The NYTs is at it again…
From the New York Times:
When it comes to the matter of desire, evolution leaves little to chance. Human sexual behavior is not a free-form performance, biologists are finding, but is guided at every turn by genetic programs.
Ok, now this is an absolute statement, read it again. This is going to be important.
Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women’s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children. The deal is sealed with other neural programs that induce a burst of romantic love, followed by long-term attachment.
Ok, I added the emphasis, did you catch why? He starts with an absolute statement then uses the word “seems”, for straight men. “Seems” is not an absolute, it conveys uncertainty. He then uses an absolute to state that gay men HAVE those prompting them to seek other men. That is another ABSOLUTE statement, yet when he moves to heterosexual women he uses MAY BE organized to select men. This is interesting, he is certain homosexuals are wired by nature to be homosexuals, but is not sure heterosexuals are wired that way by nature?
He is not done putting his foot in his mouth on this topic…
So much fuss, so intricate a dance, all to achieve success on the simple scale that is all evolution cares about, that of raising the greatest number of children to adulthood. Desire may seem the core of human sexual behavior, but it is just the central act in a long drama whose script is written quite substantially in the genes.
If all evolution cares about is to raise the greatest number of children to adulthood, how can evolution be involved in homosexuality? They cannot have children having homosexual sex, so why would nature create homosexuals?
He goes on to philosophize and prove absolutely nothing, but I could not pass up showing you the elitist, liberal twisted thinking that gets printed in the NY Times. Once you read something like this in an article there is no reason to go on. Science has not proved anything one way or the other about homosexuality. the only reason it is not in the treatment and modality book for psychiatry is because a bunch of gay activists in 1973 scared the association into removing it from the book. There were no studies or papers written to get it removed, it was just removed for political reasons.
I actually listened to a Psychologist that claims he has successfully treated homosexuals and the association will not even look at his data. People may be living a fringe lifestyle, which is not good for them, for no other reason, than political correctness. Think about that for a bit and ask yourself if that is a good idea, or good science?