Does The Senate’s Homosexual Bill Go With Or Against Belief In Evolution? Dare We Ask?

As threatened, the Senate passed a so-called “gay-rights bill” yesterday. Nothing in it refers to the right to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness.  Nor is it really about the right to be hired, promoted, or not fired for reason of being homosexual. Yes, I read the description:

The legislation passed by the Senate would bar government agencies, labor unions and private employers with more than 15 employees from making decisions about hiring, firing, promotions or other matters based on a worker’s sexual orientation or gender identity, which covers transgender workers. Already, 22 states ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, while 18 of them also forbid discrimination based on gender identity.

But that is all meaningless. The only “right” that the law can give to homosexuals is the right to sue an employer any time he doesn’t hire or promote them, or any time he fires them. The only way an employer will be able to avoid being sued is to find a secret way to not hire homosexuals, or to always promote them and never fire them. Otherwise, they will have to embrace legal costs.

Unlike race, there is nothing that proves one is homosexual. In this job market, I expect we will soon see young adults “passing” as homosexual in order to get hired. The trial opportunities will be a lawyer’s dream.

But I’m more interested in exploring the science of it all, following up on my comments regarding the Illinois legislature creating homosexual “marriage.” We now see the Senate treating homosexuality as a protected practice with special benefits (or “rights” as all the cool people call them).

But what makes homosexual practice something that should be encouraged.

I notice this porn “recovery” website looks really helpful. Its disadvantage is that it doesn’t treat porn as a sin. But, I think its advantage is that it gets people to deal with their porn habit in a ruthless way; shame doesn’t hinder participants from seeking help. It wants to assist and encourage people in “resetting” their brains after saturation with porn.

The philosophy of the site is based on evolution, which I don’t believe in, but find intriguing in this context.

Our environments have drastically changed. The Internet offers endless mating opportunities, which your primitive brain perceives as real because you find them so arousing. As any good mammal would, you automatically attempt to spread your genes far and wide, but there’s no end to your mating season.

Click, click, click, masturbate, click, click, click, masturbate, click, click, click. Day in and day out, never taking a break. This can kick your binge mechanism into overdrive. Evolution never prepared your primitive brain for this kind of nonstop stimulation.

So here is my question, related to what I asked before about the development of healthy personality. I alleged “same sex marriage is obviously an inward-looking relationship that diminishes human personality.” I am sure some readers disagreed with me. Now, I’m asking people who are Darwinian secularists: Why do you think I’m wrong.

The premise of homosexuality is that it is just as healthy to have a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex as it is to do so with a person of the opposite sex. According to evolutionary theory, the brains and personalities of men and women are based on millions of years of evolution in which they needed to mate with the opposite sex and raise children to survive into adulthood.

So how can it be emotionally and psychologically healthy to reject the opposite sex and take on a person of the same sex instead? Also, how can it be emotionally and psychologically healthy to be raised by a couple of homosexuals in love with each other rather than a heterosexual couple? How can one be as good as the other on evolutionary assumptions?

All I hear from homosexuals are shrieks about “homophobia” and “hate.” I see some of the most insanely close-minded thinking possible from this group. But I don’t see anyone willing to answer the most basic questions that are raised by their own Darwinian premise.

The Senate has dictated that people who exchange the opposite gender for their own must be given special rights in the workplace. It seems to me that people who give orders are afraid of questions.