Why so few homosexuals?

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Mike said:

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?)

You're completely misunderstanding why I used coffee as an example.  I used coffee to show the weakness of the "God said so" reason for abstaining from homosexual activity.

[Mike]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

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-

Hey @wenglund I just want you to know that by saying, "I will agree that all species appear to tend toward perpetuation.", I don't claim that all species will necessarily succeed, nor do I wish to say that progress always results from the forces that are apparently at work in evolution. Best wishes in your research.

 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

You're completely misunderstanding why I used coffee as an example.  I used coffee to show the weakness of the "God said so" reason for abstaining from homosexual activity.

Oh, I do understand why you used coffee. I just think it's a poor argument, and I think you admitted as much. I'm still anticipating the arguments you think are valid and that you would offer someone to convince them to abstain from homosexual activity. 

[Mike]

14 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Mike Are you for/against permitting florist, photographers, bakers etc. the right to refuse servicing same-sex marriages, as a matter of conscience?

Let me come over to your page as it were. I'll try again to offer you a straightforward answer to your straightforward question: If you were a baker, or a florist, or a photographer claiming to me that your conscience demands you refuse to provide your services to customers wishing to celebrate a same-sex marriage, then I would and do support your right.

Tell me whether my answer satisfies you because if it doesn't, then I will elaborate as you see fit. If my answer satisfies you, then I would like to request your reciprocation by answering questions about conscience in general and your conscience specifically. My questions by the way are sincere and not intended to be disrespectful (in the same spirit as I trust is your question to me).

[prisonchaplain]

@Mike Your answer does satisfy. Ask away.

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Mike said:

Oh, I do understand why you used coffee. I just think it's a poor argument, and I think you admitted as much. I'm still anticipating the arguments you think are valid and that you would offer someone to convince them to abstain from homosexual activity. 

This to me is an easy one.

Here's the argument's question - Is male and female interchangeable?  The answer to this is No.  There are tons of evidence, a lot of which are published in scientific journals, and several of which are excerpted in social magazines such as Time.  They're not interchangeable.  Therefore, homosexual relationships is missing one component of humanity - the contribution of the missing gender.  It's not as harmful to society if it simply ends in sex as a leisurely pursuit - although it is still harmful for each individual engaged in a purely animalistic activity confounding such activity with the vulnerability of emotions, especially when they start calling it Love.  The harm to society is in the next step where they build upon the homosexual activity to form families with children in the mix.  The common refrain of "it's their own business, it's not hurting anybody else" becomes a lie.  The family - especially the raising of children - requires male and female contribution to the family dynamic.  And, as male and female are NOT interchangeable, then homosexual foundation of these families is crippled by the absence of the other gender on which children are raised.

But, but, but... what about single parents or when one parent die, etc. etc.?  Why is that not attacked in the same way as homosexual relationships?  Well, I've never heard any organization or even an individual promote - I plan to be a single parent, it would be really great!  Or, I dream of marrying, having children, and then hope my spouse dies.  These situations are usually entered into with the best of intentions of a heterosexual family with offspring and something happens that those people fall short of their intent.  This is different from homosexual people seeking to normalize and idealize homosexual families.

And as you can see here, I have presented this argument without invoking any scriptural references.  God is in the design of everywhere and everything without people even having to acknowledge His existence.  We should be able to present God's design by simply talking about His creation.

[MrShorty]

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I've never heard ... an individual promote - I plan to be a single parent, it would be really great!

You have not heard of cases of singles seeking adoption? Here's a brochure from the US Dept. of Health and Human Services: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/single_parent.pdf

A quick internet search for "adoption by single parent" returned multiple adoption organizations offering their services to single men and women seeking to adopt. It seems to me that there are many, including the US gov't, who believe that adoption by a single parent is a good thing.

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The family - especially the raising of children - requires male and female contribution to the family dynamic.  And, as male and female are NOT interchangeable, then homosexual foundation of these families is crippled by the absence of the other gender on which children are raised.

disclaimer, as a lay person in the physical sciences rather than the social sciences, I am in no position to judge the status of the literature on this question. But it seems that much of the data supporting this thesis (that men and women are each necessary for the raising of children) is at best contradictory. Studies like Mark Regnerus's (that seems to form the basis of much if not all of @yjacket post) has been solidly disavowed (if not discredited -- again, I am in no position to judge how much of this is politics and how much of this is science). It seems to me, from outside the field, that we will need to do a much better job in collecting data and interpreting the data if we are going to be convincing when we argue that these conclusions are correct over the data that would indicate otherwise.

Edited March 21, 2017 by MrShorty

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

You have not heard of cases of singles seeking adoption? Here's a brochure from the US Dept. of Health and Human Services: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/single_parent.pdf

A quick internet search for "adoption by single parent" returned multiple adoption organizations offering their services to single men and women seeking to adopt. It seems to me that there are many, including the US gov't, who believe that adoption by a single parent is a good thing.

I have not seen this normalized as a good thing.  But I may be wrong - in which case, it is still a problem.

 

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 

disclaimer, as a lay person in the physical sciences rather than the social sciences, I am in no position to judge the status of the literature on this question. But it seems that much of the data supporting this thesis (that men and women are each necessary for the raising of children) is at best contradictory. Studies like Mark Regnerus's (that seems to form the basis of much if not all of @yjacket post) has been solidly disavowed (if not discredited -- again, I am in no position to judge how much of this is politics and how much of this is science). It seems to me, from outside the field, that we will need to do a much better job in collecting data and interpreting the data if we are going to be convincing when we argue that these conclusions are correct over the data that would indicate otherwise.

 

The thesis I'm talking about are the studies that show Male and Female have inherent traits different from each other which makes them not interchangeable (a physical science study).  Therefore, homosexual relationships have inherent traits missing from heterosexual relationships as a foundation of society (using physical science evidence in social science).

Edited March 21, 2017 by anatess2

[wenglund]

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

(personifying again)

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-

[JohnsonJones]

Well, naturally speaking, if every one was homosexual and acted as such, and no heterosexual marriages occurred (or heterosexual relationships to be more on point)...the human race would probably die out in one generation.

I think we'd call that an evolutionary dead end.

[wenglund]

18 hours 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". 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. 

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-

[wenglund]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, naturally speaking, if every one was homosexual and acted as such, and no heterosexual marriages occurred (or heterosexual relationships to be more on point)...the human race would probably die out in one generation.

I think we'd call that an evolutionary dead end.

This is the distilled essence of my survival of the species and fittest arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MrShorty]

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I have not seen this normalized as a good thing.  But I may be wrong - in which case, it is still a problem.

I don't know what it means to "normalize" single parent adoptions, but I noticed that, at the top of page 2 of the childwelfare brochure, is a claim that

Several research studies have shown that adopted children raised by single parents experience outcomes that are as good as, if not better than, those for children adopted by couples. (reference to Shireman 1995)

. So, the Dept. of Health and Human Services believes that single parent adoptions are at least no worse than couples, and so they put together the brochure to encourage singles to consider adoption. Is that normalizing?

 

24 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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.

The one caution I would give in using this data is that much of it (like that based on Regnerus's study much maligned study) is disavowed and maybe discredited (as I noted to Anatess, I am not qualified to judge the data in this case). If you plan to use these data in your arguments, you will probably need to include a discussion of why you accept these data as "good" and reject contradictory data. There will probably also need to be some careful discussion teasing out cause and effect from simple correlation so that you can show that any negative outcomes are "caused" by the parents' homosexual relationship.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know what it means to "normalize" single parent adoptions, but I noticed that, at the top of page 2 of the childwelfare brochure, is a claim that

. So, the Dept. of Health and Human Services believes that single parent adoptions are at least no worse than couples, and so they put together the brochure to encourage singles to consider adoption. Is that normalizing?

 

Yes.  That's normalizing.  And that is bad.

[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-

[MrShorty]

 

40 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, naturally speaking, if every one was homosexual and acted as such, and no heterosexual marriages occurred (or heterosexual relationships to be more on point)...the human race would probably die out in one generation.

I think we'd call that an evolutionary dead end.

27 minutes ago, wenglund said:

This is the distilled essence of my survival of the species and fittest arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, to summarize, the essence of this part of your arguments is a slippery slope logical fallacy (at least, I think it fits under slippery slope -- someone more schooled in rhetoric would be better equipped to say). Sure the statement is technically true. But, considering that heterosexuality is so predominant and the evolutionary pressures against homosexuality are strong, the likelihood of ever really having 100% of breeding pairs be homosexual is essentially nil, making the argument essentially meaningless. If this is going to be a significant part of your arguments, I think you will need to make it carefully so it does not get lost.

[Mike]

44 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This to me is an easy one.

Here's the argument's question - Is male and female interchangeable?  The answer to this is No.  There are tons of evidence, a lot of which are published in scientific journals, and several of which are excerpted in social magazines such as Time.  They're not interchangeable.  Therefore, homosexual relationships is missing one component of humanity - the contribution of the missing gender.  It's not as harmful to society if it simply ends in sex as a leisurely pursuit - although it is still harmful for each individual engaged in a purely animalistic activity confounding such activity with the vulnerability of emotions, especially when they start calling it Love.  The harm to society is in the next step where they build upon the homosexual activity to form families with children in the mix.  The common refrain of "it's their own business, it's not hurting anybody else" becomes a lie.  The family - especially the raising of children - requires male and female contribution to the family dynamic.  And, as male and female are NOT interchangeable, then homosexual foundation of these families is crippled by the absence of the other gender on which children are raised.

But, but, but... what about single parents or when one parent die, etc. etc.?  Why is that not attacked in the same way as homosexual relationships?  Well, I've never heard any organization or even an individual promote - I plan to be a single parent, it would be really great!  Or, I dream of marrying, having children, and then hope my spouse dies.  These situations are usually entered into with the best of intentions of a heterosexual family with offspring and something happens that those people fall short of their intent.  This is different from homosexual people seeking to normalize and idealize homosexual families.

I don't want to just leap to a rebuttal without your evaluation of whether I understand what you've said (and of course whether you said what you really wanted to say). So here's what I understand. Despite your attempt to change the question, the question was what are the reasons an individual should refrain from homosexual activity. Telling me that male and female are not interchangeable, and telling me that homosexual activity precludes the contribution of the opposite gender merely rehearses the definition of homosexual activity. So there's is no reason for abstinence there--just a description of homosexual relations as being homosexual.

So, after I accounted for repetitions and appeals to scientific journals and social magazines, and some suppositional questions comparing heterosexual single-adult familial motivations to homosexual motivations I gleaned the following as your reasons that one should abstain from homosexual activity. 

1. You say one should abstain because homosexual activity is harmful for each individual--because the sex is purely animalistic and because the participants' emotions are vulnerable and don't qualify as love. 

2. You say one should abstain because homosexual activity is harmful to society when the participants form families with children. Families, you say, require a male/female dynamic; and a family with same-gender parents is crippled.

Right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wenglund]

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

The one caution I would give in using this data is that much of it (like that based on Regnerus's study much maligned study) is disavowed and maybe discredited (as I noted to Anatess, I am not qualified to judge the data in this case). If you plan to use these data in your arguments, you will probably need to include a discussion of why you accept these data as "good" and reject contradictory data. There will probably also need to be some careful discussion teasing out cause and effect from simple correlation so that you can show that any negative outcomes are "caused" by the parents' homosexual relationship.

There is the rub. The social sciences have become highly politicized (follow the money), and this is disturbingly reflected in studies and debatesa, and has corrupted the "science" and tarnished the credibility of  its practitioners on both sides.  It is difficult to trust much of anything published these days.

As a work-around, and where possible, I like to look at raw data, and leave the reader to decide if they will draw the same conclusions as me. And, where studies are sited, I am fine with letting common sense have its way and leaving each to their own discretion. I happen to believe that the Regnerus study have some flaws, but is undeserving of the completely dismissive level of maligning it has recieved, particularly when worse can be said of the studies and claims used by those doing the maligning.

It would be nice were politics removed from the scolastic equation, but there it is. We will have to make do of it the best we can.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Mike Your answer does satisfy. Ask away.

Does your conscience tell you that if you were a baker, or a florist, or a photographer it would please God to withhold your services from people who want to celebrate their same-sex marriage? This may be too hypothetical, and if it is then I'll ask the question differently. (Disclaimer: I am not asking about refusing to using your ecclesiastical authority to *perform* marriages. I think I'm pretty safe in presuming what your conscience has to say about that.)

[anatess2]

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

I don't want to just leap to a rebuttal without your evaluation of whether I understand what you've said (and of course whether you said what you really wanted to say). So here's what I understand. Despite your attempt to change the question, the question was what are the reasons an individual should refrain from homosexual activity. Telling me that male and female are not interchangeable, and telling me that homosexual activity precludes the contribution of the opposite gender merely rehearses the definition of homosexual activity. So there's is no reason for abstinence there--just a description of homosexual relations as being homosexual.

So, after I accounted for repetitions and appeals to scientific journals and social magazines, and some suppositional questions comparing heterosexual single-adult familial motivations to homosexual motivations I gleaned the following as your reasons that one should abstain from homosexual activity. 

1. You say one should abstain because homosexual activity is harmful for each individual--because the sex is purely animalistic and because the participants' emotions are vulnerable and don't qualify as love. 

2. You say one should abstain because homosexual activity is harmful to society when the participants form families with children. Families, you say, require a male/female dynamic; and a family with same-gender parents is crippled.

Right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Don't qualify as Love" - I did not say that.  Sex is not Love.  But the emotions leading to sexual expression can be Love.  The harm is in the psychological programming that Love can only be present when sexually expressed or that it must be Love because sexual attraction is present.  This is the exact same harm in heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage.

 

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

"Don't qualify as Love" - I did not say that.  Sex is not Love.  But the emotions leading to sexual expression can be Love.  The harm is in the psychological programming that Love can only be present when sexually expressed or that it must be Love because sexual attraction is present.  This is the exact same harm in heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage.

 

No, you didn't say, "Don't qualify as Love". I was going for meaning rather than quotation. So, I'm wondering what you meant when you said, "...start calling it Love." 

Since you did say (just now), "But the emotions leading to sexual expression can be Love," and followed up as you did I'm left without a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals as far as feelings of love are concerned (not to mention harm from extra-marital sex which of course is outside the scope of the original question). So I have to say that at the moment if I were thinking of engaging in homosexual activity (assuming I possessed such an inclination) I don't find anything you've said to be very convincing. 

[wenglund]

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 

So, to summarize, the essence of this part of your arguments is a slippery slope logical fallacy (at least, I think it fits under slippery slope -- someone more schooled in rhetoric would be better equipped to say). Sure the statement is technically true. But, considering that heterosexuality is so predominant and the evolutionary pressures against homosexuality are strong, the likelihood of ever really having 100% of breeding pairs be homosexual is essentially nil, making the argument essentially meaningless. If this is going to be a significant part of your arguments, I think you will need to make it carefully so it does not get lost.

It is not exactly a slippery slope argument since my intent is not to suggest that the human race is destined for extinction by way of promoting homosexuality, but rather to argue the points that homosexuality is contrary to survival aspects of nature and evolution, which helps explain why there are relatively few homosexuals in the population, and it also speaks to the natural/evolutionary undesirability of homosexuality, thereby rendering it abnormal.

And, even were it a slippery slope argument, that doesn't necessarily mean it is fallacious. It would only be fallacious if the slope can't reasonably be established and/or if the slope doesn't rationally support the conclusion. Today, there are confirmed declines in population in a number of major countries, which threaten the stability of those nations, if not the whole of Western civilization,  As, such, it is reasonable to be concerned about adding grease to those established downward slopes by way of promoting homosexuality and other non-reproductive lifestyles.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, you didn't say, "Don't qualify as Love". I was going for meaning rather than quotation. So, I'm wondering what you meant when you said, "...start calling it Love." 

Since you did say (just now), "But the emotions leading to sexual expression can be Love," and followed up as you did I'm left without a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals as far as feelings of love are concerned (not to mention harm from extra-marital sex which of course is outside the scope of the original question). So I have to say that at the moment if I were thinking of engaging in homosexual activity (assuming I possessed such an inclination) I don't find anything you've said to be very convincing. 

Well, as I am not addressing an individual deciding to engage in homosexual activity, then we are already at odds on the purpose of our discussion.  You can engage in whatever activity you want.  What I'm addressing is the reason why such activity should not be normalized which is what the OP is addressing.

On Love - yes, heterosexual and homosexual pre-marital sexual activity holds the same harm but it is more pronounced in homosexual activity because there is no future in it whereas heterosexual activity can, at least, be corrected through moving towards a marital union.   Let me ask you the question - what do you tell your children on why they should not engage in pre-marital sex in this modern age of easy contraception even when they're in love?  Do you just say because God said so?

Edited March 21, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, wenglund said:

It is not exactly a slippery slope argument since my intent is not to suggest that the human race is destined for extinction by way of promoting homosexuality, but rather to argue the points that homosexuality is contrary to survival aspects of nature and evolution, which helps explain why there are relatively few homosexuals in the population, and it also speaks to the natural/evolutionary undesirability of homosexuality, thereby rendering it abnormal.

And, even were it a slippery slope argument, that doesn't necessarily mean it is fallacious. It would only be fallacious if the slope can't reasonably be established and/or if the slope doesn't rationally support the conclusion. Today, there are confirmed declines in population in a number of major countries, which threaten the stability of those nations, if not the whole of Western civilization,  As, such, it is reasonable to be concerned about adding grease to those established downward slopes by way of promoting homosexuality and other non-reproductive lifestyles.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Homosexuality being few due to a reason of it being contrary to survival can only be defended in a discussion where homosexuality is accepted as hereditary.  As of now, science hasn't found much evidence for this.

[Mike]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Well, as I am not addressing an individual deciding to engage in homosexual activity, then we are already at odds on the purpose of our discussion.  You can engage in whatever activity you want.  What I'm addressing is the reason why such activity should not be normalized which is what the OP is addressing.

On Love - let me ask you the question - what do you tell your children on why they should not engage in pre-marital sex?  Do you just say because God said so?

Oh. I thought we were examining reasons other than because God said so to convince someone to abstain from homosexual activity. That's fine. I'll abandon that pursuit.

As far as the way I raised my children, I must confess that it was by personal example more than by precept. So to answer your question adequately I have to go back to my own upbringing. My first exposure to the question about whether to engage in pre-marital sex was via precept in Church. Next came my observation of my parents in terms of what they did right and what they did wrong. This gave me my own conviction about what I wanted for myself. I took that conviction with me and met many women who were like-minded. So ultimately, my bride and I demonstrated to our children what was important to us. We took them to church and I suppose the process repeated itself in their lives.