evolution and homosexuality

Why is it that evolutionists are in support of Gay issues? [warning: Characterization following] OK, so evolution is used in support of Atheism--if God didn't create the world, then he must not be there. Atheism is often times used to reject religious morality or to defend personal morality which is in opposition to religious morality. That is to say, if there is no God, I can live as I wish, and since evolution is true, there is no God; therefore I can live as I wish [this is certainly not typical of all Atheists, though there are a number who have gone on record as having said such]. For most areas of morality, this line of thinking--though I obviously disagree--makes sense, at least in the construct of its own worldview. The two areas where it makes the least sense, and these are typically the most contested and sought after issues, are Abortion and Homosexuality.
The problem is not that Atheism cannot support homosexuality or abortion, only evolution can't, which is the usual support for Atheism. I will only comment briefly on abortion. Evolution of the species is based on natural selection and survival of the fittest. This means that one group must gain some advantage over those around them and must pass this feature on to subsequent generations. Thus, in an evolutionary sense, abortion is nearly the same as suicide. The same is true of homosexuality. By definition, homosexuals do not have offspring. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality is feeble. Furthermore, in an evolutionary worldview, reproducing, strong specimens should not try to protect the weak--the homosexual--in any sense of the word.

Why then do those who believe in evolution and the natural progression of the world so very often argue in favor of homosexuality and abortion/infanticide? Those things are least natural to survival. While I do not agree that evolution explains our origins, I do believe that bears us along through history, in a limited sense.

pascal

The world judges a great number of things in a state of natural ignorance, the true seat of man. Science has two extremes, which meet. The first is the pure state of natural ignorance at birth. The other is the point reached by those with noble souls who, having explored everything man is capable of knowing, realize they know nothing and return to their original state of ignorance. But it is a wise ignorance of self-awareness. Those who are in between, who have discarded their original state of natural ignorance but who have not yet reached the other, have a smattering of sufficient knowledge, and presume to understand it all. They upset the world, and judge everything badly. Ordinary people and clever people make up the world; the first group scoff at the world and are scoffed at in return. They misjudge everything and the world does not. Pascal Pensees 117

the philosophical room

Suppose for a moment that you have grown up in a sealed room, no windows, no doors. You have never been outside this room and have no recollection of how you managed to get into the room in the first place. With you in this room are several other people who have also been there all of their lives with no recollection of their origins.

As you grow and live you and your friends begin to think and form theories about your situation. You all talk and decide that the four things around you are called walls and above and below you are called ceiling and floor. On this you all agree. Where you do not agree is on what is outside the room and how you got inside the room. Some say that you have always been there and there is nothing outside of the walls, pure void. Some say that the have no clue how you got there, but whatever the hard stuff is that makes the walls must extend indefinitely. Theory after theory is posited about your present situation, how you got there, and what must be done to get out, if there is an "out" at all.

One day, while you are discussing the ups and downs of your favorite theories something happens. You hear something on the ceiling. This provides no small amount of consternation for those who have said that there is no outside. There is a large cracking sound and suddenly a man falls though the new hole in through the roof hitting the floor with a thud. This man lived with you for a while and joined in your philosophical discussions. He began to contradict some of the theories and teach his own. Some of the best known and most widely accepted theories he didn't like. What to do?

At this point, there is only one thing you must decide. Do you trust him and believe what he is saying, or not?