Who is Wade Englund?

[_EAllusion]

The "above" referenced in those quotes is where Wade attempts to establish his argument against homosexuality through a series of Socratic questions. He's making a transparently bad natural law ethics argument and importing that into a mental health terminology context.

(I like how he speaks in plural, as if he's part of a research team)

The existence of SAD confirmed:

To our knowledge, while there is yet no scientific studies confirming or denying the existence and nature of SAD, or that SAD is an exacting description of certain sexual attractions, we believe that this conclusion is easily derived through common sense and reasoning.

However, rather than offering up a logical syllogism in support of our assertion, we believe it may be more beneficial to ask a series of questions which are designed to engender mutual agreement, as well as guide the reader into making our case for us. Given the of-times rancorous, prejudicial, divisive, and emotionally charge discussions associated with this issue, and the vulnerability for misunderstandings, false accusations, etc. (such as those we have already experienced--please see the section on "Discussions" below), we believe this to be the best strategy for fostering productive civic dialogue.

As an assistive device, we will, at times, make use of a "key and lock" metaphor.

The argument for the premise of design and function:

1. Physically speaking, do you agree that the adult (sexually mature and reproductively capable) sexes (male and female) have their distinctive and respective sexual design and function (even as a key is distinctive in design and function from the design and function of a lock)?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, do you agree that while the adult sexes have their distinctive and respective sexual design and function, they are, never-the-less, designed to sexually fit and function together (even as a key and lock are designed to fit and function together)?
4. If not, why not?
5. What do you view as the sexual design and function, in nature, as predominately manifest across the entire spectrum of the animal kingdom (including humans), for the two adult sexes (male and female)?
6. Do you agree that adult males and females are designed to sexually fit together and function as the sole means, in nature (at least for those animals, including humans, where there are males and females), for uniting the two critical components of reproductive life (sperm and egg)?
7. If not, why not?
8. If so, do you see this sexual design and function as being one that is rationally assumed (a priori), and obvious (prima facia)?

The argument for the premise of purpose:

1. What do you view as the purpose(s), in nature, as predominately manifest across the spectrum of the animal kingdom (including humans), for sexual attraction (sometimes referred to scientifically as libido, estrus, etc.)?
2. Do you agree that the sole purpose, in nature, for sexual attraction, is to motivate the two adult sexes to sexually function as they are designed, and have sexual intercourse, so as to propagate the respective species (not unlike the key locking and/or unlocking the lock)?
3. If not, why not?
4. If so, do you see this purpose as being one that is rationally assumed (a priori), and obvious (prima facia)?

The argument for the premise of order in nature (natural order).

1. Do you agree that there is an order to nature--i.e. things in nature are intended to work in a certain way (even as a lock and key are intended to work in a certain way)?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, do you agree that the order of nature is manifest in, and a product of, the natural thing's design, function, and purpose (even as the order of a lock and key is manifest in, and a product of, their respective, and shared, design, function, and purpose)?
4. If not, why not?
5. If so, do you see this order in nature as being one that is rationally assumed (a priori), and obvious (prima facia)?

The argument for the conclusion that sexual attraction and sex between the two adult sexes is the order of nature (natural order).

1. Given that the the order of nature is manifest in, and a product of, the natural thing's design, function, and purpose; and given that the sexual design and function of the two adult sexes (male and female), and the sole purpose for the sexual attraction between the two adult sexes, is to propagate the respective species; do you agree that sexual attraction and sex between the two adult sexes is the established order of nature (even as the key locking and unlocking the lock is the order of keys and locks)?
2. If not, why not?

The argument for the premise of disorder in nature (natural disorder).

1. Do you agree that where there is an order to nature--i.e. where things in nature are intended to work in a certain way according to their design, function, and purpose, that there is also the possibility of disorder in nature--i.e. where things in nature do not work in a certain way according to their design, function, and purpose (not unlike a key and lock not working according to their design, function, and purpose)?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, do you see this disorder as being one that is rationally assumed (a priori), and obvious (prima facia)?

So you have a situation where Wade uses a terrible argument to draw the conclusion that homosexuality is disordered. It's no surprise that people would see this as bigoted, just like many see the same in sketchy biological arguments that are supposed to establish the general intellectual superiority of whites to blacks. The conclusion implies something very negative about a group that reinforces a history of illicit prejudice and discrimination and the argument to get to that conclusion is shady.

Now, on an aside, Wade is likely to charge me with not addressing his argument. To that, I have two replies. First, I did address it at length, with him, on ZLMB. I find that satisfactory. Second, my post is simply addressed to those who would read that argument and already agree with me about its problematic nature.

[_Nightlion]

I can neither confirm nor deny that the alter ego of Wade is actually myself.

State your case and maybe you will find the answer that you seek.

Both are rabid attack dogs set on maximum provokation against me personally, while of the most amiable nature otherwise, by comparison anyways.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Most of the time I've seen the question of whether or not homosexuality is natural raised is by those who view homosexuality as a deviant and dangerous state that it is contrary to nature (as Wade seems to imply as well). This is simply an uneducated viewpoint, and easily countered by demonstrating all the homosexuality that can be found in the animal kingdom. In other words, it's usually a rebuttal, not a primary argument.

Natural admits more definitions than just "observed in nature." (I do not think anyone is arguing that homosexuality is preternatural.) Homosexuality is unnatural in that it contravenes the proper ends of our generative organs.

[_Calculus Crusader]

The "above" referenced in those quotes is where Wade attempts to establish his argument against homosexuality through a series of Socratic questions. He's making a transparently bad natural law ethics argument and importing that into a mental health terminology context.

(I like how he speaks in plural, as if he's part of a research team)

The existence of SAD confirmed:

To our knowledge, while there is yet no scientific studies confirming or denying the existence and nature of SAD, or that SAD is an exacting description of certain sexual attractions, we believe that this conclusion is easily derived through common sense and reasoning.

However, rather than offering up a logical syllogism in support of our assertion, we believe it may be more beneficial to ask a series of questions which are designed to engender mutual agreement, as well as guide the reader into making our case for us. Given the of-times rancorous, prejudicial, divisive, and emotionally charge discussions associated with this issue, and the vulnerability for misunderstandings, false accusations, etc. (such as those we have already experienced--please see the section on "Discussions" below), we believe this to be the best strategy for fostering productive civic dialogue.

As an assistive device, we will, at times, make use of a "key and lock" metaphor.

The argument for the premise of design and function:

1. Physically speaking, do you agree that the adult (sexually mature and reproductively capable) sexes (male and female) have their distinctive and respective sexual design and function (even as a key is distinctive in design and function from the design and function of a lock)?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, do you agree that while the adult sexes have their distinctive and respective sexual design and function, they are, never-the-less, designed to sexually fit and function together (even as a key and lock are designed to fit and function together)?
4. If not, why not?
5. What do you view as the sexual design and function, in nature, as predominately manifest across the entire spectrum of the animal kingdom (including humans), for the two adult sexes (male and female)?
6. Do you agree that adult males and females are designed to sexually fit together and function as the sole means, in nature (at least for those animals, including humans, where there are males and females), for uniting the two critical components of reproductive life (sperm and egg)?
7. If not, why not?
8. If so, do you see this sexual design and function as being one that is rationally assumed (a priori), and obvious (prima facia)?

The argument for the premise of purpose:

1. What do you view as the purpose(s), in nature, as predominately manifest across the spectrum of the animal kingdom (including humans), for sexual attraction (sometimes referred to scientifically as libido, estrus, etc.)?
2. Do you agree that the sole purpose, in nature, for sexual attraction, is to motivate the two adult sexes to sexually function as they are designed, and have sexual intercourse, so as to propagate the respective species (not unlike the key locking and/or unlocking the lock)?
3. If not, why not?
4. If so, do you see this purpose as being one that is rationally assumed (a priori), and obvious (prima facia)?

The argument for the premise of order in nature (natural order).

1. Do you agree that there is an order to nature--i.e. things in nature are intended to work in a certain way (even as a lock and key are intended to work in a certain way)?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, do you agree that the order of nature is manifest in, and a product of, the natural thing's design, function, and purpose (even as the order of a lock and key is manifest in, and a product of, their respective, and shared, design, function, and purpose)?
4. If not, why not?
5. If so, do you see this order in nature as being one that is rationally assumed (a priori), and obvious (prima facia)?

The argument for the conclusion that sexual attraction and sex between the two adult sexes is the order of nature (natural order).

1. Given that the the order of nature is manifest in, and a product of, the natural thing's design, function, and purpose; and given that the sexual design and function of the two adult sexes (male and female), and the sole purpose for the sexual attraction between the two adult sexes, is to propagate the respective species; do you agree that sexual attraction and sex between the two adult sexes is the established order of nature (even as the key locking and unlocking the lock is the order of keys and locks)?
2. If not, why not?

The argument for the premise of disorder in nature (natural disorder).

1. Do you agree that where there is an order to nature--i.e. where things in nature are intended to work in a certain way according to their design, function, and purpose, that there is also the possibility of disorder in nature--i.e. where things in nature do not work in a certain way according to their design, function, and purpose (not unlike a key and lock not working according to their design, function, and purpose)?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, do you see this disorder as being one that is rationally assumed (a priori), and obvious (prima facia)?

So you have a situation where Wade uses a terrible argument to draw the conclusion that homosexuality is disordered. It's no surprise that people would see this as bigoted, just like many see the same in sketchy biological arguments that are supposed to establish the general intellectual superiority of whites to blacks. The conclusion implies something very negative about a group that reinforces a history of illicit prejudice and discrimination and the argument to get to that conclusion is shady.

Now, on an aside, Wade is likely to charge me with not addressing his argument. To that, I have two replies. First, I did address it at length, with him, on ZLMB. I find that satisfactory. Second, my post is simply addressed to those who would read that argument and already agree with me about its problematic nature.

EA,

Your vacuous response to Wade is noted.

[_Sethbag]

The word "unnatural" in CC's meaning is really meaningless. It's just a word chosen to be as derogatory as possible.

If something is regularly observed in nature, it's natural. To use the word unnatural to mean something to do with "purpose" is to inject human values into it.

I think it could be argued that nothing in nature actually has a "purpose" per se. Things develop and grow in ways that add utility or capability, but not because it was intended that way, but rather because the results of that development were of such a nature as to be selected by evolution.

Thus, the fact that a penis usually fits into a vagina is not in accordance with any "purpose" for a penis or a vagina, but in fact that fit between penis and vagina was selected by evolution over other possible designs were reproductive machinery didn't fit together very well - and that fit rendered possessors of such penises and vaginas more likely to be reproductively successful.

Anyhow, do not penises and human mouths fit reasonably well? If fit is the only criteria, then oral sex is entirely natural. How about masturbation? 99.9% of men can affirm that penises fit the human hand fairly well (and the other .1% are lying). Is that not natural? Can anyone else think of any other part of the body where a penis often fits? I bet everyone can, gay or not.

So, it's not just "does this part fit into that orifice" that determines if it's natural, is it CC?

Ok, so how about function? Yes, sexual organs allow reproduction, but is that all they do? I'd dare say the Bonobos, not to mention human beings, would disagree with you. If the word "purpose" is to be used, it must be argued that sexual interaction of people, or animals, often serves more than just reproductive ends. Other ends include social interaction, and on the human level, personal and emotional connection and interaction with others.

If emotional and personal connection is allowed as a "purpose" of sexual interaction, then I'm guessing that something in the neighborhood of 3% (plus or minus a few percent, I'm sure) would affirm that such "purpose" is fulfilled by homosexual interaction.

Thus, even if one allows discussion of the "purpose" of sex, I don't see how you can call homosexual interaction "unnatural" on the grounds of failing to fulfill the purpose of sex.

[_EAllusion]

EA,

Your vacuous response to Wade is noted.

Heh. Even when I explicitly state I'm not responding to Wade, you write this. Interesting.

[_EAllusion]

By the way, if you are able to search the ZLMB archives somehow, I'm sure a search string like "sexual attraction disorder" and "function" or "adaptation" will produce a thread were I address Wade at length. You're free to post that here if you'd like if you are interested in my response. But I kinda already said that when I pointed out I wasn't addressing the argument.

Reading!

[_Calculus Crusader]

EA,

Your vacuous response to Wade is noted.

Heh. Even when I explicitly state I'm not responding to Wade, you write this. Interesting.

If you were not responding to Wade then you would not have posted. What you are doing reminds of "No offense but..." Your disavowal does not magically transform your response into a non-response.

[_Mercury]

I can neither confirm nor deny that the alter ego of Wade is actually myself.

State your case and maybe you will find the answer that you seek.

Both are rabid attack dogs set on maximum provokation against me personally, while of the most amiable nature otherwise, by comparison anyways.

You are delusional. Damn, that seems to be a common theme.

So if two individuals show animosity toward you then you believe them to be the same person? This is the conclusion I gather from your statement.

Please clarify this time without the crazy.

[_Nightlion]

You are delusional. Damn, that seems to be a common theme.

So if two individuals show animosity toward you then you believe them to be the same person? This is the conclusion I gather from your statement.

Please clarify this time without the crazy.

I get animosity to some degree 100% here. RDSOMProvokation I have only gotten from you and Mr. Englund, way back when. There, I finally spelled his name right. Maybe he will chime in. We'll see if maybe both your names can show up at the same time.