I am still waiting for someone to reconcile the idea that "sexual orientation is innate" with the idea of darwinism. How could homosexuality evolve through the inexorable process of "natural selection," which is so powerful that all of our ancestors who had, e.g., the relatively minor comparative disadvantage of lacking fingerprints were unsuccessful competitors for survival (once in a while they lost their grip on the liana they were using to swing through the jungle)?
Yet most of the people who believe that homosexuality is innate also believe in darwinism. "Cognitive dissonance"?
There is tenure waiting for the associate professor who can spin a plausible fable within the framework of evolutionary theory explaining the persistence of homosexuality. (Since evolutionary theory can hardly explain the origin of sexual reproduction, its explanation of homosexual reproduction is bound to be entertaining.)
They are secularists who will believe ANYTHING which will lead to the destruction of Judeo-Christian society. It's just like the fact that nearly all pro-abortionists are anti-capital punishment.
At a non-Christian school, of course.
Two ways to resolve homosexuality with Darwinism:
1. Genetic variation- every so often a person is born with a genetic combination that predisposes to homosexuality. While these particular individuals are out of the gene pool, the genes (in other combinations) continue to survive in the species.
2. The Rat City experiments (where the government spent tons of money to prove that, if you shove too many rats in a cage, they go crazy) showed that when overpopulated, rats started buggering each other. Possibly a species response to overpopulaton?
"If you put too many rats in a cage, they go crazy. Man is the only animal that willingly does this to himself."
That's easy. If a tendency towards homosexuality is a recessive trait, it can persist at a low % of the population forever.