Why so few homosexuals?

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

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-

I was talking about the act of homosexual mating, not offspring being produced.  

There are many different mating and sexual systems in nature- far more than our male/female permeant dichotomy.  But if we restrict the question to the domain of species which likewise have a  male/female permeant dichotomy, then while homosexual mating does happen (rarely) homosexual reproduction is impossible (that's part of the restriction for this domain).   

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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-

Homosexual activity can't produce offspring.  But in nature, it does happen that a male of the species engages in sexual activity with another male of the species.  This behavior is clearly observed in the book We Bought A Zoo.  Although, the book doesn't get into whether they specifically observed this activity as a sexual display.  It's not always the case.

For example, a male dog mounting another male dog or even a female dog doing this to a female dog is not necessarily a sexual activity but a show of dominance.  I have a spayed female that does this to an intact male in my pack.  She's the alpha dog in the pack and the intact male is trying to exert some power to which he gets taken down by the female every time through the act of mounting.

Edited March 20, 2017 by anatess2

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I will be interested in how you develop these arguments. A few notes I would add at this point:

As this sounds like it is going to form part of the foundation of your arguments, it is going to be important to do this part well. I see the possibility here of making one of the most common "mistakes" we make when talking evolution -- personifying evolution, ascribing purpose or "design" to evolution. We frequently talk about evolution (especially when we want to introduce some kind of intelligent design and designer to it) as if it has a purpose or design, but it really does not have a purpose or goal or design (except for making more babies). As important as this point could be to your arguments, it could be important to analyze how you approach this part to make sure you are not inadvertently ascribing purpose or design to evolution.

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.

Quote

I recognize that we are not at your final thesis at this point, but this statement does not make a lot of sense to me. It seems to say, "The point is not that homosexuality remains at low levels, but that homosexuality remains at low levels." I expect your final treatise will more fully explain the difference here. I just point it out to say that, at this point, I don't see the distinction between what is before the "but" and what is after the "but".

 

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-

[wenglund]

14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I was talking about the act of homosexual mating, not offspring being produced.  

There are many different mating and sexual systems in nature- far more than our male/female permeant dichotomy.  But if we restrict the question to the domain of species which likewise have a  male/female permeant dichotomy, then while homosexual mating does happen (rarely) homosexual reproduction is impossible (that's part of the restriction for this domain).   

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-

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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-

But then homosexuality is not much concerned about Reproduction but rather Expression (which is part of Communication).  So, unless you're trying to point to homosexuality as a genetic imprint passed on to offspring (which nobody has proven nor has come up with even a tiny shred of evidence), this track of addressing only the Reproduction side of things is a crippled argument.

Edited March 20, 2017 by anatess2

[Jane_Doe]

24 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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-

That doesn't make a lot of sense.  No one, not even the most pro-LGBT group, is arguing that homosexual sexual activity natural produces offspring.  Still, the fact is that homosexual mating doe occur in some natural animal populations, as do other non-productive mating examples. 

[MrShorty]

33 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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.

It will be interesting how you develop this. I could see some interesting parallels to some clearly problematic genetic diseases (cystic fibrosis, maybe), something like congenital deafness (which I mentioned earlier and might be an interesting parallel as there can be some question as to whether it should be viewed as a "disease" or "disability" or a normal variation), maybe even something like menopause, which is quite rare in mammals.

42 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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 think I understand, and it will be interesting to see how you develop this part. There can be difficulty in ascribing cause to some of these things. At one level, the "cause" of much if not all of genetic variation is random mutation which, by whatever stroke of luck, manages to get past to the next generation and subsequent generations after that. From there, any talk of "why" a genetic variant exists is a lot of pontification, and your opinion may not be any better than anyone else's opinion.

It will be interesting to see how your treatise develops some of these ideas.

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

PC, although I completely agree with you, this is useless in societal discussions ...

You are correct. The "God said no" approach is for the church, not society. In hindsight, we criminalized homosexual activity during an era when the vast majority in our country were Christians. Society cared that God said no, and they personally believed that such activities were disgusting. As Humanism, Secularism, Pluralism, and Post Modernism gained increasing influence over our media and education, society softened in stance. The SCOTUS decision was the watershed. A huge portion of society decided that tolerance was the new normal. Now the fight is for normalcy, and to cast opponents as bigots. In such an environment, I have no hope that any argument I muster against homosexual activity, from a non-religious perspective, will hold sway. My aim is now to convince God's people to stick with God's Word, and to influence society to tolerate us (you know, religious liberty, the First Amendment, etc.).

[Mike]

 

50 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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-

24 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

That doesn't make a lot of sense.  No one, not even the most pro-LGBT group, is arguing that homosexual sexual activity natural produces offspring.  Still, the fact is that homosexual mating doe occur in some natural animal populations, as do other non-productive mating examples. 

I agree with @Jane_Doe and it seems to me that if the discussion involves Evolution as the argument for whether homosexuality is natural or not, then the so-called "natural scheme of things" is misleading since there is no "scheme" in nature in the traditional sense of the word. Moreover, if homosexuality occurs in nature regardless of the extent, then it is natural. 

[Mike]

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

You are correct. The "God said no" approach is for the church, not society. In hindsight, we criminalized homosexual activity during an era when the vast majority in our country were Christians. Society cared that God said no, and they personally believed that such activities were disgusting. As Humanism, Secularism, Pluralism, and Post Modernism gained increasing influence over our media and education, society softened in stance. The SCOTUS decision was the watershed. A huge portion of society decided that tolerance was the new normal. Now the fight is for normalcy, and to cast opponents as bigots. In such an environment, I have no hope that any argument I muster against homosexual activity, from a non-religious perspective, will hold sway. My aim is now to convince God's people to stick with God's Word, and to influence society to tolerate us (you know, religious liberty, the First Amendment, etc.).

Really nothing new there, is there? Humans have always cast their enemies, opponents, etc. as less than themselves whether they choose terms that cast the "others" as sub-human, evil, or whatever. I agree with what I think you're saying that it's up to each individual to choose. Your argument has just a good a chance of holding sway as any other person's argument. Some people will accept it, and some others won't--it depends upon your audience and what each individual wants in the first place. 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

You are correct. The "God said no" approach is for the church, not society. In hindsight, we criminalized homosexual activity during an era when the vast majority in our country were Christians. Society cared that God said no, and they personally believed that such activities were disgusting. As Humanism, Secularism, Pluralism, and Post Modernism gained increasing influence over our media and education, society softened in stance. The SCOTUS decision was the watershed. A huge portion of society decided that tolerance was the new normal. Now the fight is for normalcy, and to cast opponents as bigots. In such an environment, I have no hope that any argument I muster against homosexual activity, from a non-religious perspective, will hold sway. My aim is now to convince God's people to stick with God's Word, and to influence society to tolerate us (you know, religious liberty, the First Amendment, etc.).

But, see, there should be a better answer than this.  After all, we don't have to resort to just saying "God said so" when we talk about Divorce or Adultery or Polygamy or even non-marital sex to impress upon society that these things are not acceptable.  Why would it be different for Homosexuality?

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

But then homosexuality is not much concerned about Reproduction but rather Expression (which is part of Communication).  So, unless you're trying to point to homosexuality as a genetic imprint passed on to offspring (which nobody has proven nor has come up with even a tiny shred of evidence), this track of addressing only the Reproduction side of things is a crippled argument.

 

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

That doesn't make a lot of sense.  No one, not even the most pro-LGBT group, is arguing that homosexual sexual activity natural produces offspring.  Still, the fact is that homosexual mating doe occur in some natural animal populations, as do other non-productive mating examples. 

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-

[Mike]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So, if one has zero belief in God, then why should they remain celibate?  That's a hard road and, therefore, non-believers have to have a compelling reason to take that path other than to say because God said so, end stop.  Otherwise, it will be just like drinking coffee - it's only bad if you're LDS, if you're not, then it's fine - because there's no other reason to completely abstain from coffee other than our covenant.

I would argue that if one has zero belief in God, then there is *no* reason to remain celibate. And similarly, unless I subscribe to "our covenant" what reason *is there* to completely abstain from coffee other than our covenant? I might take this farther and bring up other behaviors but for the moment I'll seek to understand you better with regard to celibacy and coffee.

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Mike

[wenglund]

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-

[anatess2]

24 minutes ago, Mike said:

I would argue that if one has zero belief in God, then there is *no* reason to remain celibate. And similarly, unless I subscribe to "our covenant" what reason *is there* to completely abstain from coffee other than our covenant? I might take this farther and bring up other behaviors but for the moment I'll seek to understand you better with regard to celibacy and coffee.

 

This is not true because of the Light of Christ.  We believe that morality in mortality is not an individual truth but a universal truth.  Christian living and the Plan of Salvation is, therefore, not just for Jews but for Gentile as well.  But why do we abstain from coffee?  It's a health law, right?  Do we abstain from coffee because of its health benefits or do we abstain from coffee to practice covenant-making?  So, in PC's position on homosexuality as juxtaposed to coffee, we concede that there are no discernible health benefits to abstaining from coffee so we should just concentrate on the covenant-making reason for the abstinence.  I can accept that for coffee but I don't accept that for homosexuality.  There is a reason homosexual activity is immoral and it is much more compelling than just for the plain reason of practicing obedience to God's commandments, and as such, this reason would be discernible through the Light of Christ even for non-believers.

Edited March 20, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is not true because of the Light of Christ.  We believe that morality in mortality is not an individual truth but a universal truth.  Christian living and the Plan of Salvation is, therefore, not just for Jews but for Gentile as well.  But why do we abstain from coffee?  It's a health law, right?  Do we abstain from coffee because of its health benefits or do we abstain from coffee to practice covenant-making?  So, in PC's position on homosexuality as juxtaposed to coffee, we concede that there are no discernible health benefits to abstaining from coffee so we should just concentrate on the covenant-making reason for the abstinence.  I can accept that for coffee but I don't accept that for homosexuality.  There is a reason homosexual activity is immoral and it is much more compelling than just for the plain reason of practicing obedience to God's commandments.

So, I understand you to be admitting that coffee was not a valid example. Coffee may have properties that when taken in excess can have detrimental health effects in some people. But the only reason we abstain completely is because we believe God wants us to abstain. 

So, what is the reason homosexual behavior is immoral if it isn't because "God says so"? (In my thinking the so-called Light of Christ is essentially another iteration of "God says so", because God is the one who put it there. Isn't that so?)

Edited March 20, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

This is not true because of the Light of Christ. ...

Edited March 20, 2017 by Mike
ibid

[Mike]

20 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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-

If you ask me as an Atheist, then I disagree that nature is *structured* at all. If you ask me as a Believer, then I agree that God utilizes so-called Evolution in order to facilitate a Plan. In either case I will agree that all species appear to tend toward perpetuation. 

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

But, see, there should be a better answer than this.  After all, we don't have to resort to just saying "God said so" when we talk about Divorce or Adultery or Polygamy or even non-marital sex to impress upon society that these things are not acceptable.  Why would it be different for Homosexuality?

There is plenty of proof, people just don't accept it or want to hear it. And the ultimate reason for the vast majority of these sorts of things, i.e. murder, theft, adultery, etc. simply boils down to "because God said so". Certainly He has his reasons for making said laws, but in many ways it is simply like parents raising a child.  When a child asks a parent why the can't do xyz or must do abc, the simplest, easiest, most honest answer is "because I said so". There are definitely reasons as to why, and as a child gets older you can explain those reasons, but if the child is rebellious (and even if he isn't it can go this way), the child will very likely say, no I don't agree with your reasoning.  At that point, the answer becomes "because I said so"-which is the ultimate truth behind the reasoning.  And it is the ultimate truth behind this issue too.

There many reasons thought.  AIDS (or what was originally known as Gay-related immune deficiency (GRIDS)-but of course that name would have been calling a spade a spade and the homosexual community couldn't have that). 67% of AIDS cases come from homosexual men.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/cdc-gay-men-2-population-67-all-new-hiv-cases

Studies on relationships have shown that homosexual relationship are less stable and more likely to break up than heterosexual relationships.

And the family, children have a right, yes I did say right (and I don't say that too often-especially when it comes to children), to be raised in a stable two-parent household consisting of male and female.

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

 Children of lesbian mothers:

• Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
• Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
• Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Use marijuana more frequently
• Smoke more frequently
• Watch TV for long periods more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.

The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" [wait a sec. I thought all those pro-homosexual people keep telling me that just b/c one is homosexual doesn't mean one is a pedophile . . .hmm, real curious here](23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).

But society is being lead blindly down a path that leads to destruction by following the false gods and prophets of modern day psychology-and of course b/c it is not "politically correct" to mention these unfortunate facts, funding for research, studies, etc. to really understand all the ill-effects this is having is cut off.

The data is there for anyone who wants to look, but it's an inconvenient truth to those who have been lead to believe the homosexual lie.  And b/c of that, the data doesn't matter.  As in most things in life, human beings are emotional creatures and we make decisions based on emotion and thus for someone who has already determined that homosexual unions, etc. are perfectly fine (b/c of social engineering), no amount of data will convince them otherwise. And as such, the only thing left is to quite bluntly say, the reason it is bad is "because God said so."  

And if they don't believe in God . . .well that's a shame b/c without a God we get into moral relativism and whatever you think is good becomes good, whatever you think is evil becomes evil and in history that has lead to some very bad societal outcomes. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by yjacket

[MrShorty]

34 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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?

It might depend on how you establish this foundation, but I'm not sure it is a universal belief. Evolution's main "purpose" (personifying again) is to make more babies. To the extent that survival contributes to making more babies, then, yes, survival is good. Perhaps the reason that the menopause discussion could be interesting is that this discussion talks about the pressure to get out of the system once you are done making babies. Once you are done making babies, survival is (usually) a bad thing.

Same for evolving for the sake of evolving. If a change helps me make more babies than the guy next to me, then I want to change. But, if being the same helps me make more babies, then I don't want to change.

[yjacket]

37 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is not true because of the Light of Christ.  We believe that morality in mortality is not an individual truth but a universal truth.  Christian living and the Plan of Salvation is, therefore, not just for Jews but for Gentile as well.

I agree anatess . . .but I have also learned in life that the light of Christ needs to be cultivated and that parents are a critical influence in cultivating that light of Christ.  A child steals, he may feel bad that he steals, but if he doesn't have good parents at home to reinforce that stealing is bad, to reinforce the shame, guilt, and bad feelings associated with stealing, he will be more likely to return to stealing.  Eventually if he does it enough without proper guidance he will have completely diminished the light of Christ in his life to where he no longer feels it.  

The family plays a critical role in cultivating the light of Christ, which is one reason why Satan seeks to destroy the family so much. If he can destroy the family, then he can destroy the very foundation of what cultivates the light of Christ and then it will be as the scriptures say that the Spirit no longer strives with man.

[NightSG]

11 minutes ago, yjacket said:

There is plenty of proof, people just don't accept it or want to hear it. And the ultimate reason for the vast majority of these sorts of things, i.e. murder, theft, adultery, etc. simply boils down to "because God said so".

For murder and theft, at least, they come down to "pretty nearly every deity ever worshipped by any even remotely civilized society said so."  For good reason, too; without those prohibitions, society tends to break down in a matter of days.  

Adultery, OTOH, is sort of dependent on a monogamous concept of marriage; I could imagine a society comprised primarily of open marriages/partnerships, etc., and such things already exist on a smaller scale without difficulty as long as all involved are willing participants.  Even within such a society, it would still be possible, if likely awkward (since few others would feel the same) to have a monogamous relationship.  Frankly, even within our current society I'm not aware of any civil or criminal statutes regarding adultery that would ever come into play if the spouse consented to the activity.

Edited March 20, 2017 by NightSG

[yjacket]

23 minutes ago, NightSG said:

For murder and theft, at least, they come down to "pretty nearly every deity ever worshipped by any even remotely civilized society said so."  For good reason, too; without those prohibitions, society tends to break down in a matter of days.  

Adultery, OTOH, is sort of dependent on a monogamous concept of marriage; I could imagine a society comprised primarily of open marriages/partnerships, etc., and such things already exist on a smaller scale without difficulty as long as all involved are willing participants.  Even within such a society, it would still be possible, if likely awkward (since few others would feel the same) to have a monogamous relationship.  Frankly, even within our current society I'm not aware of any civil or criminal statutes regarding adultery that would ever come into play if the spouse consented to the activity.

Not so; the Maya's condoned murder. Strict Muslims condone murder, many older religions have very strict regulations about such things when it came to their own people, but not so when it came to other people. 

And no society didn't break down. The amazing thing about humans is how quickly we adapt to survive. There are plenty of modern day examples of regimes that condone murder and society doesn't break down into anarchy-it's not a pleasant place to live, but it's not anarchy. Without the Judeo-Christian God, murder and theft becomes a "can I get away with it, without causing major injury to myself" vs. I shouldn't do it b/c it is fundamentally wrong and even if I do get away with it, God will punish me at some point.

And I am not aware of any free love societies that existed for any extended period of time.  A couple of reasons for this; #1 jealousy, #2 progeny. The drive to reproduce is very strong, and up until the last 50 years (modern-birth control) out-of-wedlock sex would have a very high likelihood of resulting in a pregnancy.  Prior to modern conveniences, a pregnant woman, or a woman raising children, would take an inordinate amount of time; for her to be without a husband and to raise children would be either a death-wish or a very, very hard life. Sidenote: there is a real good reason why the word "husbandry" means  the care, cultivation, and breeding of crops and animals. To be a husband to a wife prior to the modern error had many, many similarities.

Therefore, if a woman wanted access to sex, she knew that there was a high-likelihood of getting pregnant and being with child (and children) without a husband-or someone to provide for and take care of the her and the children, meant very, very bad things.  This is also why polygamy is not necessarily a bad thing, if a woman had access to a man who could provide for her, her children and another woman and her children, that would be better than a woman with no man (or a man who was a slouch). And prior to the modern error, romantic love was a farce. Yes there are certainly great love stories in antiquity, but for the common people it was more about survival and finding a good match rather than romantic love.

Therefore while a marriage and no adultery is certainly "because God said so", there are many, many reasons why on a societal basis marriage is a good thing no adultery is a good thing; it produces a much more stable society. Even in the modern day, the statistics prove it out, single motherhood is about the worst thing that can happen to a child-the statistics are horrific for those children.

Edited March 20, 2017 by yjacket

[Mike]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

But, see, there should be a better answer than this.  After all, we don't have to resort to just saying "God said so" when we talk about Divorce or Adultery or Polygamy or even non-marital sex to impress upon society that these things are not acceptable.  Why would it be different for Homosexuality?

Let me be a little clearer on at least one particular aspect of this. I do believe that God's commandments have a practical side to them with blessing and benefits that one derives from obedience. While I don't suppose the mother bear that teachers her cubs to scurry to safety upon arrival of a formidable predator articulates the reasons, neither do I suppose that the lesson is due to the bear's caprice. 

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

But, see, there should be a better answer than this.  After all, we don't have to resort to just saying "God said so" when we talk about Divorce or Adultery or Polygamy or even non-marital sex to impress upon society that these things are not acceptable.  Why would it be different for Homosexuality?

Our best, and maybe only remaining, argument to broader culture is our living example of joyful God-fearing living. Ironically, this is an OT approach. Let our happy and productive families present as a "city on a hill," so that outsiders will want to come and join our success.

In the mean time, I am urging non-religious folk to remember our countries long tradition of conscientious objection, which should, imho, permit Christians to abstain from doing business that support marriages we find religiously objectionable. I'm also doing my tiny part to restore the belief in loyal opposition--that we can disagree, and still care about each other and be loyal.