wenglund

Here is something relevant to mull over for a bit: In secular thought, is the notion of "survival instinct" generally accepted and believed? If so, do secularist believe that survival instincts exist in animals as well as humans? If so, does the instinct to survive extend beyond self-preservation to preservation of offspring, families, groups, and even species? And, most important, in addition to fight-flight, does survival instinct also include the inclination to reproduce? Or, is that a separate "instinct"? In other words, and at least for humans, is there an individual instinct to survive beyond death through posterity? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is the distilled essence of my survival of the species and fittest arguments. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am grateful for the data. I have collected much of the same in my own research, and I plan to use it in making my health and morality arguments against homosexuality. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I appreciate the reminder. Like @Mike, I have two somewhat discrete ways of looking at this: religious and secular. The religious side of me assume a designer/creator God who gives purpose to his creation. It also assumes sufficient intelligence throughout his creation to be obediently responsive to Gods word and his will, and to some extent have a will of its own. The same assumptions can't very well be held by the secular side of me. From this perspective there isn't much in the way of purpose or intent or goals in nature. Unfortunately, I keep allowing the religious side of me to bleed over into the secular. And, so, I am glad when people like you make me mindful when this happens so I can make the appropriate corrections. Now, you may have noticed that I hedged a bit on the discrete separation of the two, and allowed some semblance of personification in nature. I did so, not just because there are sentient and willful beings within nature, but also because of the secular notion of "instinct," particularly in relation to survival, that I think gives room for some overlap. How much overlap may exist, remains to be seen. But, I hope to have enough of a finger hold to hang a portion of my argument. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

NOTE Given what I said above in response to MIKE, It may be a few days before I can rework my argument from nature. I appreciate your patience, though it appears that there is lively and thoughtful discussion going on without me. That is good. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In addition to what you suggest about "structure," I just read a couple of papers that will force me to re-examine my arguments from nature. The first argues persuasively that, in terms of evolution, "survival of the species" is a myth. (see HERE) The other paper argues persuasively that it is a misconception that evolution results in progress, and that organisms are always getting better through evolution. (see HERE) So, back to the drawing board. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does anyone disagree with the proposition that, generally speaking, nature is structured to survive and evolve--such is the fundamental order, function, purpose of living things? Do you agree that this proposition holds true even at the species level? I ask because my arguments presupose this to be true. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Once I post my arguments (I hope to do so in the next day or so), then let's see if what you suggest is correct. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My focus will be on reproduction rather than mating.because of its fundamental and critical important to the natural scheme of things. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, "making babies" serves the fundamental function or purpose or design of nature--i.e. survival and perpetuation of the species and survival of the fittest. In other words, the purpose in nature is the same as the purpose/plan in the gospel: evolve/progress. You appear to be conflating cause and effect. The small size of the population is the effect. My interest is in the cause. There are different causes for different small populations. Does it now make sense. I appreciate your input. It is helpful to be shown ways to clarify and firm up my arguments. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Could you provide an example of homosexual reproduction? I am aware of asexual and heterosexual reproduction, but not homosexual. If it does occur, there must be a reason for its rarity. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

These kind of thoughtless and uninformed responses are starting to wear thin. You would lose that bet. See various clarifications above. The size of the group isn't the issue. It is the reason for the small size that is in question. Different groups have different reasons for being small in population. Surely you and others aren't suggesting that homosexuals are rare for the same reason as elderly or red hair or geniuses, etc., are you? If not, then I would be pleased to hear your explanation. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No. There are also less that 2% geniuses in the world. I wouldn't contend that was the result of unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral. However, there are relatively few necrophiliacs and people into bestiality and trans-species and Transabled, etc., that fit the bill. Again, not all small population groups are abnormal, though some are. I will demonstrate that homosexuality is abnormal, and that their numbers are few for different reasons than for other small groups, and those reasons include "unnatural, unhealthy and immoral." Stay tuned. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I clarified earlier that "not normal" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong" or "abnormal." I left open the question of homosexuality as an abnormality until it is addressed in the other sections (unnatural, unhealthy, immoral). Please stay tuned. Please see my response to Volt above. I agree that the words "natural" and "unnatural" may be problematic, but as long as people understand my meaning,I hope that will suffice. If not, then I will find a different term. Agreed. However, the point isn't that homosexuality, as a deleterious gene or gene combination, remains at low levels within the population, but that it is deleterious, and remains no higher than the low levels within the population. That is why I ask why there were so few, rather than asking why there were any at all. I am taking a purely secular approach in examining each aspect of this issue (including morality) so as to avoid this problem. We'll see if it works. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed. I will be addressing them each separately. I have already dealt with the "normal," and will soon begin examining the "natural' (or evolutinary) aspect. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am not so pessimistic. I understand I am heading into a stiff leftist headwind. But, it is mostly hot air. Hopefully, evidence and reason will suffice in tacking forward. But, if not, it was worth a try. At least the seeds of critical thought can be planted for future growth. But, I like your point about looking to God. However, for those who don't believe in God, or who feel that God is okay with homosexuality, my secular approach may provide a bridge. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think it depends upon what is meant by "unnatural." I am using it in relation to evolution to mean, "contrary to the natural design and order of things, contra-evolution" as opposed to "occurring in nature" or "occurring naturally. " By my definition, the things you listed are "un-natural" though they do fit under the later definitions. While I believe a very strong case can be made that homosexuality is contra-evolutionary, I don't wish to get hung up on semantics, and so I may have to reconsider using the term "unnatural." Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed, though I would submit that "inherited" may be an indeterminate combination of nature and nurture, and factor into biological as well as social evolution. And, while the "strongly selection against" may have little to do with social undesirability (except in terms of social evolution, health, and welfare--I will address this issue later), it does speak to evolutionary undesirability. Evolution, as well as survival and perpetuation of the species, is dependent upon procreation. Homosexuals tend not to procreate, and cannot procreate after their own kind. Thus, homosexuality is contra-evolution and against nature--i.e. unnatural. Homosezuality is abnormal in this sense. However, as a supposed counter to this convincing argument, my lesbian interlocutor proposed the theory that evolution somehow produces homosexuals to assist in the survival of the species threatened by over-population. I pointed out that even were that the case (which is questionable), it classifies homosexuality along with other undesirables that serve the same function--impotence, disease, famine, and war. And, so, even on that basis it may be considered abnormal. Furthermore, preventing over-population doesn't necessarily equate with survival of the species (species can survive when they are not threatened by over-populated), nor does it factor positively into the evolving of the species--except as a means of selecting out (or in the case of homosexuals, self-selecting out) the less fit (of which homosexuals are, reproductive-wise, numbered). In this sense also homosexuality may be consider abnormal. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have been in conversation with a lesbian on a facebook thread, and I thought the discussion there was worth expanding here (particularly in light of such related threads as Thoughts on the Gay Scene in Beauty and the Beast ). At issue is whether homosexuality is normal, natural, healthy, and moral. To set the stage for the discussion, I posed the same question in the title of this thread: If homosexuality is normal, natural, healthy, and moral, then why are there so relative few homosexuals in the general population? The basis for this question was a report, which we both accepted as credible and correct, from the Williams Institute (a LGBT Think Tank) indicating that Homosexuals make up less than 2% of the U.S. population. Given this statistic, it was obvious that, by definition, homosexuality couldn't rightly be considered as normal (usual, typical), particularly in comparison to heterosexuality, which represents 96.5% of the population. It was further agreed that lack of normalcy and small percentages isn't necessarily indicative of abnormality (undesirable, worrisome, unhealthy, etc.). After all, geniuses represent only about 1% of the population, and while it isn't normal, it is far from undesirable. Whereas, people with IQs less than 70 represent about 2% of the population, and is rightly considered abnormal. Other abnormalities include sickle cell anemia (less than 1% of the population), Aneuploidym, Down Syndrome, Developmental delay, and various behaviors (see HERE) At issue, then, is whether homosexuality is desirably not normal or abnormal. I believe the answer rest in the answer to the question of this thread. I contend that there are relatively few homosexuals because homosexual behavior is unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral. In other words, there are so few homosexuals because homosexuality is abnormal. I plan to provide evidence and reason for each of these contention. What do you think? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You seriously think those changes came in response to cultural Marxism (as opposed to divine inspiration/revelation in response to genuine and prayerful desires to better serve God's kingdom)? I suppose it is possible. Sometimes the squeaky wheels get the grease. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know about "random," but the young college girl is one voice that is fast expanding to many within a larger counter-culture movement commonly, though not always accurately, referred to as the Alt-Right. (Warning: Bad Language) Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In answer to the question of the thread, may I suggest watching the show, The Man Who Knew Infinity: Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't wish to be pessimistic, but even if Trumpcare is entirely market-based, it won't eliminate two huge government healthcare programs (Medicare and Medicade), that account for nearly a third of all healthcare expenditures, and amount to more than a trillion dollars per year. (see HERE) This government-based gorilla in the healthcare room, will continue to wreck havoc on medical costs and the way we do medical business, if not also provide a bottomless well of political capital to further socialize the system. For whatever reason, the well intended useful idiocy of the electorate seems to view the abject failures of government programs as reason to expand government involvement. You can't really fight against that. At best, whatever comes out of congress in the next while will have temporary, if not negligable positive impact. I hope I am wrong. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly. And that is one more indication to me of the verity of the church (in the world but not of the world). And, while the wheat will be separated from the chaff even within the church, Zion will stand as a light upon the hill and draw the pure in heart to it and out of the PC and cultural Marxist fog. The iron rod and strait and narrow path will continue to lead through the mist of darkness to the tree of life, where those not made ashamed by the mockery coming from the great and spacious building, will continue to feast upon the fruit. (see Elder Bednar's conference talk), Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You can tell just how upside-down the world has become when morality, liberty, critical thinking, patriotism, and responsible behavior become the counter culture. Thanks, -Wade Englund-