Richard Dawkins on Homosexuality...Kind of

alex-cartoon-01-1-may-2007-with-border-small

For Dawkins, the answer to every question is evolution. Why are my eyes brown? Evolution. Why do I like candy? Evolution. Why do I believe in Jesus? Evolution (true story).

Fair enough, at least he is consistent. But hold on a second, here’s a curve ball: Dawkins, why are some men/women attracted to the same sex? Evolution. While Dawkins will incoherently babble about a “gay gene” –even though he knows that there is no scientific evidence of such– I am convinced that this is simply a ploy to maintain his liberal fan-base.

Dawkins knows that evolution is the process by which living organisms develop and evolve from earlier forms for the purpose of survival. I think it goes without saying, but in case math isn’t your strong suit, homosexuality ensures no progeny. In fact, if indeed there is a “gay gene,” this gene is slapping natural selection in the face and saying, “No! I don’t want to play.”

While he claims to be an avid proponent of gay rights, I believe the Bible when it says, out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. I don’t want to take Dawkins out of context so I have compiled a few quotes from his works that I hope will paint a truer picture of his actual feelings.

  • “[Procreation is] the single Utility Function of life...Everything makes sense once you assume that DNA survival is what is being maximized." - River Out of Eden, 106, emphasis mine.
  • “Nature is not interested one way or another in suffering, unless it affects the survival of DNA.” - Ibid., 131, emphasis mine.
  • ‘We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA… That is exactly what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object’s sole reason for living…” - Growing Up in the Universe” (The Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, London, England. 1991-92), emphasis mine.

If pressed, it seems that his true feelings would be that homosexuals are missing out on their ‘sole reason for living,’ being that they are not propagating their DNA. If his naturalistic worldview offers any purpose for life, it is not happiness or altruism, but procreation. Since, according to Dawkins, it is nature’s intention for DNA to survive, homosexuality is actively working against nature by guaranteeing no opportunity for natural reproduction. By his working definition, homosexuality is then unnatural.

What I want to know is: how can Dawkins hold such a staunch naturalistic position without speaking out against homosexuality? Even though he would never admit it, as a stalwart atheist, Dawkins sees homosexuality not as a sin against God, but as a sin against nature.

What do you think?