Marcus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:25 am
wenglund wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:39 am
People taking offence where none should legitimately be taken….
No, that’s wrong. It is legitimately offensive that you define homosexuality as a disorder.
You are demonstrably incorrect. It is no more offensive than correctly defining the following as disorders: dyslexia, webbed toes, anxiety, asthma, cleft pallet, down syndrome, depression, sickle cell anemia, color blindness, and on and on.
I defined it as a disorder, in part, because I disagreed with the psychiatric communities previous diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental illness.
I didn't refer to it as a mental disorder, or a genetic disorder, or a physical disorder. Rather, I correctly defined it as a sexual attraction disorder.
In evolutionary terms, and as opposed to asexual reproduction, sexual attraction between a male and a female is a necessary element in sexual reproduction, and critical to the propagation and survival of the species. This is the evolutionary order of things. By definition, then, sexual attraction between people of the same sex defies the order of things, and may thus rightly be considered a disorder--just as, in principle, the mind is evolutionarily designed to decode properly so as to facilitate reading and learning (this is the order of things), and since dyslexia creates problems with decoding, it is rightly consider a learning or reading disorder.
Again, this is a political issue and in many ways off topic, so I will try again not speak to this irrelevancy any more.
Thanks, Wade Englund
