Tuesday bonus: The Secular case against abortion and homosexuality.

In a stimulating discussion with a friend of mine following my earlier post on homosexuality I was asked to provide further support from a wholly secular standpoint to substantiate my position against homosexuality. Here’s my response:

My secular argument against homosexuality mirrors my secular argument against abortion and that is: Population.
Human capital is the greatest asset any nation has. This has been true for all nations at all times in all places. In fact, there is almost nothing that can’t be solved with a brute force application of people (just ask the Chinese).
While your assertion of homosexual couples adopting unwanted children (a product of a highly feminized culture I might add) is a nice sentiment, the reality is that selfishness does not produce the sacrificial environment required for the rearing of children. homosexuality, as you so eloquently put it above, is not something done for the mutual pleasure of the other person nor is it done for biological means. It is wholly done, as are the vast majority of abortions, for selfish motives.
For the single and simple reason that a population in decline is readily susceptible to merely being out-bred by foreign cultures (as is the case in in the EU currently in regards to Islam), I would strongly argue that the last thing we ought to be doing as a culture is worrying about the myth of overpopulation or propping up anti-family and anti-children ideologies.
Simply put, we need babies. Lots of them.
Not babies that are left to the state to support and care for. Or the army of single mothers created in recent decades by liberal legislation. no, we need strong families with men who give a damn about someone other than themselves.
In retrospect, the issues of homosexuality and abortion share more in common than being anti-family and anti-children. They are both only sustainable in a culture that is anti-men which got that way when men became fat and lazy.
Incidentally,

My secular argument against homosexuality mirrors my secular argument against abortion and that is: Population growth.

Human capital is the greatest asset any nation has. This has been true for all nations at all times in all places throughout the history of human civilization. In fact, there is almost nothing that can’t be solved with a brute force application of people1.

While your assertion2 of homosexual couples adopting unwanted children (a product of a highly feminized culture I might add) is a nice sentiment, the reality is that selfishness does not produce the sacrificial environment required for the rearing of children. homosexuality, as you so eloquently put it above, is not something done for the mutual pleasure of the other person nor is it done for biological means. It is wholly done, as are the vast majority of abortions, for selfish motives.

Simply put, we need babies. Lots of them.

Not babies that are left to the state to support and care for. Or the army of single mothers created in recent decades by liberal legislation and social programs. No, we need strong families with men who give a damn about someone other than themselves.

In retrospect, the issues of homosexuality and abortion share more in common than being anti-family and anti-children. They are both only sustainable in a culture that is anti-men which got that way when men became fat and lazy.

It should concern us that the countries with growing populations are not in the first world. They are in “less developed”3 countries where things like abortion on demand and pure pleasure seeking aren’t luxuries the average man can readily afford.

For the single and simple reason that a population in decline is readily susceptible to merely being out-bred by foreign cultures4, I would strongly argue that the last thing we ought to be doing as a culture is worrying about the myth of overpopulation or propping up anti-family and anti-children ideologies.

Update:

After publishing this I received a challenge regarding my assertion above regarding population decline being a real issue in many countries. My opponent pointed out that the population of the US in particular was actually increasing. Here is my response:

The US’s population is increasing due to immigrants, specifically the Spanish-speaking community not because we are choosing to have the required 2.2 children required to merely sustain our population.

As far as military service or society, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing for a society to discriminate against behaviors/lifestyles that aren’t conducive to their growth. Russia found this out not too long ago as their national policies against sex plunged their country into a population crisis such that now they are forced to almost completely reverse their stance on the matter and hold national sex days in hopes of merely staving off a massive population shortage.

In short, its not just the type of sex that is an issue here, it’s the selfish lifestyle and attitude towards procreation in general (which is why I lump abortion in with this argument as well).

We should, as a country, at least be focused on the fact that killing off our population (abortion) or promoting selfish lifestyles (which stretches beyond homosexuality) is not something that strengthens us a country nor something that has benefited any country in history.

  1. just ask the Chinese []
  2. This is in reference to a rather colorful description of anal intercourse which I’ll leave up to your imagination while sparing you the details. []
  3. Read: less selfish []
  4. as is the case in in the EU currently in regards to Islam []
Share

11 responses to “Tuesday bonus: The Secular case against abortion and homosexuality.

  1. First of all, what's a "secular argument?"

    Secondly, if same-sex couples have children in vitro means, how does your argument from population growth hold?

    • A "secular argument" is one that is, insofar as possible, not tied to a particular religious ideology in that it doesn't make an appeal to a religious text and attempts to avoid as much as possible religious categories of thought.

      As to the second part of your question;

      If the historical, pattern were for same-sex couples to receive in vitro fertilization we still face the problem that in vitro requires far more effort than natural conception (which is also a lot more fun, something that works against the evolutionary argument).

      Secondly, as I hinted at above, it is not the case historically that same-sex couples seek adoption as a normative course of events.

      Rather, like I mentioned in my post, since homosexuality is an inherently selfish act it does not lend itself very well to the selfless and often thankless task of rearing children.

      One might argue that more same sex couples would be willing to engage in child rearing if they were afforded proper legal rights and protections but I think the evidence from countries across the pond (as well as up north) tends to indicate that even if such legal amenities were afforded, their effect would not be a resurgence of child-friendly households.

      So the short answer to your question is: In theory same-sex couples adopting might offer a significant defeater to the secular argument for population growth I've outlined above, but I highly doubt it will as practice and history don't offer any support to this theory ever being put into normative practice.

  2. I find it interesting that you support the artificial sacred/secular split. What qualitative difference is there between "secular" and "religious" ideologies? Do they address different "categories of thought?"

    Your revised argument – to deal with what I've raised – seems quite arbitrary. Who cares if it requires more effort to undergo in vitro fertilization? Who cares if it's a lot less fun?

    • I must admit that I also find the scared/secular split to be tenuous at best. However for the sake of some (especially those with honest questions) I sometimes find it expedient to maintain both a religiously toned down argument for or against certain issues simply because we live in a mixed community and we have to find a way to live together in spite of our difficulties. Therefore it ought to be possible for non-theists and theists alike (not to mention the wide variety of theists) to agree to a secular argument.

  3. The sacred/secular split is more than tenuous. It's completely unfounded, unless of course you can persuade me that God is not Lord over all areas of life.

    As with your Kalaam Cosmological argument, this looks like another arbitrary argument that brings no one in contact with the Christian worldview, let alone the gospel.

    • Joel, It may be hard for you to understand, but arguments like these are integral to what is known as "pre-evangelism" and, contrary to your blithe assertion, do play an important role in bringing others closer to Christ.

      Perhaps, in the future, if you don't understand someone's strategy it would be best to simply ask and/or hold your peace rather than asserting that you know something you really don't. 🙂

      BTW: Francis Schaeffer's Truth With Love (http://bit.ly/7tVGZG) would probably be a good read for you regarding the tactics I'm taking here.

  4. Wes, when do you ever get around to defending this stuff?

    You assert that the Kalaam Cosmological argument proves the existence of God. I point out that it can't since God isn't anywhere to be found in the premises. Discussion peters off.

    I ask you to defend your understanding of "draw" in John 12.32 and I never hear from you on the matter again.

    I point out that the sacred/secular dichotomy is unfounded (unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there is an area of life over which God is not Lord) and that your "secular" argument against homosexuality is completely arbitrary with its appeal to population growth and fun vs. more fun. Do you defend it? No. You come back all bent out of shape and give a little lecture of what you think pre-evangelism is.

    I do understand your strategy and would even be open to it were you able to put forth a defense. But you're a preacher, not an apologist. Incidentally, is there a reason for why I can't comment from my regular computer anymore?

    • As for the Kalaam argument, I never stated that my goal was to go from non-theism to belief in Jesus. I'm sorry you don't agree with the method but the argument is logically sound and valid and has been offered by better men than I.

      As for the "draw all men", I understand you come from a Calvinistic background and therefore take exception to the notion that God might actually love and draw all men to Himself to accept a salvation He has provided for the sins of the whole world per 1 John 2:2. I gave up that debate because you never really asked a question and, instead, wanted to focus on a single word (PAS) which I stated earlier is not an approach to this topic I'm willing to take since words mean nothing outside the context of a sentence which is also obscure outside the context of a paragraph or unit of thought per the line I paraphrased from William Mounce.

      As for the sacred/secular debate, I understand that you again take issue with my approach and I again apologize that my argumentation style offends you, but I'm really not prepared to defend it at this point.

      If you understand my strategy then you should also understand it is unapologetically not presuppositional and I have no intention of limiting myself to any single form or method. I use the methods and arguments I think best fit what I am attempting to convey.

      I'm actually a programmer, not a "preacher" and I'm glad for that because I would never want to be known as such. I also haven't banned you nor do I plan to but I do grow weary of our encounters as I don't see us getting very far. Perhaps it's just me but if we are to continue talking past each other perhaps it is better if we just agree to disagree.

      • Wes: As for the Kalaam argument, I never stated that my goal was to go from non-theism to belief in Jesus.

        Joel: Nor did I find fault with your argument for trying to prove "Jesus." You're introducing an element that was never there. In fact, you stated that it was proof for the existence of God. But how it can possibly be since God is found nowhere in the premises of the argument. Agreed?

        Wes: As for the "draw all men", I understand you come from a Calvinistic background and therefore take exception to the notion that God might actually love and draw all men to Himself to accept a salvation.

        Joel: You misunderstand. I come from an exegetical perspective and have lexical support for my understanding of "all" and "draw." You have none and when challenged to provide lexical support, you offered none.

        Continued…

      • Wes: I gave up that debate because you never really asked a question.

        Joel: This is untrue. I asked you for lexical support for your understanding of "draw" and also asked you to confirm whether everyone without distinction is a legitimate understanding of "all," both points of which you evaded.

        Wes: and, instead, wanted to focus on a single word (PAS) which I stated earlier is not an approach to this topic.

        Joel: Oh really? Is that why you have a heading in that post titled, "Does all mean all?" With as much charity as I can muster, I must say, Wes, that you are confused. It may not be intentional. I'm sure you're a busy guy and perhaps have forgotten the exchange, but you're confused.

        Continued…

      • Wes: I again apologize that my argumentation style offends you, but I'm really not prepared to defend it at this point.

        Joel: Well, at least you're honest.

        Wes: If you understand my strategy then you should also understand it is unapologetically not presuppositional and I have no intention of limiting myself to any single form or method. I use the methods and arguments I think best fit what I am attempting to convey.

        Joel: Does the Bible ever inform your apologetic method or do you always use a whatever-I-think-best approach?

        Wes: I also haven't banned you nor do I plan to but I do grow weary of our encounters as I don't see us getting very far.

        Joel: I'll stop commenting, Wes. Thanks for allowing my comments. Perhaps we'll have another exchange some day. God bless.

Leave a Reply