I smell justification for the continuance of human life. But what if the continuance of human life is not in jeopardy, as is easily the case today, What if it is historically proven time and again that approximately only 10% of humans typically want to exist in a homosexual relationship? You have touched on it not being natural, but if it isn't spreading, and it isn't contagious, and it injures no one, then what is amiss with it, because you surely are pointing to something foul being afoot with it.
Historicall proven? It is a stretch to take studies done in the late 40's (assuming you are citing Kinsey's) and extrapuluate the data to be an all encompassing historical statistic.
Lets start by using the correct statistical data from that study.
10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55
8% of males were exlusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.
4% of white males had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of their interviews.
2 to 6% of females, aged 20-35, were more or less exclusively homosexual in experience/response,
1 to 3% of unmarried females aged 20-35 were exclusively homosexual in experience/response
So taking the most recent world population statistic from the United Nations there is a 49.6%/50.4% split of female to male (respectively) combined with the best case(highest) percentage from the study for each sex you would net 8%. Using the worst case scenario(lowest) percentage from the study you would net 6%.
Now considering that the sample was not random, but rather a very targeted sampling of mostly younger white adults with some college education.
Another interesting fact is that the test group was not equal. There were 11% more female test subjects than male. Therefore, statistically the female sampling would have a lower margin of error.(statistically)
Now lets take a modern day study (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005).
The numbers are much different (lower, 2.3% male, 1.3% female) with a much larger, much more diverse sample from multiple regions of the country.
I do believe it is naturally and morally wrong. But as evidenced in my opinions I am biased more by my
Lets not pretend that our morals do not form our opinions. Some will say (based on their morals) that I am narrow minded, a hater, or perhaps many other comments.
They will state these things as though they are completely objective, neutral, and open minded which could not be further from the truth. At least I am honest and recognize that this is my opinion.