Non-Religious Population, Will it Increase or Decrease in the Future?

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

You seem to imagine people as somehow not...

If you don’t care what other people think, why do you post here?  I am very curious as to what others think about my beliefs, and it feels good when I find people of similar beliefs.   Why do people write books if they don’t care?  It is human and natural to want to feel accepted or part of a group of similar believers, or to be of good report.   It is unnatural to not care. 

Most people want to share their beliefs with others.  Say what they think.  Occasionally picking up an idea from others they like if they like it and want to make it what they would then call their own idea, as well as the idea of the person who gave it to them.

If other people choose not to accept our ideas or beliefs most of us go on believing whatever we believe anyway, not phased much if any at all by the fact that other people do not agree with us.

Most of us here are here for pretty much the same reasons you are, which I have just stated in my own way in my own words above.  I've shared some of my ideas and beliefs with you and you still go on with your own beliefs despite the fact that we disagree on some things.

If you really cared about what I think and believe, as if I am sharing the word of God with you every time I share an idea with you, why aren't you conforming your beliefs to what I tell you they should be?

I go on anyway regardless of what you or anyone else other than God tells me, and you go on believing and thinking whatever you believe regardless of what other ideas other people share with you here. 

You care more about your own thoughts and beliefs than what other people think and believe, pretty much the same way' that I do.

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Meh.  Who cares if you take matters out of context and won't cite good sources?

Meh.  People wouldn't care anyway if what I told them went against what they have chosen to believe.  Quoting words from other people doesn't make other people believe what those people are saying.  We each choose to believe whatever we want to believe.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Not sure why this is even in dispute. As long as religious people can produce secular offspring, there is no dead end.  

I guess you miss the point:  religious people generally raise more religious people.  That is and has been the normal tendency.  Within Islam, that is increasingly the case (each generation is more religious than in the past).  Those who assimilate to the regular secular population live their lives and die without reproducing themselves.  That is the dead end, statistically.  It does gall the secularists to find that they are on the losing side of history, but it is a fact.

Much more quickly than here in the USA, this fact means the death of Europe and the birth of a new Eurabia.  The shift is already taking place in visible terms:

Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (Bloomsbury Continuum, 2017).

Mark Steyn, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It (Regnery, 2006).  Interview -- 

.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I honestly don't understand why (two now) folks are saying this, or the likes to those posts.   He and I have been facebook buddies for going on a decade now.  We both enjoy arguing religion and politics and stuff.  We both try hard to keep things civil and genuine, while not pulling any punches.  I learned a good habit from him - for every contentious political post, he posts a picture of a cute baby animal. 

When some idiot burned a gay pride flag on the hood of his truck, a reporter did a small piece on the event - he was a total class act in the interview.  I showed my children the interview, presenting it as an admirable example of maturity after someone does something bad to you.

I found out about the church's policy change on baptizing kids in SSM households from him, when I saw his posted resignation letter.  I told him he was still ok in my book.   

Online buddies with relationships based on arguing and debating I guess aren't all that common.  Maybe help me out here - assuming you folks have friends from the opposite sides of major fences, how do you go about speaking your mind without coming across as "having disdain", thinking you're "much better and righteous", or "being condescendingly pretentious and patronizing"?

Or are there just raw spots y'all don't cover with buddies, because it's too sensitive and it just wouldn't go well?

 

 

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I can’t believe you two are still friends. You seem to have such distain for him.  And you obviously are so much better and righteous  than he is.  Just being in your presents must be difficult for your ‘friend”.

He is a bigger man than me.  

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I still feel like you deserve an explanation on why I said what I did.  You seem to really want to know what the issue is and why your post sent a message of distain and self righteousness over your friend.  So if you will allow me, 

 

On 12/2/2019 at 11:15 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Well, perhaps a related story of cultural change may shed some light on what we can expect.

The other day, I looked up my former-LDS-turned-LGBT-supporter-married-to-a-transgender-lady-named-George-who-uses-male-pronouns facebook buddy.  I invited him to watch one of the later episodes of My Little Pony where they introduced two lesbian characters.  

How you introduced your friend shows to me a distain for who he is married to.  The whole "transgender-lady-named-George-who-uses-male-pronouns" tells me you have some problem with 1, his name which is male even though you still call him a lady and 2  you don't really approve of him using male pronouns.  It sounds to me like you are more concerned with carving out some religious/political issue than just being a friend.  You wanted us all to know that his significant other was suppose to be a woman but horrors or horrors, is transgender and has a male name and uses male pronouns.  Your political position seems to be more important than your friendship.  You could have said your friend and his transgender husband if you felt that being transgender was important to the context without the editorial "transgender-lady-named-George-who-uses-male-pronouns". Can you understand just a smidgens of why I though your answer was disdainful and self-righteous?

 

On 12/2/2019 at 11:15 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

[I'll give everyone a moment to let all that sink in.  Such things seem to be outside of many folks' daily experiences, online or otherwise.  All caught up?  Ok.]

Yeah, we should all be shocked that transgenders actually exist.  And you actually know one.  

 

On 12/2/2019 at 11:15 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

After the episode, I ceremoniously handed him the scepter of cultural majority.  I noted that the episode proved that Hasbro, being a profit driven corporation, had made a purely profit-driven decision to allow the characters, basically giving evidence to the notion that US cultural acceptance of SSM was widespread, and those fighting against it were basically dismissed as nothing worth considering.

Remember YOU are the one that invited your friend to see the episode.  And now you think that the cultural "war" is over because Hasbro acknowledges that gay people actually exist.  Despite the FACT that gay people have always existed.  This isn't some victory for the LGBT community of some preceived cultural war.  This is actually reality and NOT the religious narrative that gay people really shouldn't exist at all, or should stay in the shadows where they belong.

 

On 12/2/2019 at 11:15 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

We argued a bit about how he was no longer an oppressed minority, but instead his side was basically in charge now.  I reminded him of his multidecade long zealous opinions about the worth of diversity and acceptance and rights of the minority.  I cautioned him to remember all those opinions, as he went about wielding his majority scepter in ways that would be enshrined in laws and policies.  I asked him to think long and hard about diversity and acceptance when it came to preserving or eroding my religious liberties.  

Lets talk about this "no longer an oppressed minority, but instead his side was basically in charge now."  Here are just a couple of articles in today's news about this "no longer an oppressed minority".

Father Abandoned Son on the Side of Highway Because He Though He Might Be Gay

Quote

Bay 9 News reports: “The boy, whose age was redacted, was dropped off in front of the closed police department with a small duffel bag with several pieces of clothing, according to police. The boy had no food, water, or money with him. An officer dispatched to the location said the boy was very upset and crying. According to the report, the boy told the officer that his father, 30-year-old Evenaud Julmeus, thinks he is gay because his father found him ‘watching male pornography on his cell phone.'”

‘DWTS’ Dancer’s Son Told ‘Homosexuality is Wrong’ After Telling Teacher He’s Thankful for Being Adopted by His Gay Dads: VIDEO

 

Quote

 

Dancing with the Stars dancer Louis van Amstel’s 11-year-old son was given a heartbreaking introduction to homophobia last week after telling his substitute teacher that he’s thankful he’s being adopted by his two gay dads.

 

The boy’s response was a bit more serious. “I’m thankful that I’m finally going to be adopted by my two dads,” he answered.

Students later said that the substitute snapped, “Why on earth would you be happy about that?”

For the next 10 minutes she lectured the 30 kids in the class about her own views, how “homosexuality is wrong” and “two men living together is a sin.” She looked at the boy, too, and told him: “That’s nothing to be thankful for.”  

 

 

The kid was afraid to tell what happened because he was worried that his two dads would change their minds about adopting him.

LGBT still get their heads bashed in, spit upon, garage doors and their cars spray painted with homophobic slurs, flags burned, and yeah, even murdered in this country.  It certainly doesn't feel like LGBT are in a position of power.  The fact that you don't acknowledge the struggles LGBT still have in this country doesn't sound to me like you really understand what it is like for your friend.  You are more interested in lecturing him about HIS diversity and acceptance and how the LGBT community should treat you..  

Ok, that's enough.  I have said my piece.  

 

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Most people want to share their beliefs with others.  Say what they think.  Occasionally picking up an idea from others they like if they like it and want to make it what they would then call their own idea, as well as the idea of the person who gave it to them.

If other people choose not to accept our ideas or beliefs most of us go on believing whatever we believe anyway, not phased much if any at all by the fact that other people do not agree with us.

Most of us here are here for pretty much the same reasons you are, which I have just stated in my own way in my own words above.  I've shared some of my ideas and beliefs with you and you still go on with your own beliefs despite the fact that we disagree on some things.

If you really cared about what I think and believe, as if I am sharing the word of God with you every time I share an idea with you, why aren't you conforming your beliefs to what I tell you they should be?

I go on anyway regardless of what you or anyone else other than God tells me, and you go on believing and thinking whatever you believe regardless of what other ideas other people share with you here. 

You care more about your own thoughts and beliefs than what other people think and believe, pretty much the same way' that I do.

Now you are talking about conforming to one persons beliefs - that is very different from what I was responding to.  Previously you said “no one cares...”, that is different.  People care because we are human.  Peer pressure is a thing.  It is real.  Even for adults.  Even for very powerful people and governments.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, you cannot. I am not fear-mongering. Did you check the referenced sources? These numbers are real.  Trends might change over time -- probably will change, in fact. But the way it looks right now, Europe will be majority Muslim over some hard-to-predict period of time.  And so what?  If it is to be, then far out. Let it happen.

What's to fear, anyway?  Do you fear Muslims?  Are you an Islamophobe?  Sounds like it.

See? I can throw gratuitous insults out there, too.

If you read what I wrote, which it appears you did not, I said I was OK with the apparent trend, if that's the way it was going to go.  Is that fear-mongering?  You drink and drive, you may die quicker than if you did not. Is that fear-mongering?  If you graduate from college with a degree in an in-demand subject area, you will likely make more in your life than if you drop out of high school. Is that fear-mongering?

Do not be disingenuous. The idea that Muslims are taking over Europe is fear mongering. One of the sources you cited is a fact check of those demographic claims and their comment is that they are guessing the Muslim population will not exceed 10% by 2050. It also points out that muslim birth rates are falling towards those of the general European population so how is this worth discussing? I guess your comment that it will not be “that soon” is technically correct but is misleading as it suggests that it will be a whole lot closer than 10% in 2050.

We have done this song and dance before where you talk about the dangers of muslim population. You for whatever reason (presumably to avoid this whole shebang) decided to announce that it does not bother you at all and it is not really relevant to the thread in general or factually correct at all so why did you post it? It is one of your hobby horses so pretending disinterest is not fooling anyone.

[Jake Starkey]

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Meh.  People wouldn't care anyway if what I told them went against what they have chosen to believe.  Quoting words from other people doesn't make other people believe what those people are saying.  We each choose to believe whatever we want to believe.

You are describing yourself well.  I know how to deal with that.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am speaking seriously about birth rates among religious people, as opposed to irreligious people.  Observant Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and Evangelicals just have a higher birthrate (a replacement birthrate), which is not true of secularists.  This means that, demographically, the irreligious people simply die out.

Assuming children always adopt the beliefs of their parents exactly this might make some sense. The problem is the religious were previously having more children as well. So what happened?

Edited December 4, 2019 by The Nehor

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I still feel like you deserve an explanation on why I said what I did.  You seem to really want to know what the issue is and why your post sent a message of distain and self righteousness over your friend.  So if you will allow me, 

 

How you introduced your friend shows to me a distain for who he is married to.  The whole "transgender-lady-named-George-who-uses-male-pronouns" tells me you have some problem with 1, his name which is male even though you still call him a lady and 2  you don't really approve of him using male pronouns.  It sounds to me like you are more concerned with carving out some religious/political issue than just being a friend.  You wanted us all to know that his significant other was suppose to be a woman but horrors or horrors, is transgender and has a male name and uses male pronouns.  Your political position seems to be more important than your friendship.  You could have said your friend and his transgender husband if you felt that being transgender was important to the context without the editorial "transgender-lady-named-George-who-uses-male-pronouns". Can you understand just a smidgens of why I though your answer was disdainful and self-righteous?

 

Yeah, we should all be shocked that transgenders actually exist.  And you actually know one.  

 

Remember YOU are the one that invited your friend to see the episode.  And now you think that the cultural "war" is over because Hasbro acknowledges that gay people actually exist.  Despite the FACT that gay people have always existed.  This isn't some victory for the LGBT community of some preceived cultural war.  This is actually reality and NOT the religious narrative that gay people really shouldn't exist at all, or should stay in the shadows where they belong.

 

Lets talk about this "no longer an oppressed minority, but instead his side was basically in charge now."  Here are just a couple of articles in today's news about this "no longer an oppressed minority".

Father Abandoned Son on the Side of Highway Because He Though He Might Be Gay

‘DWTS’ Dancer’s Son Told ‘Homosexuality is Wrong’ After Telling Teacher He’s Thankful for Being Adopted by His Gay Dads: VIDEO

 

 

The kid was afraid to tell what happened because he was worried that his two dads would change their minds about adopting him.

LGBT still get their heads bashed in, spit upon, garage doors and their cars spray painted with homophobic slurs, flags burned, and yeah, even murdered in this country.  It certainly doesn't feel like LGBT are in a position of power.  The fact that you don't acknowledge the struggles LGBT still have in this country doesn't sound to me like you really understand what it is like for your friend.  You are more interested in lecturing him about HIS diversity and acceptance and how the LGBT community should treat you..  

Ok, that's enough.  I have said my piece.  

 

Sad as sad can get with that sub and father, if you can call him that. 

The black lives matter and gay pride campaigns are so needed because these groups have been discriminated against for so long, but that is putting it lightly. They have been murdered too.  And now that we have people see that harm, I guess it scares others into thinking they're rights will be taken. I guess they don't like to get what they dish out. 

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Stargazer, I know many folks have been aware of the demographic trends you describe for some time now.  And no, I don't think "fearmongering" is an appropriate description of your post.  More like just pointing out some pretty hefty demographic trends, and some rational impacts should those trends continue.   

I also don't think it's fearmongering to point out that current scientific understanding of stellar lifespans indicate that our sun will eventually expand into a red giant and render our earth sterile of all life as we currently know it.  Now, if I were to, oh, say, spin those facts into a melodramatic attempt to push some sort of radical environmental agenda that, if enacted, would have seriously negative impacts on national and global economies, that would be fear mongering.

 

Well, at least we can rest assured that no one of any consequence is attributing climate change happening now to the eventual transformation of the sun into a red giant. Climate change deniers are probably caricaturing the belief but they are just spewing uninformed propaganda so we should probably just mock them.
 

For example we can laugh at this person:

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Fearmonger!!!

Can I interest you in a multi-level marketing plan that will make you rich and by the way help you migrate to Mars in order to avoid this terrible tragedy?  We call it the Ares Plan!  And Elon Musk is totally on board with it.

LOL.

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

You seem to imagine people as somehow very prone to peer pressure.  As if grown adults actually care what other people think about their beliefs or lack of beliefs.  Enough for those adults to put on a show for others to try to trick them or make them believe they believe what those other people believe.  I won't ask if you are serious about and instead just say that in my experience people are not that concerned with what other people believe or with what other people believe about their beliefs.  It's not like we're still in high school and trying to fit in with the cool crowd.  "What other people think is their problem if they don't agree with what I think" is the general attitude I've noticed from most of the people I have met since I left high school, and some people in high school weren't all that impressed by peer pressure either.

People are good at saying they do not care what others think. They are laughably bad at following through on this assertion.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

They're not?  I have an idea!  Go get yourself a MAGA hat and parade around with it in New York City on the subway.  You might find yourself highly motivated by peer pressure to remove it.

Just because you and I don't, doesn't mean that others cannot care.

The difference with Muslim communities is that peer pressure is a bit higher pressure than things might have been in High School amongst the Sophomore class.  Do you seriously expect that women in, say, Tehran, Iran, feel completely free to walk about in public in the same clothing they wear inside their houses?  How about in Saudi Arabia?  

I believe I was talking about a religion which, on paper at least, urges that those who apostatize be put to death.  Or which in some places enforces the death penalty for saying something offensive about the religion's founder.  I wasn't talking about downtown Las Vegas, Nevada.  You can come to Salt Lake City and screech at the Mormons during General Conference, but better not try a similar act in Mecca during the Haj.

Note that I am not trying to disparage Islam. Just pointing out some salient facts that might be disturbing to some, but which are facts nevertheless.  Islamic peer pressure can have teeth. And if Islam is the true religion, then there's no problem with it.

The mask is slipping......

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

Because apparent gaslighting by a leader of the hard right in the church is not the way.

Oaks called opponents "adversaries" while saying they should be opposed civilly: talking out of both sides of his mouth.

https://religionnews.com/2014/10/06/mormon-apostle-civil-fighting-gay-marriage/

 

 

Saying someone is an adversary is not fearmongering or insulting. I have lots of adversaries. I do not think they are all irredeemably evil or anything.
 

Just most of them.  

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you miss the point:  religious people generally raise more religious people.  That is and has been the normal tendency.  Within Islam, that is increasingly the case (each generation is more religious than in the past).  Those who assimilate to the regular secular population live their lives and die without reproducing themselves.  That is the dead end, statistically.  It does gall the secularists to find that they are on the losing side of history, but it is a fact.

Much more quickly than here in the USA, this fact means the death of Europe and the birth of a new Eurabia.  The shift is already taking place in visible terms:

Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (Bloomsbury Continuum, 2017).

Mark Steyn, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It (Regnery, 2006).  Interview -- 

.

Yep, that video title and those sources which I am sure are impeccably accurate (lying a bit there) forecast doom. Fearmongering is bad when it is about something untrue. If fear is the rational response to a situation it is not fearmongering.

That video is fearmongering.

[Jake Starkey]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Saying someone is an adversary is not fearmongering or insulting. I have lots of adversaries. I do not think they are all irredeemably evil or anything.
 

Just most of them.  

I don't think President Oaks sees it that way, which is only my opinion, and will leave it at that.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

I don't think President Oaks sees it that way, which is only my opinion, and will leave it at that.

I disrespectfully disagree with your assessment of the character of President Oaks.

Edited December 4, 2019 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Because apparent gaslighting by a leader of the hard right in the church is not the way.

Oaks called opponents "adversaries" while saying they should be opposed civilly: talking out of both sides of his mouth.

https://religionnews.com/2014/10/06/mormon-apostle-civil-fighting-gay-marriage/

 

 

Quotes from the link:

Quote

“We should be persons of goodwill toward all,” said Dallin H. Oaks, a senior of member of the Mormon's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “rejecting persecution of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation."

Quote

“We should love all people, be good listeners, and show concern for their sincere beliefs,” he said during the afternoon session of the 184th Semiannual LDS General Conference, a two-day meeting broadcast across the world via satellite, TV or the Internet. “Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. Our stands and communications on controversial topics should not be contentious.”

 

Quote

 

The apostle, who was once a Utah Supreme Court justice, urged Mormon families not to shun those who do not share their LDS faith.

“Surely we can teach our children values and standards of behavior without having them distance themselves or show disrespect to any who are different,” Oaks said. “We challenge all youth to avoid bullying, insults or language and practices that deliberately inflict pain on others. All of these violate the Savior’s command to love one another.”

 

What a rotton scoundrel!  A nasty, "hard-right" extremist, to be sure!

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quotes from the link:

 

What a rottn scoundrel!  A nasty, "hard-right" extremist, to be sure!

 

Scott, it is almost impossible to have a discussion with the Left online or in public. There is not a concept of listening. It is knee-jerk, memorized responses of group-think and non-thought. This is combined with the absolute need to be perceived as the abused, the minority, and VICTIM. I have found it is a waste of time unless individuals are face to face and have found the ability to listen to one another. Not a common condition in today's world....just ask Loud Mouth. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Scott, it is almost impossible to have a discussion with the Left online or in public. There is not a concept of listening. It is knee-jerk, memorized responses of group-think and non-thought. This is combined with the absolute need to be perceived as the abused, the minority, and VICTIM. I have found it is a waste of time unless individuals are face to face and have found the ability to listen to one another. Not a common condition in today's world....just ask Loud Mouth. 

I recognize the near impossibility of reasoning in public with doctrinaire leftists. My concern is with the unseen lurker who might be misled by their sophistry.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, that video title and those sources which I am sure are impeccably accurate (lying a bit there) forecast doom. Fearmongering is bad when it is about something untrue. If fear is the rational response to a situation it is not fearmongering.

That video is fearmongering.

Yes, it is.  And so was the legitimate reaction to the Communist Manifesto of Marx & Engels.  So was the legitimate reaction to the rise of Chancellor Hitler and the rearming of Germany.  That we have both left and right agreeing now on the death of Europe should at least raise an eyebrow.  It has come to the point now that World War II and the Holocaust cannot be taught in many public schools in Europe.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Assuming children always adopt the beliefs of their parents exactly this might make some sense. The problem is the religious were previously having more children as well. So what happened?

What happened was the secularization of the West.  Europe is farther along in that process than the USA, but the results are going to be the same.  Huge demographic shifts are already apparent in Europe, where the native population is simply dying off and being replaced by immigrants who are not adopting European culture.  This is not the first time that such momentous demographic shifts have taken place, but it will alter the nature of modern civilization as we know it.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

If the trend to secularization continues, then obviously the population will increase for non-religious individuals.

Well that's a good point, but as usual the topic is now homosexuality. 

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am speaking seriously about birth rates among religious people, as opposed to irreligious people.  Observant Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and Evangelicals just have a higher birthrate (a replacement birthrate), which is not true of secularists.  This means that, demographically, the irreligious people simply die out.

There's actually a higher correlation of fertility rate with infant mortality rate. Also, child mortality rates have decreased to unprecedented levels. 

Hans Rosling did some exceptional presentations on population growth, this one discusses religions and babies:

 

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What happened was the secularization of the West.  Europe is farther along in that process than the USA, but the results are going to be the same.  Huge demographic shifts are already apparent in Europe, where the native population is simply dying off and being replaced by immigrants who are not adopting European culture.  This is not the first time that such momentous demographic shifts have taken place, but it will alter the nature of modern civilization as we know it.

My take is that Western ideas need to prove themselves with the changing demographics to merit keeping.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, Ahab said:

I told you what actual love prompts someone to do.  They seek the welfare of the person they love, not their own welfare.  2 people of the same sex may not believe it is a sin or against the law of God to have sexual relations together, and they may believe that their sexual relationship will continue in heaven as it now is on this planet, but sooner or later they will find out that is not going to happen and that they chose to limit how much joy they could have had in their lives.  Divine love does not reward sin or allow something to continue that should not have started in the first place. It is not good for 2 people of the same sex to have sexual relations together, even if they get some pleasure from it.  It isn't good in itself and it doesn't lead to anything good.  It is like choosing to go down a dead end road instead of a road that would have taken them to ultimate destination possible for any person of any sex.

You will likely not believe what I am saying but if you go down that road then you will eventually find out for yourself.  God doesn't "punish" people who do that.  It just isn't good and it doesn't lead to anything good, even if the people who choose it like it and want it to go on forever.

I know you told me your version of love. I've tried to explain, I've already been down that road. I see spent years and years arguing it, including on this board, and I've made the argument you're making now. That road is a dead end. My mind, heart, and spirit rejected it eventually, thank goodness.