Anglican Samizdat

April 26, 2010

Richard Dawkins explains how the gay gene was preserved

Filed under: homosexuality,Richard Dawkins — David Jenkins @ 7:00 pm
Tags: , ,

Richard Dawkins, in keeping with the contemporary liberal credendum, assumes that there must be a gay gene. In this brief video he struggles valiantly to explain why the gay gene was not selected out of his Darwinian universe; it should have been, since homosexuals would not have reproduced.

His suggested answers are below and appear to have been extracted from the Beano Comic Book of Weird Science:

  1. The gay uncle theory: a prehistoric gay equivalent of the eunuch who looks after the females and their offspring while the butch males are out hunting. They passed on gay genes to the children by protecting their relatives’ children who would have carried the gay gene, demonstrating – albeit tenuously -the Darwinian advantage of the protective gay uncle for cavemen; it doesn’t explain the last 6000 years.
  2. The gay gene was passed on by homosexuals who had sex with the dominant males’ females on the side; homosexuality was used merely as a cunning ploy to steal other men’s’ women.
  3. The gay gene only produces homosexual behaviour given the right social stimulation – such as today. Dawkins almost slips into blasphemy on this one by saying there is no gay gene; he quickly recovers by sputtering that there is a gay gene now even if it once used to be an animal tracking gene which wasn’t allowed to express itself properly. Of course, this leaves the original problem: once the gay gene expresses itself in gay behaviour, homosexuals would be selected out – they don’t seem to have been.

So there you have it: the great high priest of Darwinian Dogma has spoken; all nonsense perhaps, but atheists, please genuflect.



  1. The point of this posting is….to say that homosexuality is a chosen behaiour and optional? I haven’t met any gay people who had been given a choice. If so, they will admit, they wouldn’t have chosen it.

    Comment by Derek — April 27, 2010 @ 10:02 am

  2. I have found it is quite natural to drink excessively, to hate those who hate me and to lust after women to whom I am not married. I did not choose these behaviours or feelings, I just have them; I guess you could say they are simply a part of who I am.

    Because I do not choose these traits, does that mean they are good and beneficial? If I choose to deny these urges, am I denying my true self?

    Comment by Denis — April 27, 2010 @ 11:20 am

  3. Every day is full of choices, and by the choices we make we have complete and total control of our actions. For homosexual people to say that they have no choice is simply a lie. They could choose to not give into lustful, sinful behaviour. Just like I choose to not give into lustful sinful behaviour so that I remain faithful to my wife.

    I find it interesting the Derek comments “they will admit, they wouldn’t have chosen it”. Am I to understand by this that even those who support homosexual behaviour that it is somehow not desirable, even by those who commit such behaviour?

    And before anyone starts claiming that people are “born homosexual” they should read the well researched and scientifically supported letter of the American College of Pediatricians that was sent to every school board in the USA.

    Comment by AMPisAnglican — April 27, 2010 @ 11:49 am

  4. Being gay is not a behaviour. Neither is being straight. How we choose to live our lives according to the values of the Gospel and the teaching of Jesus is a behaviour. It is not a matter of the undesirability of being gay. I am simply saying that many gay people would not choose to suffer the rejection and loneliness that is so often a part of their lives.

    Comment by Derek — April 27, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

  5. Engaging in any sexual activity is a choice. Thus, living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice.

    There is no scientific evidence of there being a “homosexual gene”. This is simply a load of bunk made up by pseudo sceince with an agenda. The fact that there are many people who have lived homosexual lifestyles and been able to stop is strong evidence that genetics does not dictate behaviour. If genetics did dictate behaviour, than everyone with the “homosexual gene” would be unable to live a normal and natural life.

    Which brings me to my concluding point. Homosexual behaviour is not normal, not natural, and most certainly not acceptable to God.

    One last thing that I would like to say. The word “gay” actually means “happy”, so stop using it to mean anything other than happy.

    Comment by AMPisAnglican — April 28, 2010 @ 10:54 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: