The L.A. Times tells us that "Sex is essential, kids aren't," in an editorial by David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington. It seems that the psychiatric profession, or at least this guy, embraces the idea of free will wholeheatedly:
And evolutionary biologists (including me) are asked, "How can this be?" If reproduction is perhaps the fundamental imperative of natural selection, of our genetic heritage, isn't it curious — indeed, counterintuitive — that people choose, and in such large numbers, to refrain from participating in life's most pressing event?Ignore (if you can) the smug, facile cheerleading for the culture of death, and the blithe disregard for what German depopulation will mean for the world's future. (Hint: no beer, no pork sausages.) Isn't this the perfect argument against those who argue that homosexual behavior is pre-programmed into certain people? Even if it is, David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington, says that homosexuals don't have to obey it.The answer is that intentional childlessness is indeed curious — but in no way surprising. It is also illuminating, because it sheds light on what is perhaps the most notable hallmark of the human species: the ability to say no — not just to a bad idea, an illegal order or a wayward pet but to our own genes.
When it comes to human behavior, there are actually very few genetic dictates. Our hearts insist on beating, our lungs breathing, our kidneys filtering and so forth, but these internal-organ functions are hardly "behavior" in a meaningful sense. As for more complex activities, evolution whispers within us. It does not shout orders.
People are inclined to eat when hungry, sleep when tired and have sex when aroused. But in most cases, we remain capable of declining, endowed as we are with that old bugaboo, free will....
Taking this a bit further, we often hear that teenagers "are going to have sex anyway" so we might as well equip them with condoms and pills to protect against the consequences. But if David P. Barash is right -- and I think he may be -- young, unmarried people don't have to get it on! It's just an urge, and they can say "no" to it!
Wait...you say the professor might not agree? But those are the clear implications, aren't they?
"But in most cases,we remain capable of declining...." Yup, sounds like a clear implication that young people aren't animals after all - that abstinence is a workable option. The professor might not agree? You betcha.
Apparently the good professor didn't think through the implications. He mayhave THOUGHT he was helping the Gay agenda, but doesn't it look like he might have undermined it? Funny how truth cuts, isn't it?