Charles Darwin Disagrees with Homosexuality
By Nathan Tabor
New Orleans’ annual week-long homosexual flesh-fest and orgy in the
streets,
widely touted as the Southern Decadence Gay Pride Festival, had been
welcomed by city officials in years past because of the large influx of
cash
it brought into the economy. But this year the gala event had to be
postponed by circumstances beyond their politically correct control –
Hurricane Katrina.
As I write this column on the afternoon of Labor Day 2005, a handful of
homosexuals in the French Quarter are holding a scaled-down “Decadence
Parade,” anyway. With dead bodies and human excrement floating in
flooded
streets throughout the devastated city, these hardy partiers refuse to
be
deterred.
“It’s New Orleans, man. We’re going to celebrate,” declared one,
wearing a
sombrero and carrying a guitar. The New York Times described this
plucky
group as “lingering signs of a fading vivacity” in the Big Easy.
But, you see, that’s what being “gay” is all about. Taking big risks
with a
great likelihood of known disastrous consequences. Homosexual males
live, on
average, to the ripe old age of 42, hardly a demographic for the
cautious
planner. They live a destructive lifestyle and are destroyed by it,
which
strikes me as a curious form of blindness to reality. No fear for them,
of
God or nature.
This little side note, based as it is on the latest headlines, is
really
just an introduction to segue into the following premise. Not only are
homosexuals seemingly blind to their moral conflict with Christianity,
they
are also blind to their natural conflict with our modern secular god,
Science, particularly as espoused by the disciples of Charles Darwin,
the
prophet of evolution.
Proponents of the gay agenda like to say their lifestyle is genetically
determined and they don't have a choice in the matter. Most homosexuals
reject God so they can’t claim they were “created” the way they are.
From
this we can conclude that most agree with the tenets of Darwin’s
evolutionary theory.
However, this position poses a logical contradiction. Just consider the
basic scientific definition of Evolution, which is, according to the
MedTerms Online Medical Dictionary: “the continuing process of change,
especially in reference to natural selection.”
Under Darwin's process of natural selection, all “beings” – as opposed
to
the outmoded religious idea of “creatures” – are continually adapting
to
their natural environment in order to have a better chance of
surviving. The
weakest and most poorly adapted die off, while the strongest and most
improved survive long enough to mate. Their offspring inherit their
genes,
and thus the species improves from one generation to the next.
Darwin “noted that successful species produce more offspring in each
generation than are needed to replace the adults who die . . . The
species
would thus have changed or evolved to favor traits that favor survival
and
reproduction,” MedTerms explains.
This means that not only must these beings be able to reproduce
sexually,
they must actually do so, for evolution to work as posited. Under
evolution,
then, successful reproduction is the key. Homosexuals would cease to
exist
because their sexual practices are such that they do not produce
natural
offspring.
Therein lies the quandary, then, for the gay activist seeking to make
his
intellectual case for respectability based on science and genetics.
These
secular gods have abandoned him to oblivion. By their iron laws of
Natural
Selection, he cannot possibly exist, let alone be genetically preserved
and
determined.
This poses a huge dilemma for both the homosexuals and the
evolutionists.
Are the evolutionists willing to weaken their dogma by accepting the
homosexuals as a genetically determined subspecies? If evolutionists
accept
homosexuals, the whole Darwinian argument falls apart.