Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

Op-Ed: Duck Dynasty's patriarch, homosexuality, and logic

By W. Mark Dendy     Dec 23, 2013 in Entertainment
There is little doubt that Phil Robertson's remarks in a GQ interview sparked outrage among many but from a scientific, logical standpoint Phil Robertson is absolutely correct.
Forget about religion for a minute and let's look at the Duck Dynasty patriarch's statement from a biological standpoint:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Okay. So he says, “But hey sin” and sin, of course has to do with morality and the Bible, so let's do away with the word "sin" and look at what remains.
“But hey... It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical.”
From a biologist viewpoint, there is no logic in homosexuality. If homosexuality was “by design” then it is an awfully poor design, because there is no evidence of a man producing ovaries or a woman producing sperm. It just don't happen! If there are cases, they are anomalies.
You might say, but it's not about sex; it's about love. That maybe so, but without sex with a partner of the opposite sex, you fast become a dying breed. In fact, there will not even be a second generation.
Scientists have tried to prove that homosexuality is genetic, but their attempts have been futile. Even with the help of liberal media, they have not been able to lay out a convincing case.
In a 2008 Guardian news story headlined, “US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics,” the evidence reported was: “Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.” What kind of supportive evidence is that?
US News & World Report in 2012 wrote that “Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children.”
One of the authors of the study, William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara,  was quoted by US News as saying, “We've found a story that looks really good, There's more verification needed, but we point out how we can easily do epigenetic profiles genome-wide. We predict where the epi-marks occur, we just need other studies to look at it empirically. This can be tested and proven within six months. It's easy to test. If it's a bad idea, we can throw it away in short order."
That was a year ago; if it is “easy to test” and “can be tested and proven within six months” wouldn't the homosexual community and their bedfellows, the liberal media, be talking about that non-stop?
The media makes every effort to "sway" public opinion in favor of homosexuality as if it is the new norm.
Case in point: In a March 2013 ABC Poll asked the question "Do you think being homosexual is something that people choose to be, or do you think it's just the way they are?" 62% said they thought "it's just the way they are." That poll has been used by media time and time again to say that people overwhelming support homosexuality.
But ask the same people in the same survey if they believe in evolution, my guess is the vast majority would say yes.
So let's take out my statement about "by design" because after all, that has Biblical connotations, and let's take a look at homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint.
In the face of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, homosexuality fails the test.
If homosexuality is genetic, then Darwin was wrong about “natural selection” which suggests that a fitness-reducing phenotype should be selected against.
Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness by how successful it is at reproducing, not by how long an organism lives. How does homosexuality stand up to that test?
Clearly homosexuality is not an inherited trait, otherwise it would have been naturally selected out. Or was Darwin wrong?
Another approach that homosexual activists use to convince others and perhaps themselves that they have no choice, is evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom of which there is an abundance; however, homosexuality among animals is strictly for sexual gratification. The goal of every organism is to procreate.
So as you can see, the answer is simple. I will not argue that Phil Robertson could have chosen another way of expressing himself. But hey, just like a homosexual chooses his or her lifestyle, and has to live with it, Robertson chose his words, and has to live with them.
My background is in biology. I hold a B.S. degree in Biological Sciences from Sacramento State University and an M.S. in Life and Chemical Sciences from the University of Maryland, College Park.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of
More about duck dynasty, phil robertson, Homosexuality, Lesbianism
Entertainment Video
Latest News
Top News