probably views The Duggars as a model family
Not too long ago, two prominent Christian American families were holding out their values regarding child rearing as exemplary - the Palins of Alaska with Sarah's abstinence only advice, and the Duggars of Arkansas with their home chaperoning of dating. As you know, both families failed to avoid the problems the rest of us deal with without Christian homes and were publicly shamed.
Heterosexuals outnumber gays by a wide margin so the percentage of a disease in the heterosexual group will be lower.
You don't seem to understand the difference between absolute numbers (counting numbers) and relative numbers (percentages). Whichever group was most numerous, either could have had the greater fraction of whatever was being counted.
if most people engaged in homosexual sex, we would be less than the half.
The problem with that as an argument against homosexuality -and I don't know that you are making one - is that being homosexual doesn't mean not wanting or having children. If gay men and women could only become parents by engaging in heterosexual intercourse, that's what they would do even if they never did that again before or after. Of course, IVF is an alternative for those who prefer to avoid the sex.
Also, I know a lot of gay men and couples, and most are parents from earlier marriages. Many men attempt to take that mainstream path only to discover that they prefer something else.
And then there are the bisexuals.
Christians do try to warn against homosexuality and they would help save lives if they were listened to
We get that from all of the religions - if only people would take our advice. Even when their advice is good, the religion is ineffectual at promulgating it. Have you seen the Baha'i and their plan for world unity? Same thing. They are ineffectual, and when asked about it, they say that it's because nobody listens to them. Besides, the world isn't lacking in ideas about how to fix its problems. The problem is that it often lacks the means to effect them in the face of resistance. In the case of the humanist vision, which includes the modern, liberal, secular state and their alliances with one another, it's the religions and authoritarian regimes that keep man from moving forward in that vision of maximal societal tolerance and individual freedom. Humanists could say the same - if only you would listen to us - but they don't, because why bother? They just keep on keeping on.
never being, or even behaving very Christian before
You probably see becoming that as a good thing. Christians can differ from humanists in a few ways. Humanists are not homophobic, atheophobic, misogynistic, anti-intellectual, or theocratic (authoritarian). Look at America's white evangelicals - some of the worst people not guilty of a crime in the country. Look at MAGA Christian conservatives, their racism and their antidemocratic proclivities - also terrible people. Then there's the prominent televangelists like Robertson, Swaggart, Falwell, and Graham and now the prosperity Christians. Despicable hypocrites.
Calling somebody's values Christian does not flatter them in my estimation. Here's an excerpt from a post I left this week that addresses this area further:
He: "Religion, having been the main factor in the preservation of values, if religion was suddenly abandoned on a large scale then society would rapidly revert back to earlier times in evolution.
Me: "This is a very pervasive, harmful myth. It's the basis of people complaining that the world has become more immoral since state-led prayer was removed from public schools, but the evidence is that that praying accomplishes nothing. They never stopped praying in the Catholic church as it was abusing children and covering it up for centuries. More religion is never the answer, and wherever we have had less of it, it pays off, such as with the advent of the secular state, and where its removal from investigations of reality unleashed science. And here you are trying to claim credit for moral thought for the church and its gods when what we actually see from it is an endless trail of immorality and hypocrisy. This myth is why people are shocked at religious moral failures and why they trusted their children with priests. It's why people put religious symbols on their business cards and logos. It's why my neighbor referred to her grandchildren riding ATVs through our woodlands as them having good Christian fun, as if that made it OK. ATVs, forbidden in woodlands, tear up the ground, terrify the wildlife, and made unwelcome noise, but I guess it's all wholesome if you call it Christian and those opposing it become satanic."
I was always at an advantage being born to Christian parents.
I feel the same about my atheist parents. I found religion on my own as a late teen. By that time, I had already developed some critical thinking skills and skepticism, so I had to suspend disbelief to give the religion a fair test of its authenticity. Because I could evaluate evidence, it became apparent that what I was calling the presence of the Holy Spirit was just a euphoric feeling caused by a gifted, charismatic preacher - my first. Without that ability, I'd still be in that cocoon with no means of tunneling out.
He helped start a new religion by writing books with no facts. I’ve recently seen photos of him shaking hands welcoming fanatics into an atheist hall of fame accepting his annual award scheme.
Critical thinkers leave religion to the faithful.
Fanaticism requires a belief to behave fanatically about. Atheists are not fanatics, at least not about atheism. They are unbelievers. Religious zealots, however can be fanatics.
