I never said "unanimous". I said "consensus" of the present scientific community. 58% is a clear majority and it also opened the door to a lot of subsequent research. Also, the APA isn't the only constituent of the scientific community.

Dr. Andrea M Beetz is not a medical doctor. She is a psychologist who isn't even trained in medical psychiatry. One of her more prominent works was a study of the correlation between animal abuse and interpersonal violence.

It is also of note that you cite an incompleted study that Dr. Beetz was performing for her psychological dissertation. She also draws a distinct correlation between zoophiles and pedophiles, but not between zoophiles and homosexuals, further distancing your stance from her findings.

As for where I obtain my information:

Mental Health and Psychiatric Nursing, Page 388

Sexual Disorders by Ronna E. Krozy

Really? Because I have it on record that you clearly stated:

You give the clear impression that your argument is based around the reproduction capacity of the coupling. If that's the case, you must exclude any form of fellatio, masturbation, kissing, cuddling, frottage, or any other sexual practice that does not involve the act of ejaculation within the womb. You are attempting to label the homosexual "disordered" for performance of the very same acts that heterosexuals consider "foreplay" and nothing more.

At it's fundamental level, a biological directive to procreate. I'll grant you that. However, human beings are not mindless animals. Pleasure, stimulation, intimacy and affirmation are all part of the sexual urge in human beings...pleasure being the foremost.

That makes not one iota of difference when determining what is and isn't a disorder. If we are going to label "unintended" used of the body a requisite for disorder, then we must call anyone who wears glasses on their nose bridge a candidate for disorder. As we must label those who wear wrist watches, the foot was never meant for a shoe, and the finger wasn't meant for a ring.

Are those really valid questions when framing the final question of "How do we define a disorder?" or are they just convenient observations you make, already knowing the answer.

Let's use the case of a coupling involving a post-menopausal woman and a man:

Are there internal systems that seem to support the sex with no outside assistance. No

What is the outcome of the sex? Physical bonding and intimacy between partners

Is there another inherrent purpose? No

You get the same answer when you ask the questions of couples who use birth control, prophylactics, couples who are infertile, and homosexuals.

Re-examine the other "orientations" with those questions and get back to me.

No, not just like homosexual men and women. The zoophile has distinct obsession with a preferred animal along with significant correlary relationships to other abnormal behaviors such as, from your own source, pedophilia. And, your good doctor is most noted recently for her studies that draw correlations between animal abusers and interpersonal violence. I think you are extrapolating an entirely different conclusion that the psychologist is.

Before I crawl all over you for making an intentionally obtuse and ignorant assertion that pedophiles are not harmful to children, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you an opportunity to amend your statement. Besides, you tried to pull in 5 or six mutually exclusive issues under one umbrella.

Create a new thread and I'll gladly rebut your post. As I said before, not gonna have Debateman getting all upset about "derailing" his thread.

As for "crawling all over me", good luck with that. If anything you have to BE obtuse to think homosexuality is much more than some human error. And honestly, if it weren't, you'd be able to create a post proclaiming a distinct reason why we should think homosexuality "IS" normal, instead of a post that just tries to refute it's similarities to other sexually deviant with which it used to reside under the paraphillic label. Until of course it was vote off.

If I were debating a racist, I would think that I would be able to present a much more compelling argument about why "african american" is pretty much the same as any other race.

__________________
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'm not too awfully concerned about what debateman thinks of us "derailing" his thread. In fact, this issue is poignant and germane to the issue of what is and is not acceptable to genetically engineer out of babies...what is and is not a disorder.

I've no intention of jumping through added hoops to start new threads about issues that are already being discussed. Either rebut my information or don't. I also gave you an opportunity to restate yourself where you made the assertion that pedophilia is not injurious children. If you want to bat my good will aside, then fine. I'm just telling you that you opened your argument up to a severe loss of credibility by going that route.

So it seems it's all about what YOU want then. That's fine. As for my credibility, anyone that knows me knows I'm not one to back away from any argument. If you don't want to create a new thread, fine by me. Holla.

As for the damage to children...I'll restate that though.
Child prostitution, child marriage, and what we now label molestation, etc happen all the time. I'll say it again, if this was as damaging to children as the media portrays it to be, no one would be able to molest as many children as some men do. If you have to tell a child that being molested is wrong, you have to question just how damaging it is. I don't want to come across as defending pedophiles in any way. But for the purposes of argument, just as Dr. Green said, "is pedophilia a "mental" disorder". Pedophiles aren't crazy, just born with a defective sexual urge.

Maybe it's pedophilophobia. I know if I were a "normal" man watching my identity get demonized on TV all day, I might has social issues as well. Isn't that what homosexual people claim about stereotypes on TV?

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

We can just view this as a concession. Next time, try backing your assertions up with facts and maybe we can have an actual discussion.

When Fxashun REFUSED to respond to this:

He completely and utterly lost the argument.

__________________

That won't stop him.

If sex is ONLY for procreation, then by the same logic, anyone who ever eats for any purpose besides nutrition is UNNATURAL. It should be obvious by simple observation that our bodies do not support ingestion of Red Dye #5, high fructose corn syrup, or guar gum.

That won't stop him either.

I know it's frustrating, but the truth is, some people can be educated, and some can't. If I may suggest, do like I have done: assume that he falls into the latter group, and just move on.

Someone who will actually go so far as defending pedophiles to attempt to support his argument against homosexuality is clearly not going to be stopped by a little thing like common sense.

No sense beating your head against the wall.
The wall always wins.

I wanted a designer baby. But the receipe requires Jolie genes. Too major problems. She won't call back. And my wife.







Maybe she called when I was out. I hope my wife didn't get it.

__________________
Talking about music is like dancing about architecture

You can view it any way you like. Not my concern. I just asked that you continue in another thread.

__________________
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 never said sex was only for reproduction. But any homosexual sex IS disordered though.

I'm still waiting on the "education". All I've seen so far is nuh uh's. That's about all I ever see on this subject. Kind of like this post I'm talking about. If there was any "education" that specifically proclaims with no uncertain terms that homosexuality has a place in this world other that as a disorder, would someone hit me up with a link? I ain't seen it.

I'm not "defending" pedophiles. That proves your reading comprehension is whacked. I have never said that pedophilia is "right". I merely point out that it shares many of the same etiology as homosexuality. So why is IT a disorder? I even pointed out a respected Dr. that asked the same question.
Is pedophilia a mental disorder
"Scientists" don't worry about "legal" and whether it is socially acceptable to make determinations. At least, I wouldn't think they would. True "science" doesn't care about those things. It either "is" or it "isn't". "Common sense" tells me that homosexuality is "f'd" just like pedo. Just in a different way.

Unless you are a woodpecker. Then that would be quite alright.

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