Does Gay Sex Prove God & Disprove Evolution?

This comes from a source we’ve never visited before — Metro Weekly, located in Washington, DC. Their website declares that they are “Washington’s LGBTQ Magazine.” Make of that what you will. Their article reveals a dimension of the evolution debate that we didn’t know about before. It’s titled Gay sex proves “existence of God” and discredits evolution, evangelical pastor claims, and they don’t seem to have a comments feature. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A right-wing pastor [Egad, a right-winger!] has claimed that gay people having sex proves the “existence of God.” Jack Hibbs, pastor at Calvary Chapel church in California, made the claim earlier this month in a sermon against evolutionary theory, spotted by RightWingWatch [link omitted].

Then Metro Weekly says:

He [Hibbs, the right-winger, presumably] argued that those who believe in evolution should oppose same-sex marriage because it contravenes “survival of the fittest,” and that there should be “no such thing as homosexuality” because evolution would have “washed that out.”

Good start, huh? After that they tell us:

Offering a bizarrely enticing description of sex between same-sex couples [Gasp!], Hibbs said, “When two people of the same sex get together, it’s out of sheer wanton lust and pleasure only for self. Nothing comes of it. No life can come from it. No family can come from it,” he continued.

The rev seems to know what he’s talking about. His quote continues:

“If you’re an evolutionist, you have to be against same-sex unions,” Hibbs said. “If you’re an evolutionist, what is one of the statements? [Statements?] It’s the survival of the fittest, right? And in evolutionary theory, the survival of the fittest has to procreate.”

Well, dear reader — if you’re a Darwinist, that’s one of your “statements,” isn’t it? Let’s read on:

He added: “But if evolution is true, then there would be no such thing as homosexuality, because over the last 400 trillion, billion, zillion, quadbillion, zillion, nillion, years, evolution would have washed that out.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We assume the rev is a young-Earth kind of guy. Another excerpt:

Then came his most curious assertion: “Homosexuality — LGBTQ actions — prove the existence of God, because God’s word says this would be some of the outcome and actions of the Last Days.”

The Metro Weekly writer disagrees with the rev. He says:

Ignoring Hibbs’ fascination with LGBTQ people enjoying “lust and pleasure” with one another, his argument is somewhat illogical. [Somewhat?] For starters, homosexuality and same-sex sexual activity have been recorded for thousands of years. That’s a fairly lengthy period for humanity’s “Last Days,” given gay sex actually predates Christianity.

Skipping a few other arguments, Metro Weekly ends with this:

So while Hibbs may believe homosexuality should have been “washed out” over a “quadbillion, zillion” years, that’s not the case — and although a number of theories abound as to why that is, none point to “Last Days.”

Your Curmudgeon doesn’t care who wins this argument. Most likely no one ever will. But we’d like to see what ol’ Hambo or the Discoveroids have to say about it.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

14 responses to “Does Gay Sex Prove God & Disprove Evolution?

  1. The bible does not say that in the last days “albatross will lay with albatross,” but they do https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610150/ which is a little hard to understand, unless God is punking us.

    Of course the idea that Homosexuality disproves evolution is based on an absurdly simplistic view of “survival of the fittest.” Homosexuals (of whatever species) may increase the success of their kin group. Also homosexuality may result from complex combinations of genes which are individually favored for other reasons.

  2. Dear Curmudgeon, thank you for finding this, which should be nominated for an award for the Most Convoluted Bit Of Nonsense in the history of the presently known universe, not to mention a wildly insane estimate of the length of time humans have been around. Oh, and the fact that evolution will work just fine as long as the number of individuals in the population that exclusively practice same sex activity isn’t too great. A better mathematician that I could probably determine what that proportion is. Anyway, your skill and patience in finding such amusement is appreciated.

  3. abeastwood, it’s certainly one of the strangest things I ever found. The thanks go to Google. They index that stuff, and lately they sometimes don’t index what I write.

  4. longshadow

    Evolution = “Survival of the adequate,” not just the most fit.

    More accurately, the evolutionary filtering process preferentially (on average) DE-selects the unfittest for survival in the population.

    Furthermore, the argument used by the pastor presumes that homosexuality is a genetically inherited trait, yet he cites no evidence to support this. If it is not genetically inherited, his argument fails.

    The fact that adult homosexuals were naturally born to presumably hetero parents tends to argue that it is not particularly a heritable trait. And the fact that no one has ever identified a “queer-gene” responsible for homosexuality puts the hypothesis further in doubt.

    Is preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla a heritable trait? Why would it be, if for the vast majority of human history, there has never been any ice cream at all?

    The argument also assume sex is ONLY for procreation, and serves no other purpose. Has the pastor never heard of “Dual Use” technology? Who is he to deny the Great Designer of employing such novelties?

  5. Victor Hutchison

    Many animals have some individuals that show same sex behavior. How would this writer handle that fact?

  6. Victor Hutchison, the article mentioned it, and said that it seemed to be irrelevant.

  7. I almost hate to say this, but there is a mutant of Drosophila, the common fruit fly used in genetics, in which males try to make with males. This shows that homosexual behavior, at least in flies, can be genetic. Humans of course is a different and much more complicated story, but the evidence points to a biological basis and not a person’s choice.

    As far as fitness is concerned, most people have no clue what that means. Usually one thinks of the definition used in Social Darwinism, which Darwin himself was against. Fitness in biological terms is differential reproduction. A person’s fitness depends on how many offspring they leave. I have no biological children of my own, so my fitness is zero (my 42 years teaching biology has contributed to many students though). On the other hand, my wife’s parents have a high degree of fitness producing 10 siblings and too many grandkids to count.

  8. longshadow

    It may be biological, but that doesn’t make it necessarily heritable. It could be random “mutation” in some % of the human population every generation. Since it is the result of random process, there is no “gene” for it to be passed on, and thus, the fact they do not procreate has no effect on the % in the next generation.

  9. If evolution were true, there would be no life on Earth. Hear me out on this. Survival of the fittest dictates that only the fittest survive. Jack LaLanne would be the fittest and therefore the only one to survive. He would have no one with which to reproduce. Therefore there would be no more life left on Earth after Jack LaLanne.

  10. As the reverend should know, homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom do occur and are well documented. There goes that wack doodle claim.

  11. @longshadow:

    “Furthermore, the argument used by the pastor presumes that homosexuality is a genetically inherited trait, yet he cites no evidence to support this. If it is not genetically inherited, his argument fails.

    The fact that adult homosexuals were naturally born to presumably hetero parents tends to argue that it is not particularly a heritable trait. And the fact that no one has ever identified a ‘queer-gene’ responsible for homosexuality puts the hypothesis further in doubt.
    . . . . .
    Since it is the result of random process, there is no ‘gene’ for it to be passed on, and thus, the fact they do not procreate has no effect on the % in the next generation.”

    I don’t know what closet you’ve been living in but, fyi, homosexuals — male and female — have been procreating for at least centuries if not millennia.

    Also consider this — the “queer-gene” may simply be recessive, capable of being passed on for generations without being expressed until it pairs up with another of its ilk.

    (Anecdotally, I have personally known several sets of gay siblings)

  12. #Random

    I don’t know what closet you’ve been living in but, fyi, homosexuals — male and female — have been procreating for at least centuries if not millennia.

    Blame the pastor for that one. He snuck that one in there in between all of the other baloney and nobody noticed until now. Too much baloney to keep track of.

  13. Dave Luckett

    Evolutionary theory would expect that there is some benefit to the species from having some of its members bisexual or entirely homosexual – and so there is. In humans, the benefit bears on the single greatest commitment we make, as a species – the extraordinary amount of resources and time it takes to rear our relatively few children to physical and social maturity. Per child, this commitment is a quantum leap beyond that of any other species on the planet.

    Ever heard the maxim, “It takes an entire village to raise a child”? Well, it takes an entire family, at least. Children can benefit from the input of bachelor uncles and maiden aunts, including those who are homosexual. A human community benefits from having members whose life-effort is not put into that task. Children with that benefit are more likely to survive and reproduce – so some level of homosexuality is selected for.

    Now, whether that is a genetic or a learned trait is irrelevant to the argument. Statistically, it is a benefit overall, which is all that’s needed.

    So the Reverend is simply wrong, as Reverends frequently are. He simply doesn’t understand evolution, as Reverends usually don’t. He doesn’t recognise his own incompetence, as those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger can’t. So what else is new?

  14. bewilderbeast

    Is it true that if you count a very holy obedient creationist’s kids you know how many orgasms he has had to date?

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s