A reader puzzles…

Perhaps you have some biologists who can help me understand this question.

“If the driving force behind evolution is that beneficial characteristics that help a species survive and reproduce get passed on the the next generations, how does homosexuality fit into being a beneficial characteristics that will help the human population reproduce and survive?

I feel as if science is placed in a bind in that either homosexuality is a beneficial characteristic for the survival and reproduction of the human species and therefore the science behind evolution would have to be reworked, or homosexuality is not a beneficial characteristic for the survival and reproduction and should therefore not be encouraged by the medical community.”

I’ve occasionally wondered how partisans of the Darwin Mythos (the theory that evolution is the All-Explaining Theory of Absolutely Everything) square the commitment to the Mythos and the (typically hand-in-hand) commitment to the notion that we must believe and profess that homosexuality is the source and summit of all that is noble, pure, good, and forward-thinking. Intrinsically fruitless sex does not immediately present itself as the fulfillment of the doctrine of survival of the fittest. I’m sure there’s some clever attempt to sort out the contradiction somewhere in the writings of our Chattering Classes. But since I’ve never believed that the atheistic materialist dogmatic philosophy for which evolutionists so often fly cover is true, nor that homosex is good, I’ve never felt any need to reconcile the one with the other. I regard defenses of both as excuses for sin, and I’ve never been mystified that sinners who might otherwise be hostile to one another will temporarily drop their quarrel (as the Pharisees and Herodians, and Pilate and Herod Antipas dropped theirs) to make war on Jesus Christ. There is such a thing as satanic ecumenism.