I received a strange letter in the mail (the kind with paper and stamps, not the electronic kind) today. It was nicely and formally printed, and looked like something professional…but as soon as I read the first sentence I knew it was junk.
Evolution is defined by the Encyclopædia Britannica (CD Rom Version, 2002) as the process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state [this process is also called growth].
That’s a humdinger of an opening line; it’s completely wrong, of course. The silly book seems to have confused “evolution” with “progress”, since evolution makes no presupposition of a direction in the process. But wait! That’s only the beginning! As I read the rest of the first page, it was incredibly inane…but when I turned the page, it got even worse.
The author, Michael W. Johnson, Ph.D. is making an argument against homosexuality, saying it violates the principles of evolution.
Homosexuality is defined by the same source once again as simply erotic activity with another of the same sex. It should not take a mental giant to understand that same-sex activity will not perpetuate the human race. Homosexuals and lesbian can in no way be considered as individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment if their genetic qualities are directed to the extermination of the human race.
Huh whuh? It should not take a mental giant to understand that we do many things that are not directly related to perpetuating the human race. Playing a game of parcheesi instead of fornicating like demented rabbits could be taken as “exterminating” the human race by Johnson’s reasoning—we do not follow a strategy of blind, unrestrained reproduction in our life histories, but instead invest more in quality of life and in reliably raising a significant percentage of our relatively low number of offspring to adulthood. Most of our erotic activity is simply not directed towards procreation directly at all; it’s for social bonding, for maintaining our mental health, and for fun. From misstating evolutionary theory, Johnson has gone to a completely silly interpretation of sexual behavior through an exceedingly narrow and purely procreative lens.
So far, so dumb. I’ve heard this shallow sort of argument a thousand times before. But then I turn the page…
Since WW I, homosexuality has a long tradition in the Communist military portfolio of maskirovka (deception). Homosexuality played a key role in gaining Eastern Europe for the Soviet Union by inciting that quintessential homosexual poster boy — coprophiliac, monorchid Adolf Hitler — and his Nazi homosexual henchmen into instigating WW II. This time the Soviets have targeted the entire Free World as they secretly move through the worldwide homosexual collective to undermine Western societies in anticipation of WW III. In the process of achieving their goal of world communism, they will double-cross and destroy with merciless slaughter many tens of thousands in the homosexual movement, just as they slaughtered thousands in the German homosexual movement during and following WW II.
You see, if homosexuality doesn’t make evolutionary sense, then it must be a communist plot. And we biologists are enablers of this scheme.
There is a direct correlation between the extent of apologetics by evolutionary scientists on behalf of homosexuality and the importance of homosexual Fifth Column activity to destabilize the West prior to a massive Soviet military advance. America will rue the day when it belatedly discovers that homosexuality is not based upon biology but on military strategy instead.
It’s like reading the ramblings of a modern day General Jack D. Ripper. Should someone tell this poor lunatic the Cold War is over, and the Soviet Union crumbled?
It’s actually rather sad—the poor guy has an education and the ability to place words one after the other in a sensible way, but his premises are utterly bogus, and he has built this amazing, rickety tower of weird conclusions that are completely divorced from reality.