Prominent critics who have joined the church

[dastardly stem]

But, this is political and off topic. So I will try not to say more about it.

Thanks, Wade Englund

Considering what you've said so far...that's probably best.

[Marcus]

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..l

Oh boy. You really need to stay away from talking “science.” Or that or get yourself a legitimate scientific education.

[Morley]

Oh boy. You really need to stay away from talking “science.” Or that or get yourself a legitimate scientific education.

Heh. Or just read a book.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh boy. You really need to stay away from talking “science.” Or that or get yourself a legitimate scientific education.

Heh. Or just read a book.

It’s awesome being lectured on sexuality by an unmarried celibate heretic. Sexual behavior manifests in many ways and has many functional facets that go beyond reproduction, which Wade Englund himself refuses to do. Nature has demonstrated both beautiful and horrific sexual behaviors that aren’t confined to sexual reproduction. He keeps drawing bullseyes around his assertions while being either totally ignorant of sexuality in nature, or deceitful because he studied it and just rejects it. Whatever the case may be, Wade Englund defies his own ‘logic’, and his choices fly in the face of his own professed faith.

- Doc

[Physics Guy]

Human feet have evolved for walking and running, and maybe climbing. Those are the main natural purposes of feet. That doesn't mean, though, that there's anything wrong with using those feet to kick a soccer ball, or to stand on tiptoe in order to reach something up on a shelf. Many human features and faculties serve multiple purposes. An activity doesn't count as bad or disordered just because it doesn't serve all of those potential purposes.

[wenglund]

Oh boy. You really need to stay away from talking “science.” Or that or get yourself a legitimate scientific education.

How about this: https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionar ... production

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Rivendale]

Oh boy. You really need to stay away from talking “science.” Or that or get yourself a legitimate scientific education.

How about this: https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionar ... production

Thanks, Wade Englund

By this logic prophets should be considered abnormal and a detriment to human progress.

[wenglund]

Human feet have evolved for walking and running, and maybe climbing. Those are the main natural purposes of feet. That doesn't mean, though, that there's anything wrong with using those feet to kick a soccer ball, or to stand on tiptoe in order to reach something up on a shelf. Many human features and faculties serve multiple purposes. An activity doesn't count as bad or disordered just because it doesn't serve all of those potential purposes.

Nothing I said suggests otherwise. The varied usages of body parts is quite a different thing than sexual attraction--which is far more analogous to hunger pangs or urges, which are designed to encourage eating so as to healthily nurture and replenish the body. This is the order of things. Yet, there seems to be no public outcry at the mention of eating disorders: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/eating-disorders

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Marcus]

Oh boy. You really need to stay away from talking “science.” Or that or get yourself a legitimate scientific education.

How about this: https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionar ... production

Thanks, Wade Englund

Lol. Last time that website was referenced here was when Markk used it, only to find out that it took the definition of "woman" from Webster’s dictionary, published in 1913.

As Morley put it then:

This is not biology. This is someone putting a website together using some sometimes archaic definitions, as Marcus has shown.

My point stands. Get yourself a legitimate scientific education, or even, as Morley suggested, "read a book."

[wenglund]

How about this: https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionar ... production

Thanks, Wade Englund

Lol. Last time that website was referenced here was when Markk used it, only to find out that it took the definition of "woman" from Webster’s dictionary, published in 1913.

Hmmm...I just did a search of the page to which I linked, and I found no instances of the word "woman," though 24 instances of the word "female."

My point stands. Get yourself a legitimate scientific education, or even, as Morley suggested, "read a book."

Let's see. You draw a claim allegedly from a past online discussion, which was supposedly made by some other board participant, presumably in response to another board participant, regarding a word that doesn't occur in the web page I linked to, but the definition of which may have appeared elsewhere on the website, and was believed to have been taken from a credible, though older resource for English definitions, and this leaves you to ironically assume that "your point stands," and that you are somehow in a position to lecture others about getting a scientific education?

I have to say, when it comes to self-parody, that was a thing of exquisite beauty. It made my night.

Thanks, Wade Englund