B. Murphy: "Homosexuality is proof of intelligent design. After all, in a natural environment queers don't reproduce, so the orientation fails the survival of the fittest test, and yet there have been gays for as long as anyone has been paying attention."
This little gem was left on a new Facebook group called Queers for Creationism, and I can't even begin to explain everything that's wrong with this one little run-on sentence. However, I'm going to try, because that's what I do. So, here goes.
"After all, in a natural environment(,) queers don't reproduce, so the orientation fails the survival of the fittest test..." Okay, first things first, this is indicative of a complete misunderstanding of evolution, as are all arguments against it. Survival of the "fittest" is not how evolution works. Evolution works when one species is able to thrive over another within constantly changing environments, thus, survival of the most adaptable is the overall essence of evolution. Secondly, when have homosexual humans ever lived in a "natural environment?" As we look through the annals of history retroactively, we can see that the more primitive the culture, the more intolerant societies have been toward homosexuality. Therefore, most of the time, within history, homosexuals have lived heterosexual lives and have had children with the opposite sex just like straight people.
But in order for this argument to even be applicable, one would have to assume that homosexuality is hereditary, which it is not. It is just another genetic defect, just like having a larger nose than either of your parents, like I do. I'm also taller than either of my parents, have a higher IQ and have much thicker hair. Heredity doesn't really work like most people think it does. Genes, no matter their predisposition, thrive in chaos, and any particular mix of genes can bring any given genetic outcome. If a person is homosexual, it doesn't mean his or her children will be. Another point to bring up is that homosexuality is a rare trait, and therefore it does not effect a majority of a species enough to bring an entire species to a halt.
Another misconception that I'm reading in this is the very common belief about evolution that every genetic defect is beneficial. Many, like Kent Hovind, seem somehow to think that the laws of evolution would require every genetic mutation to be beneficial in order for evolution to work. Quite to the contrary, most genetic defects and mutations are NOT beneficial, it just so happens the ones who DO develop beneficial defects are the ones that survive over the rest. The Orangutan who develops the ability to see the color red from a farther distance from the rest will have a better chance at survival than the rest of the Orangutans, especially over the one that has for some reason developed a third thumb. The Orangutan who sees red from the farthest distance will be able to maintain a much higher standard of health than the rest and will probably breed as an alpha male and pass the trait on to many, many offspring. The Orangutan with the third thumb probably will not, unless the Beta females are really into it.
In the end, homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. It is the nature of many birds, and small and large mammals alike. It is not what could be referred to as a beneficial trait, as it is at a detriment to the survival of a species. But it is not hereditary and it is not a very common defect, so why would it halt a species to any observational degree? It wouldn't and it doesn't, and it's as much proof of intelligent design as how well a banana fits in a human hand or how well black people seem to be more immune to schizophrenia. You, sir, and this group are a joke. You're an insult to the intelligence of not only the rest of the gay community (and traitors thereof) but also an insult to the overall intelligence of the human species. You, Mr. B. Murphy, are indeed BAT-SHIT CRAZY!!!
