I've already got me a designer baby. He's got his Mom's looks, his Mom's brains, his Mom's ability to not put her foot in her mouth and his Mom's wide ranging interests.

and lest I forget, he's got his dad's.......his dad's......, hmmmmmm, ....let me work on that and get back to you.....

Oh, and as far his being Gay or not? Heck, you've got to leave something to chance, don't you?

Perhaps you would like to explain to me what is inherently flawed with a homosexual? I mean, from a purely biological standpoint, of course.

Oh goodness... You've opened the gates and invited in the crazy.

__________________

I'm sure. But I am kind of interested how any rational person with respect for science and reality can justify such a statement. It should be, at the very least, entertaining.

I cannot from a purely biological standpoint separate homosexuality from zoophilia and pedophilia. To justify homosexuality as a normal biological norm, you have to suspend human outward physiology, internal bodily systems, and most importantly reproduction. If you do that, from a biological standpoint, there is NO difference between having sex with a sheep, child, or your own gender. If we consider those things disordered, I don't see how homosexuality isn't disordered as well.

Consent and legal have no bearing on biological. How's that for rantings of a crazy?

Here's a doctor that pretty much comes to a like conclusion.
MHAMic - Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder? (Green)

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

That's interesting since the scientific community pretty much comes to different consensus. Zoophilia is disordered because an attraction to an incongruous morphology is an extreme abnormality that often has both organic and psychological factors. Pedophilia is considered disordered because the attraction to prepubescence suggests a domination and power need coupled with an extreme sexual insecurity...perhaps even sexual performance maladies.

Really? So reproduction has to be the goal of every sexual coupling or there is some kind of malady attributed to the coupling? Interesting...

That's a complete falsehood. Sheep have an incongruous morphology. The prepubescent lack functionality needed to stimulate sexual pleasure, besides being injurious to the child both psychologically and physically.

I hope maybe I helped show you the difference. For some reason, I am getting the distinct impression that you did some fantastic logical somersaults to put that argument together and so you won't be willing to abandon it after all that work.

I'm not saying you are crazy. I am of the impression that you Frankensteined an argument together to support what you already believed rather than arriving at a conclusion supported by fact.

I will read the doctor you reference when I get back from lunch.

I'll hit you back up in the morning. I'll show you how I arrived at my conclusion... Too much typing for right now. And I won't need any lampreys cleaning my post as you seem to have attracted.


LOL

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

I read the article in it's entirety, twice. I find nothing in the article that draws a distinct similarity between homosexuality and zoophilia/pedophilia. Would you be so accomodating as to point me to what lines or paragraphs you were referencing that make you believe this doctor agrees with your analysis?

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Nor mine. I was just pointing out that many of his arguments translate quite nicely to homosexuality...And my dialysis laptop has a blog and youtube video in the bookmarks that do the same for zoophilia.

But I got 4.5 hours tomorrow morning to get to ya. This ought to make dialysis fly by.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Really...It seems the "consensus" wasn't as unanimous as you would think from your statement. What I read was that it was far from being so..
When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders.

That doesn't really sound very "consensussy" to me. But hey, I'm crazy so what do I know?

Zoophilia is considered a disorder because of those things huh? Well let's see here..
One of the leading researchers in the field disagrees with you..
Though we know from recent research that the majority of people engaging in sex with animals do not suffer in a clinically significant extent, and their social and occupational life etc. is not necessarily impaired,

Maybe they ought to put it up for a vote too huh? Where did you get your information?

That's not what I said. That starts with the actual sex and works backward. We first have to come to a conclusion "why" there is a sexual urge in the first place. "Why" do people have the drive to have sex? Why is our body oriented the way it is? Are there internal systems that seem to support the sex with no outside assistance? What is the outcome of the sex? Is there another inherrent purpose? The only orientation that has a real solid answer is heterosexuality. Homosexuality fails to have an answer to a couple of those questions. Just as the "other" orientations.

Actually you are taking me a but too literal there. I mentioned sheep as an example of general animals. Here's a breakdown of cross species attraction...
- Canines 87%
- Equines 81%
- Bovines 32%
- Goats 28%
- Sheep 27%
- Felines 15%
- Pigs 14%

But does that really matter? When we are talking about a human abnormality, it really doesn't matter does it? For example, when a person is born blind, they get acute hearing as the brain tries to compensate. The same can be said for pedophilia and zoophilia. A zoophile knows he is "different" I'm sure..In fact I have read a few forums that they participate in and they are acutely aware of this. And they just "make do" with what they have been given. Just like homosexual men and women.

If pedophilia, as diagnosed, is always was injurous to children, how do men get away with molesting so many children? Pedo as my previously link indicated is not necessarily injurious to a child. There's a doctor who they think molested 500 children. 500 parents didn't see damage to their kids? All the now adults coming forward to implicate Catholic priests? I'm sorry, that doesn't necessarily hold that much water. If you have to be "told" you were molested or you don't come forward until there's money on the table, that doesn't sound like injury to me.

Nope, not that time. In fact you provided nothing that would even come close to doing so. But as I told Debate, I don't really want to derail his thread, because we know he's a stickler for that kind of thing. Just link me to another thread and I'll be glad to discuss this further. And if you consider my thinking "logical somersaults", I would like to see how it qualifies to be labeled as such. Because, as crazy as I am, I think any argument that tries to justify homosexuality as a "human variation" but eliminates other deviations is the epitome of "intellectual gymnastics".

And I disagree. Oh yeah, I am crazy, I won't deny that, but as for my argument being from Transylvania, not so much. LOL. What do you expect for a Laurie Anderson fan?

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)