You need to choose, one or the other.
No, you cannot be both.
You cannot be both a Darwinist, while at the same time being a ‘gay marriage’ proponent.
Why not? Well, it’s quite simple, really.
Belief that homosexuality is a matter of “being born that way” defies Charles Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection.
DARWIN’S THEORY
According to the 19th-Century writer, the “moral faculties of man” are not inherent in each man, but evolved from “social qualities” of man, over time. Those “social qualities” themselves were acquired “through natural selection, aided by inherited habit,” Darwin writes in his blockbuster, The Descent of Man (1).
So, Darwin would like you to believe the reason people have certain moral values today comes from those beliefs being the ones to survive a long line of “natural selection,” where the weaker-moral-coded tribes died off, in the “survival of the fittest” quest for superiority.
Yet, isn’t the idea of “natural selection” such that only those species, humans included, that could best adapt and procreate at large numbers were the ones to survive?
Do you see the inconsistency yet?
A MATTER OF FACT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY TOO BIG TO IGNORE
Fact: Homosexuals cannot reproduce.
By definition, they cannot procreate. Their sex is forever sterile.
SO… HOW DO THESE TWO BELIEFS COINCIDE? THEY DON’T
If you believe same-sex attraction is a genetic trait, then how does it ever get passed on? Those who supposedly have it cannot procreate. If they have no progeny, then no one can inherit the gene.
Moreover, “gay marriage” proponents want us to believe homosexuality is completely natural, and so there is nothing wrong with the behavior. They want to ignore the health risks associated with it and claim those are worth enduring.
Yet, this too defies Darwin’s own theory. He claimed moral instincts evolved in the human race.
“In order that primeval men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should have become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel other animals to live in a body,” rationalizes Darwin (2).
Once they learned to live in community, our long-past ape-like fathers, Darwin’s own theory goes, developed these “social instincts,” not because they were inherent in mankind, but because the good ones worth keeping offered a better chance at survival.
Those who found “social instincts” easy bound themselves together, allowing the loners to die out. He wrote, “Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be affected” (3).
In short, “moral” instincts were preserved precisely because they benefited these forming tribes as a whole, according to Darwin.
Yet, if this were the case, then wouldn’t those who valued homosexuality have died out?
If same-sex attraction is moral because it is natural, then how does that explain homosexuality defying Darwin’s “social instincts” of doing what is best for the tribe as a whole?
If the gay person is not contributing offspring to the tribe, then why keep him around to use up all these valuable resources that Darwin says all these tribes were warring over?
Something doesn’t add up. How could the gay gene survive the natural selection process?
It couldn’t. Because, as I have to conclude based on this simple reasoning, it does not exist.
YOUR TURN
I imagine I will hear from folks on this one.
Please share your thoughts below!
1. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), pt. 1, chap. 5, p. 162.
2. Ibid., p. 161
3. Ibid., p. 161-62
