“Anyone who chooses to avoid having children is going against their nature.”

>>How have you come to that odd conclusion? Do you suffer from the strange misapprehension that human beings are uniform and essentially interchangeable entities, rather than individuals with their own unique and inherent natures?

“Whether they do so through a homosexual relationship, contraception, abortion, or abstinance. I spoke on Homosexuallity because it was the topic in the original post, not because it is the only unnatural act.”

>>Again: on what rational basis can it be described as un-natural, given that it has been observed in all human societies throughout all of recorded history, as well as in non-human species?

“A stagnation in race occures when the current population fails to bare enough offspring to increase the population.”

>>Do you have some strange idea that the carrying capacity of the planet earth is infinite, such that populations may increase without limit over succeeding generations?

“A regression occurs when they do not even replace themselves in the population. While by and large the human race is progressing, there are those who cause stagnation and regression.”

>>By ‘progressing’, then, you mean that by and large the human race is reproducing at a rate that’s independent of available resources? You see that as a desirable situation?

“My last coment was a side note, not intended to be part of a detailed descussion, which is why I put it in parentheses. It was a comment on the idea that homosexual activity in animals causes a high fertility (which I would like to see the proof). Because animals do not engage soley in homosexual relations they are still progressing their race.”

>>Humans as a population similarly do not engage solely in homosexual relations—isn’t that proof that humans are still progressing, and your worries are without merit? If it’s a personal numbers game—a question of individuals failing to engage solely in homosexual relations, how often would a homosexual individual have to engage in heterosexual intercourse to continue to progress—one in ten incidents of intercourse? 1 in 5? Every other time?

“Many humans have chosen to engage only in homosexual relations and therefore have gone farther than animals in the unnatural act. This is what I meant.”

>>Again: on hat rational basis do you characterize this as unnatural, rather than simply representative of the natural variability of human sexual response?

“Now, while I do believe these things to be biological in some way, they are more precisely described as spiritual. So, trying to prove them through physical science is not only impossible but rather silly.”

>>By what credible argument should one accept your spiritual conclusions that homosexuality is unnatural, yet reject another’s spiritual conclusion that for them (at least) it’s entirely natural?