Richard Dawkins explains how the gay gene was preserved

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.

Advertisement

Discrimination in the Gay Softball World Series

Apparently, bisexual men are not gay enough to compete:

Three bisexual men filed a lawsuit in Seattle, Washington against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance (NAGAAA) claiming they were discriminated against for not being gay enough to participate in the organization’s Gay Softball World Series, The Seattle Times reported Tuesday evening.

Three bisexual men filed a lawsuit in Seattle, Washington against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance (NAGAAA) claiming they were discriminated against for not being gay enough to participate in the organization’s Gay Softball World Series, The Seattle Times reported Tuesday evening.

The three men who filed the suit, Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ, claim their softball team, D2, was disqualified from participating in the softball championship because the alliance ruled they were “nongay.”

It’s hard to know what to say about this, other than to note how unfair it is of the NAGAAA to take the wind out the sails of anyone trying to be funnier than them.

Homosexuality a major cause of priestly paedophilia in the church

From Lifesite News:

A must-read paper produced by Human Life International Research Director Brian Clowes has closed the book on the question of whether homosexuality in the priesthood is a root cause of the clerical sexual abuse crisis.  Citing numerous research studies, Clowes demonstrates that homosexuality is strongly linked to sexual abuse of minors, and that celibacy is definitely not a cause of pedophilia.

Clowes cites studies, including:

– Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the USA’s preeminent sexual researcher, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.

– A recent study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2.4% of men attracted to adults prefer men.  In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys.  Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles.”

– A study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that, “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena.  The first of these is homosexuality … Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%.  In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.”

– A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that “… the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men … the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.”

– A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”

If the Roman Catholic church does weed out homosexual priests to protect children, will those howling for blood – the dripping with sanctimony Hitchens-Dawkins conglomerate – applaud or shriek “homophobia”. Let me guess.

Gay day of silence

From here:

Gay Day of Silence a Waste of Tax Dollars, Critics Say.

Thousands of public schools nationwide will allow students affiliated with a gay and lesbian advocacy group to sponsor an anti-bullying “Day of Silence” on Friday, a demonstration some socially conservative family organizations say is a disruptive waste of taxpayer dollars and a reason to keep kids out of school.

GLSEN — the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network — is organizing the 15th annual Day of Silence for April 16, encouraging students to remain mute during classes to call attention to verbal and physical abuse of gay students.

When I read the headline I had high hopes that this was to be a day when homosexuality evangelists would keep quiet, but no.

Peter Tatchell defends Christian’s right to criticise homosexuality

The law in the UK seems to have abandoned common sense:

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has defended a Christian street preacher fined £1,000 for saying that homosexuality is a sin.

Baptist Shawn Holes was taken from a busy shopping street in a police van and locked in a cell for the night.

He appeared in court the next day charged with ‘uttering homophobic remarks’ in a breach of the peace that prosecutors said was ‘aggravated by religious prejudice’.

Last night Mr Tatchell attacked the fine as ‘heavy-handed’ and ‘totally disproportionate’.

He said: ‘The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive.

‘Just as people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should have the right to criticise homosexuality. Only incitements to violence should be illegal.’

Mr Holes, an American preacher who was travelling around Britain with a dozen colleagues, was arrested in Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, on March 18.

After discussing general Christian topics, the married father-of-two, a former wedding photographer, was fielding questions from the crowd.

When asked about his views on gays, Mr Holes, 47, from Lake Placid in New York State, said he told questioners: ‘Homosexuals deserve the wrath of God – and so do all other sinners – and they are going to a place called Hell.’

A spokesman for the Crown Office – the Scottish prosecution service – said: ‘We take all crimes of prejudice extremely seriously.’

When Peter Tatchell’s view of a Christian repeating what the Bible says about homosexuality is more tolerant than that of the police, it seems fairly obvious that something has gone badly wrong with British justice.

The Scottish prosecution service takes all crimes of prejudice extremely seriously except its own.

Christian B and B couple face legal action for turning away homosexuals

Equality hell in action:

A Christian bed-and-breakfast owner is facing legal action for breaching discrimination laws after turning away a gay couple.

Susanne Wilkinson said it was ‘against her convictions’ to let the couple share a double bed in the home where she lives with her husband and children.

But she was reported to police after refusing a room to Michael Black, 62, and John Morgan, 56.

Mr Morgan said he and Mr Black, who live together in Brampton, Cambridgeshire, were considering suing not for money but ‘for a principle’.

The principle in question appears to be the grinding into oblivion anyone who is not prepared to accept homosexual activity as other than aberrant – and Christians are in the direct line of fire. This isn’t the first instance.

UK: Catholic charity wins gay adoption ruling

From the BBC:

A Catholic adoption society has won a High Court battle over laws forcing it to consider gay couples as parents.

Leeds-based Catholic Care had warned it would be forced to give up its work finding homes for children if it had to comply with the legislation.

Its plea to be allowed an exemption was opposed by the Charity Commission.

However, Mr Justice Briggs has allowed Catholic Care’s appeal and ordered the commission to reconsider the case in the light of his judgement.

Predictably, the gay rights group, Stonewall wasn’t too happy:

Jonathan Finney, head of external affairs at Stonewall, said: “It’s unthinkable that anyone engaged in delivering any kind of public or publicly funded service should be given licence to pick and choose service users on the basis of individual prejudice.

“It’s clearly in the best interests of children in care to encourage as wide a pool of potential adopters as possible.”

Is it in the best interests of children to consider placing them with a same-sex couple? Not according to Baroness Deech, family lawyer and chairman of the Bar Standards Board:

Same sex parents are bad for children if they deprive them of the influence of a father or mother, she said.

She warned that gay or lesbian parents cannot be best for the welfare of children if there is no contact with adults of another sex.

Lady Deech spoke of her ‘unease’ about the laws on homosexual couples. The former chief of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority criticised recent laws on in vitro fertilisation that have given new rights to gay partners……

‘There is a wealth of research showing that children need fathers, not just two parents. Children need to see complementary roles, the relationship between the sexes, a microcosm of society, as they grow up.’

And so it begins

The UK government, under the guise of it’s Equality Mania, has lifted the ban on same-sex marriages in churches. What will happen next?

Traditionalist bishops and peers fear that vicars could be taken to court and accused of discrimination if they turn down requests to hold civil partnerships on religious premises.

Their concerns have been raised following a landmark vote by peers that will allow the ceremonies for same-sex couples to be held in places of worship for the first time.

In the interests of pressing home my advantage, if I were a gay man determined to legitimise my lifestyle, I would organise a series of gay church “marriages” as test cases; and sue the vicars if they refused to comply.

Homosexuals protest that the Roman Catholic Church is too Roman Catholic

From the BBC:

Hundreds of Dutch activists have walked out of a Mass in protest at a Roman Catholic policy of denying communion to practising homosexuals.

On this occasion, the church, in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, had already decided not to serve communion, so the protesters left, shouting and singing.

The dispute began earlier this month when a priest in a nearby town refused communion to an openly gay man.

This dispute began during Dutch carnival celebrations earlier in February, when the man chosen to be carnival prince in nearby Reusel was refused communion because of his open homosexuality.

The refusal offended many in the local community.

Several hundred demonstrators, dressed in pink wigs and clothes, left the church in protest.

The man at the centre of the row has said he just wants equal treatment – if he is regarded as a sinner, he wants the priest to refuse communion to all other sinners too.

The man at the centre of the row, rather than come to the Lord’s table as a penitent sinner, wants to argue with God about his particular sinfulness which, presumably, he thinks is so special that it deserves to be affirmed rather than forgiven. That is equal treatment?

Elton John, theologian

Let’s start on a positive note: Elton gets some things right. As the creator of the universe, the Logos, Jesus is quite bright; and Jesus was compassionate and forgiving.

Once Elton moves beyond that, there is just the slightest – the very slightest – chance that he may be allowing his own personal homoerotic perspective cloud his judgement; just a little. After all, why would the Creator of the universe, the One who caused all things to be, the archetype of abundance, who holds everything together through the power of his word, before whom every knee shall bow choose to be incarnate as an example of an evolutionary dead end destined for Darwinian deselection?

In Elton’s own words:

“I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems,” John told the Sunday supplement. “On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don’t know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East — you’re as good as dead.”

Ugandan aversion therapy

Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor has supposedly shown homosexual pornography in his church to let people know “what homosexuals do.” For most of us, it is sufficient to imagine.

I suspect that the well intentioned cleric has made a bit of a blunder; perhaps he was trying to deter his congregation from following suit by exhibiting the undisputable (to a heterosexual) yuck factor; perhaps he genuinely thought his congregation could not make an informed decision without seeing for themselves “what homosexuals do”; or perhaps he is naïve and overzealous.

The usual coterie of LBGT and leftist hangers on have roundly condemned him.

John Bothwell, at one time bishop of the Diocese of Niagara, used to take a similar approach to toughen up his seminary students before agreeing to employ them. Every year he would show ordinands a pornographic homosexual film to introduce them to the real world – at least, his real world. The only people who complained were the audience.

Here is the article from the BBC:

An anti-gay clergyman in Uganda has screened gay pornography in his church, in an attempt to gain support for proposed anti-homosexuality laws.

“We are in the process of legislation and we have to educate ourselves about what homosexuals do,” Pastor Martin Ssempa told the BBC.

Gay rights activists suggested the pastor “needed medical help”.

The anti-gay bill, which proposes the death penalty for some gay people, has caused outrage around the world.

US President Barack Obama described the proposals as “odious”.

Monica Mbaru, from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, roundly condemned the pastor’s behaviour.

“You cannot screen pornographic material to your followers and then want to argue that you are upholding society’s morals,” she told the BBC.

Where are the Anglican protests over homosexuals killed in Iran?

The Anglican Church is in the West is falling all over itself to condemn the homosexuality bill before the Ugandan government. Here is the screech of outrage from the Anglican Church of Canada:

COGS passed a resolution that expressed its dismay and concern over the draft proposed anti-homosexuality bill currently before the parliament of Uganda. COGS resolved to call upon the church of the province of Uganda to oppose this private member’s bill, and called upon the Government of Canada, through the Minister of External Affairs, to convey to the government of Uganda a deep sense of alarm about this fundamental violation of human rights and through diplomatic channels, to press for its withdrawal; and asked the Primate to send this message to the appropriate bodies.

The bill as it stands is draconian and has been opposed by the Anglican Church of Uganda.

What is strange, though, is Iran has been routinely hanging homosexuals for the last 30 years with no real trial except an appearance before a sharia judge; and the Anglican Church in the West has not protested at all.

Where is the deep sense of alarm, the dismay, the message to the appropriate bodies? Entirely absent.

Does Fred Hiltz only care about Anglican homosexuals? Perhaps the Anglican Church is not as diverse and inclusive as it would like people to think.

The Church of England votes to give homosexual clergy hookups full benefits

At its recent synod, the Church of England voted to extend pension benefits to clergy in homosexual civil “partnerships”:

Prior to the vote, surviving civil partners of deceased gay clergy could claim pension benefits, but only back to 2005 when the Civil Partnership Act was introduced.

But now the Synod has voted to extend their pension benefits by offering surviving civil partners a pension based on all of their deceased partner’s pensionable service, equating them with widows and widowers.

The change means the Church of England will go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

One Synod member, who asked to remain anonymous, said conservative Synod members had deliberately withheld from taking to the floor to speak against the motion for fear of reprisals.

“They didn’t dare to. There would have been screams of homophobia if anyone had dared oppose it,” he said.

It’s good to know that the CofE is an inclusive church where all are free to speak their mind – as long as they maintain the harmony of the zeitgeist.

The Times, notes:

The Church allows gay clergy to register their civil partnerships, but requests that they remain celibate.

Nudge nudge.

How many homosexual clergy are there in the CofE?

In the London and Southwark dioceses, up to one in five clergy is thought to be gay, according to Canon Giles Goddard, co-founder of the lobby group Inclusive Church.

In Britain as a whole, the percentage of homosexuals is just 6%:

Six per cent of the population, or about 3.6 million Britons, are either gay or lesbian, the government’s first attempt to quantify the homosexual population has concluded.

So in the dioceses of London and Southwark, 20% of priests are homosexual, whereas in the general population, 6% are homosexual.

Why are there so many homosexuals in the leadership of the Anglican Church? Is it a deliberate recruitment drive by the church; are the robes particularly alluring; is it the funny hats?

Or is it a plot to subvert the only denomination that consistently preaches the true Gospel? No, that can’t be it.

Perhaps it’s the judgement of God as described in Romans: Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Rom 1:28. The ultimate punishment: letting people have their own way.

In the UK, there’s no-one worth voting for

Labour have turned the UK into a training ground for Islamofascist terrorists; the BNP are the next best thing to Nazis; the Liberal Democrats are so naïve that they “Believe in Fairness” and the Tories have become the gay party:

Cameron tells Rowan: Make your Church pro-gay.

Tory leader David Cameron has launched an astonishing attack on the Church of England over its attitudes to homosexuality. In an interview with the gay magazine Attitude, Cameron tells award-winning journalist Johann Hari that ‘our Lord Jesus’ would back equality and gay rights if he were around today. He says he doesn’t want to get into a row with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. ‘But I think the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through – sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom line full essential.’ He also introduces a new phrase to the English language, one that might be current in High Tory circles but not one I’ve heard before, in reference to Muslim women: ‘Blowing the hijab off them.’

Ho ho. And we all thought he was a politician.

It’s just not like that in England

Maybe it’s got something to do with the weather in the UK: it’s usually grey. In keeping with avoiding black and white, in July 2008, Tom Wright criticised GAFCON in this way:

It is to say, rather, that the GAFCON proposals are not only not needed in England but are positively harmful and indeed offensive. This was more or less what I said on the radio last Thursday, where I distinguished carefully between the American and English situations. AS FAR AS ENGLAND IS CONCERNED, it is damaging, arrogant and irrelevant for GAFCON leaders to say, as they are now doing, ‘choose you this day whom you will serve’, with the implication that there are now only two parties in the church, the orthodox and the liberals, and that to refuse to sign up to GAFCON is to decide for the liberals. Things are just not like that. Certainly not here in England.

The Church of England does seem to be moving full steam ahead in that direction, though:

A proposal to give the partners of gay priests some of the same rights that are awarded to priests’ spouses is likely to spark a new row over homosexuality.

Bishops and senior clergy will debate at next month’s General Synod whether the Church should provide same-sex couples with the same financial benefits as are awarded to married couples.

Traditionalists have expressed strong opposition to the move, which they claim would give official recognition to homosexual relationships.

They warn that affording equal treatment to heterosexual and homosexual couples would undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage.

At present, the Church bars clergy from being in active gay relationships, although it bowed to pressure to allow them to enter civil partnerships on the condition that they are celibate.

If this is sufficiently important to risk the stability – what’s left of it – of the Church of England by bringing a motion to General Synod, there must surely be a significant number of homosexual clergy in “celibate” – nudge, wink – relationships. If this motion is brought to GS, let alone if it passes, it will make a mockery of the CoE’s teaching on marriage.

So, Tom, is it time for  ‘choose you this day whom you will serve’, yet?