when one or the other aren't in.

Agreed. The Church is not about love. It's about control, hate, and money, and using the great & huge lie of "we love you" as a primary means of control.

Hearing that shit like this happens today reminds me that the cancer known as Mormonism is still fully alive. The old farts can still pull the levers.

The Mormon Church is not pro-family. Not fully. Not honestly. Yes families are produced. But they're families split right down the middle.

Attention Spencer Kimball, many of my nieces & nephews are out & free. Attention Boyd Packer, you couldn't keep us in. Our little factories are none of your fucking business. Attention, all the old farts at
https://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng
... you will not hold us down. Not any longer. The net has made us free. Excommunicate a thousand people, and you won't stop us. Our brains, bodies, and souls are no longer yours to command, nor control, nor abuse.

------

Initial exit journal created when I was more leftist, in response to being in recovery from the ultra-right:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm#history

Subsequently moved more toward the middle, after "recovery from recovery:" Also after finally starting a family, and meeting a socially conservative atheist woman from a completely non-Biblical culture.

Families Can Be Together Forever... Through Evolution!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/families-can-be-together-forever.html

Breeders will inherit the Earth. Problems with "recovery" from religion.

Is there evidence for a god?

There's evidence that people believe in gods.

There's also evidence that they believe in them for fully natural reasons.

Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WhQ8bSvcHQ

My own experiential & observational evidence shows that when people leave their religions they can assume that the opposite position is healthy or correct. They can then fall right into a virtual pit.

It takes time to "settle" after leaving a religion - if people will settle. Sometimes they don't or can't.

I cannot force myself to believe in clear & apparent lies.

I realize that humans are set up to believe in lies as a means of survival, avoiding destructive behaviors, reproduction, happiness, and so on.

On the other hand, there's some religions which really do grind people down & abuse them.

The ultra-left is just as much a religion as the ultra-right.

Unquestionable dogma & doctrines. Heresy trials. Excommunication.

They also deny basic human nature. Ignoring what desert, African, and Chinese tribes do, while focusing in & only valuing what the "hippie" tribes do & advocate for. Desert-tribe-o-phobia. Non-hippie-tribe-o-phobia.

All of what I've observed first hand.

I try not to surrender to peer pressure. Right now I'm pushing pretty damn hard against peer pressure on the left, just to even consider that the middle or right may have some valid points on some issues. Fully natural fully reasonable points which help protect people. Protection from the pitfalls of human nature. Protection from outliers. Yes religion & culture help manage all this, for very natural & reasonable & rational reasons.

Additional people who helped me on my journey:

Steven Pinker. Daniel Dennett. Christopher Hitchens. Michael Shermer. Sam Harris. And now even Peter Hitchens.

Maybe all of these people are more socially liberal than I am. But all of them have been willing to speak the non-PC truth that questions confirmation bias & presuppositions on the left as well as the right. Anyway just fyi.

First hand observational experience came from having what was an Alice in Wonderland journey or theme park ride through a lot of what ultra-liberalism has to "offer," plus one to China where they're much more socially conservative (and yet no Bible), which all led me to conclude what I conclude today.

I can talk about evidence for this or that. But my main point & position is that religion is simply a way for humans to have a cushion or protective cocoon around fully natural morality. Protection. Survival. Reproduction. And when people leave that cocoon they can go right off a cliff.

Religion is culture. And most all cultures include some form of religion - some more lighter than others. But even your average atheist has de facto doctrine & dogma - political & social views they consider non-questionable.

Religion is such a natural phenomenon that many atheist groups are religions. Unquestionable political & social doctrines & dogma. Exclusion. Attacks against those who are skeptical of their doctrines & dogma. Heresy trials. Excommunication. This all happens readily within most atheist groups.

But the abusive part of atheist religion is how they deny human nature. The part of human nature that says "yes, we should be concerned about outlier behavior." The part of human nature that says "yes, we should value & promote life and normal inherently-reproductive families."

Those who fool themselves into believing that the childfree life / outlier-marriage life is in any way equal to non-outlier inherently reproductive marriage fall right in line with, what is frankly, slow motion suicide. And everyone should be against suicide in any form.

related book:
Decline & Fall: Europe’s Slow Motion Suicide
http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Europes-Motion-Suicide/dp/1594032068

The low birth rate amongst people who've rejected a god shows how humanity is really only barely ready to not have gods. And in Europe all the childfree liberals are being overrun by humans in the Islam camp. The breeders will inherit the Earth, like it or not. And one place to step away from all this is China. Rural China, where they have very light religion, light ancestor worship, and yet more conservative values. No Bible. No Book of Mormon. How do they do it? They aren't caught up in "recovery" from bad bad religion, like much of the west is. They don't assume that the extreme opposite side is the "answer." And so on.

Duck Dynasty Pride Month!

Outlier pride month is here, out on the streets. And right along with it we must also have Duck Dynasty Pride Month.

Is Mormonism an outlier generation machine?
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/are-mormonism-catholicism-homosexual_24.html

Destructive outlier examples:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-high-abundance-of-angel-readers-and.html

Thoughts on adoption:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/01/thoughts-on-gay-adoption-1-16-2014.html

Recovery from Atheists of Utah:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html

It's hard to have pride when the ultra-left seems to be just as much a religion as the ultra-right.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/colorado-baker-shut-shopp-serve-gay-couples-article-1.1815868

Will artists be told what to paint now? Will authors be told what to write? We are being told what to think. And the penalty for not towing the party line is exactly the same as what it was in Mormonism.

Additional interesting posts found:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/06/06/why-im-not-proud-of-being-gay/

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/

http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/a-gay-germ-is-homophobia-a-clue/

1 out of 10 atheists (or is it 1 out of 100?) is skeptical of outlier pride. A rare gem amongst the naive masses. Now that's something to be proud of...

When is Duck Dynasty appreciation month? I think it's right now.

Maybe this is close also:
Ex-Gay Awareness Month 2014
http://www.voiceofthevoiceless.info/exgayawarenessmonth/

If such actions keep a person away from an AIDS infested glory hole, more power to ya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_hole_%28sexual_slang%29
...very common in SF in the past according to this helpful man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKxYBch2LVM

July is the month for the non-outlier group!
http://heterosexualawarenessmonth.com/

Go July!

Make a baby! We want to make babies! We have a month to be proud of that!

Every month should be proud-of-life month.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Seculars-Against-Same-Sex-Marriage/293011477509961


For those who believe the "fight" is equal, it ain't:
Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/

In a normal regular traditional marriage, AKA a marriage, a human male and a human female can naturally produce a baby. Forcing the marriage term to include a wider scope does lessen the value, and the value of valuing & honoring & supporting, inherently-reproductive marriage. It may also damage children's need for a mommy & a daddy, in adoptive couples. A male & female parent, or adoptive parent, raising normal inherently reproduce-themselves-children.

Maybe I'm not 100% percent against inherently non-reproductive outlier "marriage," But I think it's important to be skeptical of denial of basic human nature, and remembering where life comes from.

Paddy Manning - in favor of retaining the normal regular traditional definition of marriage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h6yX4dY1Qs
and check out his written article:
http://thickerthantalk.blogspot.com/2013/11/this-piece-was-published-in-irish-daily.html

Since "pride" is in our face now again, I decided to post this info for your review.

Straight pride. Where'd you come from? Worth remembering & being proud of that - for most people, IMO.

Duck Dynasty Pride Month! Happening right now!

Has your life been happier after leaving Mormonism?

Questions: "...How has life been since you left the LDS church? Do you feel like you're happier?"

Yes, I'm happier, for many reasons.

I'm also upset, for other reasons.

Happy because:

1. I have a wife & kid who aren't Mormon.
2. I'm out.
3. I can touch my John Thomas.
4. I can engage in oral sex.
5. I can drink coffee, tea, and cabernet sauvignon wine.
6. I can watch Destricted, or Caligula without shame or guilt.
7. My kid won't be a Mormon.
8. I'm more intellectually honest.
9. I'm more emotionally honest.
10. I'm no longer in the soul-destroying culture of Mormonism.

Upset because:

A. The "recovery" groups like Atheists of Utah, Unitarian Universalism, CFI, Humanist groups, Minnesota Atheists, Atheism Plus, and even your local Stonewall center (for those so sucked in), are all de facto ultra-leftist religions, with their own unquestionable dogmas & doctrines. Denying human nature & human history, while claiming to be skeptical. Assuming that everything IS permitted when there is no god, even though it's not.

B. The defeatist Krausian mayfly theory of human existence is out there in the secular community, teaching atheists to be just as nihilistic as your average evangelical Christian.

C. Finding that the left can be just as abusive as the right.

D. Finding that the left is so incredibly myopic about the entire scope of human experience. Only the hippie tribes are valued. But desert tribes, or even Chinese tribes, oh, we must ignore them. Hippie colored glasses slant their view.

E. On the other hand, I'm also upset that the Mormon Church continues to destroy the lives of children & adults, via wide publication in many languages of incredibly abusive books like Miracle of Forgiveness. I'm also upset that sexually intrusive interviews still happen with children & adults.

More: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/

Embracing true honest naturalism: Marriage is about children

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.