Why so few homosexuals?

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

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. 

I edited my post.  I'll give you a chance to read the updated version to see if you want to add to your response before we continue with the discussion.

[Mike]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I edited my post.  I'll give you a chance to read the updated version to see if you want to add to your response before we continue with the discussion.

The only thing I can think to add is regard to your inquiry about contraception. Knowing that for all a parent's best efforts children become old enough to make their own decisions I provided them with as much practical information as possible so that they would be equipped intellectually even though they might still be unequipped in the good sense department. We were all fortunate in terms of the end results.

[MrShorty]

43 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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 sounds like you have the statistical and professional understanding to be in a better position than I am to tackle these questions. Without that education, I have to simply accept what you would say on faith that you did the statistics and analysis correctly. With so many contradictory opinions and discussion -- often undergirded by some fairly sophisticated statistics -- it often feels like a debate best left to those qualified to analyze, discuss, and debate, and wait for them (you) to come to some consensus.

 

32 minutes ago, wenglund said:

 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.

I think if I were to be convinced that it is not a fallacious slippery slope on these grounds, one would have to establish that homosexuality represents a sizeable portion of the "non-reproductive" population, and that discouraging homosexual behavior would actually lead to those individuals to join the reproducing population. My first impression would be that homosexuals represent a small portion of the non-reproducing population, and that they would largely remain in the non-reproducing (celibate subset) population.

[wenglund]

29 minutes ago, 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.

This is a critical distinction, and one that should be repeatedly underscored, particularly in regards to political discussions on the issues at hand and debates over public policy.regarding the same.

As you rightly intimate, for most of us, we aren't concerned with what individuals may do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Our concern is with the culture and how it might lead to deleterious governmental action. .

My effort here, and evidently your's as well, is to counter considerable propaganda and disinformation about homosexuality intent on growing the government and increasing the power base of elites, sadly in a way that uses homosexuals ultimately to their disfavor and to the dis-benefit of the general population.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

34 minutes ago, Mike said:

The only thing I can think to add is regard to your inquiry about contraception. Knowing that for all a parent's best efforts children become old enough to make their own decisions I provided them with as much practical information as possible so that they would be equipped intellectually even though they might still be unequipped in the good sense department. We were all fortunate in terms of the end results.

Okay, yeah, Family Tradition and Family Identity is, of course, the major source of the knowledge of the next generation.  But, of course, it has to go beyond that because... not all families are in an ideal situation.  My parents, for example, got married when my mother was 6 months pregnant.  So, how can my parents teach their children about the harm of pre-marital sex?  It has to go beyond just setting an example.  I teach my kids life lessons through concepts/principles not just empirical examples because it is too easy for them to say, "well, grandma did it and you turned out okay."

Edited March 21, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, yeah, Family Tradition and Family Identity is, of course, the major source of the knowledge of the next generation.  But, of course, it has to go beyond that because... not all families are in an ideal situation.  My parents, for example, got married when my mother was 6 months pregnant.  So, how can my parents teach their children about the harm of pre-marital sex?  It has to go beyond just setting an example.  I teach my kids life lessons through concepts/principles not just empirical examples.

I appreciated it when you asked me a direct question about what I have done in my own life. (I mean who doesn't like to talk about themselves, right? Hahaha). But I would not presume to volunteer to tell anyone else how to raise their children without being asked. It's interesting that you mention your mother being six months pregnant when she married your father. I was just thinking to myself that I have no concrete knowledge of my parents' sex lives before they married, although I have suspicions based upon other information. And while I believe there was never sexual infidelity on either my dad's or my mom's part, again I have no way to know with certainty. Fast forward to my children's lives and once again I cannot know with certainty. I believe my children were virgins when they married, but I cannot know about other types of sexual activity. And it doesn't really matter to me in the long run. It doesn't change anything I can think of.  Moreover, if I were to learn that my wife had pre-marital sexual relations in any degree it wouldn't make a lick of difference to me before or after our marriage. 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

I appreciated it when you asked me a direct question about what I have done in my own life. (I mean who doesn't like to talk about themselves, right? Hahaha). But I would not presume to volunteer to tell anyone else how to raise their children without being asked. It's interesting that you mention your mother being six months pregnant when she married your father. I was just thinking to myself that I have no concrete knowledge of my parents' sex lives before they married, although I have suspicions based upon other information. And while I believe there was never sexual infidelity on either my dad's or my mom's part, again I have no way to know with certainty. Fast forward to my children's lives and once again I cannot know with certainty. I believe my children were virgins when they married, but I cannot know about other types of sexual activity. And it doesn't really matter to me in the long run. It doesn't change anything I can think of.  Moreover, if I were to learn that my wife had pre-marital sexual relations in any degree it wouldn't make a lick of difference to me before or after our marriage. 

Okay, so your position is that pre-marital sex is ok?

[wenglund]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

II think if I were to be convinced that it is not a fallacious slippery slope on these grounds, one would have to establish that homosexuality represents a sizeable portion of the "non-reproductive" population, and that discouraging homosexual behavior would actually lead to those individuals to join the reproducing population. My first impression would be that homosexuals represent a small portion of the non-reproducing population, and that they would largely remain in the non-reproducing (celibate subset) population.

I would agree with you if the tiny size of the homosexual population were the only factor of the homosexual issue that contributes to non-reproduction.  I happen to believe that promotion of homosexuality may have a negative influence on the broader culture, and further encourage self-indulgent, non-reproductive sex, among other things. 

Also, the downward slope of the general population isn't my only concern. I am disturbed by the decline in homosexual population, not in terms of the lack of reproduction, but from health and morality factors--which is why I will be discussing these topics as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, so your position is that pre-marital sex is ok?

That's too extreme, and it's light years too general. I'm aware of the dangers of social diseases for example which is a big reason to be careful. I don't take lightly the dangers of losing access to the blessings of a temple marriage if one is LDS. And I have observed the pain that results in many lives when a child is born and doesn't know her father, for example. There are many practical reasons to be careful. And there are too many variables for me to make a blanket judgement to cover all the possible paths in the lives of so many millions of people. Because on the other side I can't think of a reason to be bothered if I learned today that my wife was sexually active before I met her. It's in the past.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Mike

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour 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.

Well, an evolutionary dead end is not actually a slippery slope, and I think the statement I made was actually relatively true in relation to it resulting in an evolutionary dead end.

In regards to evolution, it's not really a slippery slope, if we are talking biology vs. feelings.  Now, note, I am NOT a biologist.  I had to take Biology 101 and Zoology 101 long ago many decades in the past, but I haven't had to take a ton of classes beyond that (because, I'm a historian...we don't do tons of biology for some odd reason, unless you are focusing specifically on an area of history that also focuses on biology...like the history of biology or something like that).

Evolution can take many different values.  For a while many of those in the LGBT arena have tried to persuade (and some have tried to show) that being homosexual is actually a genetic trait that can be passed down.  Now the hypothesis is that there are genes that cause this trait.  However, since those who are homosexual typically do not mate and produce children (or so the supposition would be), therefore this trait should not be passed down.  Eventually it should die, in particularly, in a very short period of time.  In that light it could be an evolutionary dead end of those that bear the trait.

HOWEVER, if it is genetic (and hence affected by the rules of evolution), that has double implication as it has NOT died out (obviously).  First, it can be a recessive or dominant trait passed onto others without it actually being evident within individuals.  Secondly, if the conditions are right, it can actually become a predominant trait.  This could be through any number of variables (mutation, bottleneck...thought that may require a nuclear war or some similar disaster) that result in this.

If, for some reason, the conditions are right where the gene that causes homosexuality also has some desirable trait for the survival of the individual and becomes a predominant trait of the human species...it is, in fact, from an evolutionary viewpoint, a point where it actually could become an evolutionary dead end for the entire species, where that trait causes the species to die out as well as that trait.

This has happened in species before, and it is probable it will happen in species after.  Humans are not precluded from this just because they are human...from a scientific point of view (religious point of views are different).

Of course, worrying about it or that it will happen is pointless right now.  The predominant effect of the collective human species shows no inclination to make it a survival trait at this point, and until such an event (as I said, mutation, bottleneck, etc...) occurs, there is no point in wondering what to do if it occurs.

Most of the arguments on BOTH sides of the homosexual argument are based upon belief, religion, or faith rather than science.  It's done because people FEEL that's what should be done rather than what science says on the matter.

Edited March 21, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[MrShorty]

14 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I would agree with you if the tiny size of the homosexual population were the only factor of the homosexual issue that contributes to non-reproduction.  I happen to believe that promotion of homosexuality may have a negative influence on the broader culture, and further encourage self-indulgent, non-reproductive sex, among other things. 

Also, the downward slope of the general population isn't my only concern. I am disturbed by the decline in homosexual population, not in terms of the lack of reproduction, but from health and morality factors--which is why I will be discussing these topics as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I will be interested to see how you bring these elements into the discussion and how you support your beliefs and conclusions.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

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.

Since it has gained relatively popular acceptance, I am allowing room for the genetic heritage position while concurrently considering the plausible behavioral and/or cultural heritage factors. I hope my arguments apply regardless where the reader comes down on the nature/nurture question. After all, there are homosexuals in the population that need to be accounted for, even if relatively few.  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MrShorty]

16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Most of the arguments on BOTH sides of the homosexual argument are based upon belief, religion, or faith rather than science.  It's done because people FEEL that's what should be done rather than what science says on the matter.

I am not sure if this is true or not -- I am just not sure I am equipped to make this judgement. I might observe no one on either side of the argument has convinced that they are the ones who truly looked at the data objectively and followed the data where it led rather than coercing the analysis into a preconceived notion. I think there are people out there trying to do this right. Perhaps the "winners" in the debate will be the ones who are truly successful at convincing us/me that they are the ones who approached the data objectively. I suspect that this will take some statistical sophistication to make this argument, and some statistical sophistication to receive this argument. I don't know if I am that statistically sophisticated.

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I am not sure if this is true or not -- I am just not sure I am equipped to make this judgement. I might observe no one on either side of the argument has convinced that they are the ones who truly looked at the data objectively and followed the data where it led rather than coercing the analysis into a preconceived notion. I think there are people out there trying to do this right. Perhaps the "winners" in the debate will be the ones who are truly successful at convincing us/me that they are the ones who approached the data objectively. I suspect that this will take some statistical sophistication to make this argument, and some statistical sophistication to receive this argument. I don't know if I am that statistically sophisticated.

I think it is a common mistake to assume that the homosexual issue is of such complexity that only the most erudite are capable of making a correct judgement. As I see it, it is simple enough that common sense will suffice. In fact, the risk of over-analysis, combined with politicization and other motives, puts the erudite at greater risk of confusion and false perceptions.

From what I can tell, and in certain respects, our institutions of higher learning have become powerful engines for dumbing down their pupils. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

37 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Evolution can take many different values.  For a while many of those in the LGBT arena have tried to persuade (and some have tried to show) that being homosexual is actually a genetic trait that can be passed down.  Now the hypothesis is that there are genes that cause this trait.  However, since those who are homosexual typically do not mate and produce children (or so the supposition would be), therefore this trait should not be passed down.  Eventually it should die, in particularly, in a very short period of time.

HOWEVER, if it is genetic (and hence affected by the rules of evolution), that has double implication as it has NOT died out (obviously).  First, it can be a recessive or dominant trait passed onto others without it actually being evident within individuals.  Secondly, if the conditions are right, it can actually become a predominant trait.  This could be through any number of variables (mutation, bottleneck...thought that may require a nuclear war or some similar disaster) that result in this.

If, for some reason, the conditions are right where the gene that causes homosexuality also has some desirable trait for the survival of the individual and becomes a predominant trait of the human species...it is, in fact, from an evolutionary viewpoint, a point where it actually could become an evolutionary dead end.

This has happened in species before, and it is probable it will happen in species after.  Humans are not precluded from this just because they are human...from a scientific point of view (religious point of views are different).

Of course, worrying about it or that it will happen is pointless right now.  The predominant effect of the collective human species shows no inclination to make it a survival trait at this point, and until such an event (as I said, mutation, bottleneck, etc...) occurs, there is no point in wondering what to do if it occurs.

Most of the arguments on BOTH sides of the homosexual argument are based upon belief, religion, or faith rather than science.  It's done because people FEEL that's what should be done rather than what science says on the matter.

There seems to me at least another way to think about this. First of all I think it is erroneous and extremely over-simplistic to say that a "gene causes homosexuality", and more accurate to say a gene can have a variety of manifestations by itself, under differing conditions, and in tandem with or in the absence of other genes, etc. Thus, there is no reason that homosexuality should be considered subject to or even ought to "die out". 

Moreover, given the complexity and variety of human sexuality there are many reasons to not be surprised it doesn't die out.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

It seems to me to be easily as likely (as any other explanation) that everybody has homosexual tendencies to varying degrees. From a religious standpoint that strikes me as good reason to expect God warning against it as He warns against other sexual behaviors. From a non-religious standpoint it makes sense in a similiar way that people have varying other tendencies and to varying degrees. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would be gagging at the possibility right now, hahaha. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Mike

[wenglund]

44 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Also, the downward slope of the general population isn't my only concern. I am disturbed by the decline in homosexual population, not in terms of the lack of reproduction, but from health and morality factors--which is why I will be discussing these topics as well.

Believe it or not, this is the motivating force behind my importuning about homosexuality. In addition to my protective instinct for the human family and the cultures they form, I am genuinely concerned for the health and welfare of homosexuals. I am convinced they, and their supporters, are being played, and the end result have already begun to be, and may yet potentially be, devastating. I mean this physically as well as spiritually. I intend to wake people up the mine field.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

14 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Believe it or not, this is the motivating force behind my importuning about homosexuality. In addition to my protective instinct for the human family and the cultures they form, I am genuinely concerned for the health and welfare of homosexuals. I am convinced they, and their supporters, are being played, and the end result have already begun to be, and may yet potentially be, devastating. I mean this physically as well as spiritually. I intend to wake people up the mine field.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hmmm, I would wonder if the greater danger isn't due to our technology which makes it more difficult for Mother Nature to isolate problems. (Or perhaps easier to eradicate some other problems if you take my meaning. I'm thinking more along the lines of influenza, Ebola, etc., and not AIDS per se.)

Edited March 21, 2017 by Mike

[wenglund]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

It seems to me to be easily as likely (as any other explanation) that everybody has homosexual tendencies to varying degrees. From a religious standpoint that strikes me as good reason to expect God warn against it as He warns against other sexual behaviors. From a non-religious standpoint it makes sense in a smilier way that people having varying other tendencies and to varying degrees. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are gagging at the possibility right now, hahaha. 

I don't know about "everybody," but there is a larger percentage of the population who have engaged in sexual activities with the same sex (11.5% for women, and 5% for men--see HERE) than who identifying as homosexual--less than 2% of the population--see HERE. The mere tendency may be somewhat higher. Who knows? But, if it is, then you are correct, there may be even greater cause for concern than originally thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

Just now, wenglund said:

I don't know about "everybody," but there is a larger percentage of the population who have engaged in sexual activities with the same sex (11.5% for women, and 5% for men--see HERE) than who identifying as homosexual--less than 2% of the population--see HERE. The mere tendency may be somewhat higher. Who knows? But, if it is, then you are correct, there may be even greater cause for concern than originally thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would call 11.5 and 5.0 small percentages of the population. When I say tendency I mean anywhere on the spectrum from something as insignificant as a fleeting erotic fantasy to those of us deplored by some others of us. I wouldn't call it a cause for concern, either. I would just call it getting to know ourselves better. Like I said, it can have a constructive application regardless of whatever side of the room one wishes to find a chair.

[wenglund]

22 minutes ago, Mike said:

Hmmm, I would wonder if the greater danger isn't due to our technology which makes it more difficult for Mother Nature to isolate problems. (Or perhaps easier to eradicate some other problems if you take my meaning. I'm thinking more along the lines of influenza, Ebola, etc., and not AIDS per se.)

Yes, there are certainly greater threats, and for the reason you suggest. But, they tend to be dealt with in a way bent on minimizing the spread. Whereas homosexual-related heath concerns tend to be covered in the PC invisibility cloak which inadvertently leads to greater spread or escalated problems--and I, too, am not just referring to AIDS.  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

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.)

If you'll indulge me, I'll answer this both for myself, and with what counsel I might offer a church member.  Personally, my line would be that I could create general flower arrangements that would be picked up and brought to the wedding site.  I could also bake a general cake, that the wedding part may want to embellish. However, I would not feel right about going to the wedding site and pouring the artistic talents God gifted me with into a sacramental event that runs so counter to my own faith. I would not want to write out something that appeared to bless a union that I believe God would not bless.  Likewise for photography, or for personalized wedding cards.  It's fine line, but I could engage in commercial business, and I could provide generalized goods, but I would not want my talents to be used in a way that most observers would perceive as approval, endorsement, or blessing.

As for a parishioner, wondering what to do, I'd ask them some questions to see what was causing hesitation. If they believed it was okay, but had gotten push back from others, I'd tell them that if they had peace with God about servicing the wedding, then I'd support them in doing so. If they believed it was just wrong, and they wanted no part of it, then I'd encourage them to stick to their convictions. After all, anything that is not done in faith is sin.

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Yes, there are certainly greater threats, and for the reason you suggest. But, they tend to be dealt with in a way bent on minimizing the spread. Whereas homosexual-related heath concerns tend to be covered in the PC invisibility cloak which inadvertently leads to greater spread or escalated problems--and I, too, am not just referring to AIDS.  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, it was just a little black humor there. Actually I would call our experience with Ebola a possible success story. And our experience with antibiotics par for the course. Tell me more about what you mean with homosexual-related health concerns.  From a microbiological standpoint and in the worldview of an Evolutionist I would think there is really nothing surprising. 

[Mike]

5 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

If you'll indulge me, I'll answer this both for myself, and with what counsel I might offer a church member.  Personally, my line would be that I could create general flower arrangements that would be picked up and brought to the wedding site.  I could also bake a general cake, that the wedding part may want to embellish. However, I would not feel right about going to the wedding site and pouring the artistic talents God gifted me with into a sacramental event that runs so counter to my own faith. I would not want to write out something that appeared to bless a union that I believe God would not bless.  Likewise for photography, or for personalized wedding cards.  It's fine line, but I could engage in commercial business, and I could provide generalized goods, but I would not want my talents to be used in a way that most observers would perceive as approval, endorsement, or blessing.

As for a parishioner, wondering what to do, I'd ask them some questions to see what was causing hesitation. If they believed it was okay, but had gotten push back from others, I'd tell them that if they had peace with God about servicing the wedding, then I'd support them in doing so. If they believed it was just wrong, and they wanted no part of it, then I'd encourage them to stick to their convictions. After all, anything that is not done in faith is sin.

Thank you. I appreciate understanding you better, and I gained some valuable insight just now. 

[wenglund]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Yeah, it was just a little black humor there. Actually I would call our experience with Ebola a possible success story. And our experience with antibiotics par for the course. Tell me more about what you mean with homosexual-related health concerns.  From a microbiological standpoint and in the worldview of an Evolutionist I would think there is really nothing surprising. 

I plan on addressing the health question separately, and later in the thread, from the "nature/evolution" question. Even though there may be some overlap, I think it useful to view the reproductive cause for small population size as distinguished from the health cause for the same small population size. Stay tuned.--though I can't guarantee any surprises. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-