God, Evolution and the Gay Agenda

I wrote this as part of a comment to a post on Facebook regarding the Indiana RFPA and it spurred a thought:

“The rabid anti-religionists scream this is intolerance when what they are actually campaigning for in their rage-hate is acceptance. Tolerance is allowing the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. Acceptance is to believe or come to recognize something as valid or correct. Christian belief requires tolerance of the existence of homosexuality, it does not demand acceptance, therefore opposition to the gay lifestyle or gay marriage isn’t “hate”, it is principle. A business refusing to cater a gay wedding is not “hating gays”, it is acting on its owner’s principles. The minute people are forced to abandon their beliefs simply because another group wants to legitimize a certain behavior, we are no longer free.”

The thought was this: do societies have the right to reject people or behaviors inconsistent with the goals or good health of that society?

A person’s race is a matter of genetics. No one can become white or black or stop being either as a matter of choice – race is not behavior. It may be true that a gay person is “born that way” but the physical manifestation of homosexuality (gay unions) has been determined by the majority of societies in history to be counterproductive to the goals of those societies and have shunned or banned that particular disposition. One must consider the possibility the rejection of homosexuality has more to do with nature than religion.

The most primary goal of a society is the continuation and furtherance of that society through reproduction (that is actually a goal of the all living things) – that is how membership in society is replaced and expanded. Since it is impossible in nature for human same sex couples to procreate, this coupling was rejected by societies as unhelpful in achieving that primary goal. It appears that this is less a “religious” judgment per se, it seems to be a functional decision based on human biology.

I am basing this line of reasoning on natural evolutionary biology – I am NOT making the argument that the members of the LGBT community have no contribution to make to society as individuals. I am addressing the “institution” of homosexuality and its failure in a natural procreative perspective.

It seems somewhat selective that the same ideology supporting the mainstreaming of homosexuality also is a staunch believer in evolution. Given the reality of natural human biology and viewed intellectually and dispassionately, it is a scientific fact that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end and as a result will always be a minority deviation in the history of human evolution – yet they choose to ignore their own logic and blame religion rather than nature for the rejection of homosexuality.

That brings us back to my original question: do societies have the right to reject or discourage aspects not productive to their ends and promote or encourage aspects that do?

I would argue that they do.

The common assertion the LGBT community makes is that they are “born that way” and because of that, homosexuality is the same as race. While being “born this way” may be true, it must also be recognized that this is the same argument being made to pursue normalization and societal acceptance of pedophilia. I want to be clear – I am NOT equating homosexuality with pedophilia. I am simply noting that if every behavior must be accepted on the basis that a person is “born that way”, society would necessarily have to accept pedophiles and their behavior as unquestionable and unassailable.

Yet society doesn’t accept all behaviors. It deems pedophilia as a deviant and socially damaging behavior. It is also important to note that being a pedophile is not illegal, acting on that impulse is – the behavior is considered illegitimate, not the individual. From a purely philosophical perspective, isn’t a homosexual person who rejects pedophilia actually legitimizing discrimination by saying “my deviation from society is acceptable but yours isn’t?”

Viewed from a purely biological perspective, race and being gay are not equivalent. Eliminating racism is a valid goal because interracial heterosexual couples are capable of supporting the procreative goal of society, something no homosexual couple can do; therefore, it is plausible that while a society may recognize the LGBT community as a natural minority and tolerate it, it may also choose not to accept the homosexual lifestyle.

It is an unassailable fact that humans adapt to and recognize natural laws as a mechanism for the survival and prospering of the species. Those of us who believe in God believe that He is, as Jefferson wrote, “Nature and Nature’s God” and His laws are the same natural laws designed as a road map for the survival and prospering of the human species. Whether one believes in the existence of God or simply in Nature, it seems that both have established a similar position on homosexuality – that it will exist in a minority of the species and it will always remain a deviant minority because it has no procreative value.

Those who choose to attack Christianity for its position do so in opposition to these natural facts. They fail to realize that the tolerance and inclusion of Christianity (love the sinner, hate the sin) is a far kinder approach than that of the natural world where dead branches of the Tree of Life are summarily discarded.

6 thoughts on “God, Evolution and the Gay Agenda

  1. My semi-literate essay posted above generated a quick email from a LGBT person (who evidently reads classical liberal blogs) taking issue with my characterization of the LGBT community as a “deviant minority”.

    I defended my remarks by stating as fact that homosexual unions do deviate from the mainstream of society where the vast majority of unions are heterosexual. In this, I informed them, I am not making a value judgement, I am applying the textbook definition of “deviation” – that being “departing from an established course or accepted standard”.

    I supported the “minority” designation through the use of the most credible data available. It comes from Dr. Gary J. Gates of the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. Dr. Gates is a recognized expert on the demography of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) population.
    In September of 2014, the Williams Institute noted:

    “Estimates of the percent of adults who identified as LGB or LGBT varied across surveys from between 2.2% and 4.0%, implying that between 5.2 million and 9.5 million individuals aged 18 and older are LGBT.”

    Even though 9.5 million is on the high side of the estimate, in a total population of 320 million (roughly 230 million or so over 18 according to the US census) that is only 4% versus the 96% who do not identify as such. Factually, that makes the LGBT community a statistical minority.

    Ergo my factual characterization of the LGBT community as a “deviant minority”.

    http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/lgbt-demogs-sep-2014/

    • And……given the techniques they used to force their Extremist views on the Public and harass the Indiana Pizza maker and thus CHANGE already passed legislation via MOB tactics and threats….they are appearing more and more like a….. DEVIOUS minority.

      The LGBT-Al Capone-Saul Alinsky minority.

    • Ah, that just reminded me of William Gates.

      Like Dolce and Gabbana, most my gay friends appreciate the importance of a mother-and-father household, as they understand and appreciate natural law. That said, in the end, when a child has waited 17 years in an orphanage to have a family, that child just wants love and support, regardless of the sex of the parents.

      What I find so disappointing and ironic is that the very people bitching and moaning the loudest, go off to adopt a black baby from Africa (that’s what’s popular, you see) or impregnate some surrogate in order that they attain their perfect Aryan creation. So much money have they. So much hypocritical money; which is exactly why they are so pro Planned Parenthood (no parenting involved as it is the dissolution of the lives that could maybe, possibly make a difference in this world…….just not with the Hollywood-Adopt-an-African or Build-your-Baby types.)

      I’d really like to adopt a kid; there are so many in FL! I do worry about the financial burdens of mental-health issues. Then again, they may very well feel right at home.

  2. Utah,

    Many will not understand that what follows is simply naked truth, but I don’t care. It is reality, so:

    If a person wants to accept God, then homosexuality is a sin (i.e. violation of God’s laws).

    If a person wants to reject God, then homosexuality is deviancy — by definition. Natural selection would NOT favor it. Therefore, it is a deviation from the norm and meant to be eliminated from nature. So, again, no defense can be found.

    If someone wants to reject God and Natural Law, then they have to face the consequences of their actions. they are basing ‘right’ on the principles of ‘might-makes-right,’ so if the majority says they are to be eliminated — even by force — they have no grounds on which to object. This is because their own ideology is being applied against them. So if they do not like it, that inclination to object points to the truth of God and/or Natural Law. The result, STILL no defense of homosexuality.

    THE POINT: homosexuality is nothing more than a choice to live in rebellion to God and Natural Law — period. If it weren’t, then every argument the homosexual community uses to justify itself can be applied to any deviant ‘lifestyle’ — including the pedophile. After all, they are just ‘loving’ the child, and children need and welcome love. So the pedophile is not harming anyone, just following Christ’s example of loving and especially loving the children.

    [note: if anyone fails to see the sarcasm in that last part of my comment and replies as though I am serious, they will be welcoming a rather unfriendly response from me.]

    • [note: if anyone fails to see the sarcasm in that last part of my comment and replies as though I am serious, they will be welcoming a rather unfriendly response from me.]

      Unless of course they are muslim or “gay’-homies because as we know from Sally Kohn they bees “protected identities”…… or they are cause they say they are and the Lawless judiciary and gov’t just acts like it is so.

      /sarc of course, ’cause I’m not a protected identity.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s