Who is Wade Englund?

[_Nortinski]

Over on MTT, I posted some more of Wade's sexual attraction disorders that Mister Scratch didn't see the first time:

9. Given what has been established above, do you agree that blow-up dolls are a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into a balloon)?
10. If not, why not?
11. Given what has been established above, do you agree that fellatio is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into your mouth)?
12. If not, why not?
13. Given what has been established above, do you agree that condom use is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a balloon over a key)?
14. If not, why not?
15. Given what has been established above, do you agree that abstinence is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike refusing to put a key into a lock)?
16. If not, why not?
17. Given what has been established above, do you agree that birth control is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into a lock but refusing to turn it)?
18. If not, why not?
19. Given what has been established above, do you agree that frigidity is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into a rusted lock)?
20. If not, why not?
21. Given what has been established above, do you agree that sex with the elderly is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into an antique lock)?
22. If not, why not?
23. Given what has been established above, do you agree that cunnilingus is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting your tongue into a lock)?
24. If not, why not?
25. Given what has been established above, do you agree that Will Schryver's favorite topic, the circle jerk, is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike standing around pulling each other's keys)?
26. If not, why not?
27. Given what has been established above, do you agree that ejaculation is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike spraying WD-40 into a lock)?
28. If not, why not?

Now THAT'S some funny stuff.

Nort

[_asbestosman]

Over on MTT, I posted some more of Wade's sexual attraction disorders that Mister Scratch didn't see the first time

If I understand Wade's general idea, he'd claim that 9, 11, 23, and 25 are SADs, but the rest are plumbing problems.

I think Wade is frustrated that people are seeing the associaton of Homosexuality with pedaphilia (because both are SAD according to him) and therefore think he is saying that homosexuals are pedaphiles or something. for what it's worth, I have tried to argue against what I consider a poor defense of homosexuality using similar language. They say that homosexuality is genetic and therefore should be legally recognized. I ask if the same holds for pedaphilia. They vehemently deny that homosexuals are necessarily pedaphiles--a point was not trying to make. It becomes impossible to get my real point across. I agree that homosexuals are not necessarily pedaphiles (any more so than heterosexuals). My only point was that something being natural doesn't make it right. I wasn't even saying that homosexuality is necessarily wrong. Nowadays I prefer to make the point of nature vs morality by comparing it to cleptomania (assuming a genetic reason). I might go for mental disorders, but I do not believe homosexuality is necessarily a mental disorder. I just think that calling it natural is a very poor defense--worse than Wade's lock and key analogy.

[_truth dancer]

Hi A...

I don't know anyone who suggests anything natural is good/healthy/right.

I think the point is that biology/genetics plays a part in our sexual identity and sexual attraction. The idea that homosexuality is all about choice, following Satan, and embracing evil, is the difficult some have with the issue.

~dancer~

[_asbestosman]

I don't know anyone who suggests anything natural is good/healthy/right.

I think the point is that biology/genetics plays a part in our sexual identity and sexual attraction. The idea that homosexuality is all about choice, following Satan, and embracing evil, is the difficult some have with the issue.

You're lucky not to know anyone who suggests that homosexuality is fine because it's natural. In the realm of religion or law, one might be absolved of guilt if the difference is due to circumstances beyond one's control (like nature). However, when asking about governmental laws on behavior it would seem that whether or not it is caused by nature is irrelavent (except in determining the consequence). So, I might add, is whether or not you think God says it's a sin. I'm not going to outlaw tea just because I think God forbids it. I need to show how it is sufficiently detremental to society. I am unable to do so for either homosexuality nor tea. Arguing about nature is pointless in a political debate. That is my point. I'm not going to give someone a free pass in killing others just because he was born insane. I'm not going to give him the death penalty either.

Again, if people are asking about guilt, then it's pertinant. While I have seen some stick to that point, I have seen many waunder off the target into the irrelavent connection between natural and governmental laws.

[_beastie]

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.

[_Mister Scratch]

I welcome the scrutiny, and I would hope that if there are those who may wish to challenge what I say, that they actually address what I day[sic], and do so reasonably. Simply tossing out the canard of "homophobe", while a cheap trick of gay activists and supporters, won't suffice.

Nowhere in any of the foregoing was the word "homophobe" mentioned. So, ironically, it is *you* who is "tossing out the canard."

May I also suggest numerous other online material authored by me (See: my home page. Contrary to what Scratch may imply, my one-page article, written more than a half-decade ago, that comprises the CSSAD, does not give much of a perspective of me.

The fact that you would characterize a "one-page article, written more than a half-decade ago" as a "Center," most certain provides perspective into who you are.

On that website you might find where (particularly my apologetic page), contrary to Scratches [sic] current claim, I explicitly declared that I had left apologetics (over a year and a half ago), and so it would be incorrect to now consider me an apologist.

So what are you calling yourself these days, then? A mirror? An anti-critic?

Anyway, also contrary to Scratches [sic] flawwed mind-reading, my lack of criticism of FAIR is not because of my "Laihona" [sic] award that I was given nearly a decade ago, but because I, unlike Scratch, prefer personal accountability, and for the most part reasonable and fair and positive views of others [sic]--particularly those who don't personally attack me or my faith, and I wish to avoid being reactionary, judgemental, gossipy, back-biting, teeth-gnashing, conspiratorializing, whining and complaining, and other dysfunctional and/or self-discrediting behaviors embraced at MTT and Scratch's blog. ;-)

Yup. That sounds like a "positive" view to me.

[Gadianton]

If you are talking about impotence, then it is not uncommon for men and women to be sexually attracted, yet for psychological or physiological reasons, their sexual "plumbing" may not perform. That is not a sexual attraction disorder, but a "plumbing problem". So, the key analogy doesn't exactly apply.

Then why isn't necrophilia a plumbing problem?

Why are you supposing that the necrophiliacs have plumbing problems? Granted, the body they are sexually attracted to definately has plumbing problems, but not the necrophiliacs themselves.

If someone's spouse apears to be too young to reproduce but is actually fully developed and capable of producing children, is that a sexual attractoin disorder?

I am not sure what the sexual attraction is that you have in mind.

What is the objective difference between a plumbing problem and a sexual attraction disorder?

Beside the cause/effect distinction, as previously explained, plumbing problems consist of more than just sexual attraction issues--including various physiological and psycological issues.

If you are not approaching the question on the basis of whether or not is it wrong, then why should a sexual attraction disorder be fixed any more than someone who has synesthesia?

I suppose it depends upon the degree to which SAD's and synesthesia may be limiting to the quality of life for individuals and societies, as well as their fixability.

Why does bearing children have to be the purpose of the key and lock?

As explained on my site, it is inherent in the design and function. And, absent artificial interventions, that is the only way in which children will be born.

Why can't it be companionship and fun? Two keys and two locks seem perfectly capable of the latter.

While I see that as a positive byproduct, the design and function don't seem to suggest that as a primary purpose. And, companionship and fun may be achieved in other ways.

Now if you're talking about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, I'd agree. So is drinking tea. (Well, they're sins for those who make promises not to anyhow).

I can respect that. It is just that the issue of "sin" introduces some subjective complexities that I prefer to avoid in my purely rational discussion. Others, of course, are certainly welcome to pursue that angle.

Is this starting to make any sense to you? I wonder because you seem entirely unresponsive to my responses, and rather than taking pause to carefully consider and acknowledge what I have said, you appear to jump right on to the next question.

Whatever the case may be, I do very much value the rational, mature, non-dismissive way in which you have approached the discussion with me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

How do the relatively rare instances of homosexual BEHAVIOR within the animal kingdom in any way counter the notion of SAD's? Speaking of an undeducated point of view, what you suggest is even more irrational than saying that the instance of cancer in the animal kindom counters the notion that human cancer is a desease.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Dude]

Over on MTT, I posted some more of Wade's sexual attraction disorders that Mister Scratch didn't see the first time:

9. Given what has been established above, do you agree that blow-up dolls are a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into a balloon)?
10. If not, why not?
11. Given what has been established above, do you agree that fellatio is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into your mouth)?
12. If not, why not?
13. Given what has been established above, do you agree that condom use is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a balloon over a key)?
14. If not, why not?
15. Given what has been established above, do you agree that abstinence is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike refusing to put a key into a lock)?
16. If not, why not?
17. Given what has been established above, do you agree that birth control is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into a lock but refusing to turn it)?
18. If not, why not?
19. Given what has been established above, do you agree that frigidity is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into a rusted lock)?
20. If not, why not?
21. Given what has been established above, do you agree that sex with the elderly is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into an antique lock)?
22. If not, why not?
23. Given what has been established above, do you agree that cunnilingus is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting your tongue into a lock)?
24. If not, why not?
25. Given what has been established above, do you agree that Will Schryver's favorite topic, the circle jerk, is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike standing around pulling each other's keys)?
26. If not, why not?
27. Given what has been established above, do you agree that ejaculation is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike spraying WD-40 into a lock)?
28. If not, why not?

ROFL! Watch it, Dr. Shades, there's a beverage here!

[_Dr. Shades]

ROFL! Watch it, Dr. Shades, there's a beverage here!

Okay, I'll be a little more careful from now on. :-)

Just now, I surfed the Center for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders to make sure I had seen the entire list. Surprisingly, there were a couple more things I hadn't seen the first time around:

29. Given what has been established above, do you agree that doggy-style is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike a dog humping a lock)?
30. If not, why not?
31. Given what has been established above, do you agree that nocturnal emissions are a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike spraying WD-40 into your bed for no good reason)?
32. If not, why not?
33. Given what has been established above, do you agree that group sex with swingers is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike inserting your key into someone else's lock, then inserting a key into yet another lock, meanwhile someone else inserts his key into your lock, but then before you can insert your key back into your own lock he inserts his key into the lock you just vacated, which pisses you off so you find another lock to insert your key into, but then the second lock gets all jealous and whines at you until you insert your key back into it, but meanwhile your own lock has the hots for a third key, so to get revenge you insert your key back into the first lock, and then. . . aw, forget it!)?
34. If not, why not?