darth_ender

N2R4-c4

Humph.  What a dumb name for the piece I'm about to move.

N2R4-b4

Whoever named it should have thought of the potential confusion such a piece could cause in algebraic notation.

Where are you buddy? Your posts are mere dearth

Have you fallen off the edge of the earth?

Forgive my anxiety--it's been but a day

Yet it's so hard to rhyme when the OP's away

Where is your father?  Aren't you your father's keeper?

Haven't forgotten about this.  Had to get Zillions installed on my new computer, had to get the game file, and I've hardly been on my own computer, mostly typing from others.  I will make a move tonight before bed, I assure you, but that will probably be after midnight my time.

Thanks Dom for your thoughtful reply, and it really has helped me better understand your perspective.  I am at work and I've been very busy all day.  I took a lot of free time posting my posts, so I don't have time to go any further right now, but I genuinely appreciate your point.  Just understand that though we do come from different walks of life and different upbringings, it's not a religious thing so much as an effort to be completely honest, putting my worry of causing offense on the backburner.  I do not intend to offend, but I wanted to analyze.  You may disagree with me on certain things, but I am glad that you are willing to discuss it rationally and take me at my word.  Thank you.

Here I hope to illustrate my original post and its intent.  I will make commentary but will do so outside the quote, leaving the original quote intact, thus I might not be accused of backpedaling.  By all means, compare to my original post if you think I've made changes.

I encourage you to do two things, and you will find that applying these principles will open your mind to many other debates: first, pretend you never read the original post; imagine you are reading it in the light I have repeatedly told you it was intended; second, make sure you read every word, not just the most recent commentary, or you are certain to return to your former conclusions.

Consider, dear Cobb, that Ender might not be a bigot, that he might not have changed his story at all, but that perhaps you have misunderstood him.  And for future exercises, I encourage you to challenge your views often, even arguing on behalf of the opposite POV at times.  You'll learn something, and you might better understand where your opponent is coming from.

darth_ender said:

Here's one that is sure to offend.

When the DSM IV (the manual for diagnosing psychiatric conditions, 4th edition) came out, homosexuality was removed.

In the DSM III, homosexuality was considered a disorder.  See?  Something changed, based on society's change of views.

 Very recently the DSM V came out, changing transsexualism so that it in itself is not a psychiatric disorder, but the dissatisfaction with one's body which doesn't match one's internal gender is the disorder.

Another more recent change, reflecting more recent changes in views.

While I am not here to argue the morality or anything of such things, I wish to point out the politics and imprecise nature of psychiatric conditions.

End of paragraph one, which is often where one summarizes the point he/she will argue, as I have done in this sentence.

While we know why we have a heart, why it beats, what is going wrong when it beats incorrectly, what may cause cardiac conditions or what effects cardiac conditions may cause, etc, we know so very little about psychiatric conditions.  When someone is having congestive heart failure, they receive a diagnosis based on the root cause, not the subsequent fluid buildup in lungs, lower extremities, lab results, etc.  However in psychiatric conditions, we do not label based on the root cause, but rather the manifestation.  So for whatever biological reasons a person may be severely depressed or seeing things that are not there, no matter how varied the root cause, they will receive a diagnosis of major depressive disorder or schizophrenia.  My point: psychiatry/psychology is a far less precise science.

A sub-point that illustrates the main point.

How is this relevant? Well, with such imprecision, it allows for a society to redefine psychiatric conditions with ease, depending on the prevailing winds of societal wisdom.  Today, as Bruce Jenner transitions into Caitlyn Jenner, transgender rights and acceptance are at the forefront of many minds, particularly those who consider themselves very open-minded.

Introducing an example, neither arguing for or against it.

So let me challenge that open-mindedness.  Are these changes always right?  Or perhaps do they not go far enough?

In other words, I am challenging both those who consider themselves liberal and conservative today.  Is accepting Bruce Jenner and other transexuals the pinnacle of acceptance and tolerance, or is it in fact not accepting enough, as there may be others out there we today condemn, yet in the future might accept.  Do I know what these newly accepted demographics might comprise?  Nope.  However, I can give some hypothetical examples, not because I necessarily think they should or will be accepted, not because I believe they are morally equivalent, but because they might illustrate my point of how views, both political and psychiatric can change.

For instance, the differences in sexual orientation are in many ways analogous to the differences between normal adults and pedophiles.

I knew this would offend initially, but I believed that a little rational discussion would show that I am not equating.  Imagine this letter I made up.

"Dear Mom and Dad,

I have to confess something I've hidden for years.  I have a different sexual orientation.  I do not find the same people attractive that you have always thought I did.  I have tried to hide it, suppress it for so long, but I no longer can.  I have wanted to wish it away, knowing the social ostracism I will receive having come out, but I couldn't.  I don't want this, but it's who I am.

Your loving son"

Now I made this up, but were you to read it for the first time, you would likely applaud the coming out of a homosexual male.  But what if I were to tell you that this is actually the letter of a pedophile?  You might be shocked, even disgusted that this pedophile would show his face.  And even if you are not so judgmental, others certainly would be.  Nevertheless, the attraction these people feel is very real, and thus I said it was analogous.  Is every analogy perfect?  No.  I read three parables of Jesus today, and obviously I value his teachings tremendously.  However, if one digs not too far, it is easy to find where the analogy does not fit.  But if we are only looking at the point at hand, not delving into certain aspects, then the analogy works for the purposes intended.

There is a huge difference that infringes upon my analogy which you and Ryan McAvoy have already presented: consent.  I agree wholeheartedly, 199%.  Homosexuality should be both legal and socially acceptable, while pedophilia should not.  One is between consenting adults and leaves no victims.  Pedophilia does not.

However, I used this analogy for the reasons I illustrated with the letter.  There are similarities.  And I used the historical justification and the idea of parental consent not because I believe these will return (I certainly hope not), but to create another parallel: there is historical precedent, much as people have shown precedence in historical homosexuality and transsexualism.  Could things swing towards permitted pedophilia, at least in certain circumstances?  I hope not.  But they just might.

This however is not equating the two. 

I am certain this will cause offense, but the parallels are many, regardless.  The big difference is that it is socially wrong for adults to have sexual relations with children.  Similarly, there are those who wish to have sex with animals, or sex with close relatives, but such things are not acceptable socially.

The first analogy was not my point, as you seem to make it, but rather an example to illustrate my point, and here I've provided two others, including one which violates no one's rights: incest between consenting adults.  Do I think these are equal to homosexuality?  Nope.  Do I think they should be socially acceptable?  Nope.  Could they be permitted at a later time?  Who knows?  Maybe.  Most easily I could actually see the incestuous example.

Now imagine a future society where we are more sexually open.  Children are permitted to have sex with adults starting at the age of 9, perhaps with parental permission.  People are permitted to get extra close to their pets, and the siblings are permitted to be partners.  And over time, the psychiatric diagnoses that accompany these conditions are changed to suit public views.  And of course there are those who do not approve of such behavior, but they are just close-minded and condemned for their bigotry and narrow-mindedness.

Here I am pointing out that we today don't like these ideas.  But what if these changes in society do come to pass?  Will we resist?  Will psychiatry change to match?

Do you feel these are extreme examples?  There are societies, even primitive societies, where all young men (of minor age) must give oral sex to an older man in order to achieve their own status of manhood.  There are societies where hallucinations are actually seen as visions, insight that those without schizophrenia lack.  These things are seen as natural, and with further research, and with political favor, these things might even be seen as evolutionarily beneficial, just as the more pressing issues of today are now being explained as beneficial to human evolution.

More examples, one non-sexual in nature, but showing that society and psychiatry are linked.

My point is that the mind is a complex thing, and that politics are indeed involved in what is and is not acceptable, appropriate, or even a disorder.

My final point above, which I now fear I had not clarified enough.  And I should have stated it with greater emphasis on the tie to psychiatry.  However, I stated it in the initial paragraph and in the paragraph immediately above.

Now below, I make what I intend to be a side note to my real point, perhaps strong enough to be considered a secondary point, but clearly not occupying enough of my argument to be my main point.

 There are those who are cruel bigots, and I certainly don't feel such is appropriate.  But while my views have liberalized quite a bit in recent years in these areas, I still feel I must defend those who believe such behaviors are not natural.  There is plenty of justification for those views, and many of them are not bigots in spite of their beliefs.  If you find some of the behaviors I suggested above offensive, just consider how those views may change some day, and just consider how resistant you might be to those changes.

 It was probably unwise to end my whole argument on this, because it appears this was taken as my main point.  Well, I promised I wouldn't make changes, so here we are, hopefully with sufficient clarification.  My secondary point is that there are people, many conservative Christians for example, who are resistant to the changes in what is sexually acceptable.  In many ways I disagree with them and actually agree more with you, Cobb.  Nevertheless, I sympathize with them.  And I was encouraging people like you to sympathize with them as well.

You see, one day, there are bound to be more changes, both to society and to psychiatry.  Perhaps I hit the nail on the head with some of them.  Perhaps I missed completely and there will be other changes instead.  It is even possible that those changes might include a reversal of opinion, with homosexuality and transsexualism being labeled as disorders again.  Perhaps the changes will not even be sexual in nature at all!  But it really doesn't matter because I was simply using illustrative, hypothetical examples.

But one day, there will be changes now unforeseen.  My secondary point: are you sure you will be accepting of such changes?  If not, then cut those who are resistant now some slack.  If they are bigots and cruel, that is one thing, and fight their bigotry, but one need not fight their disagreement with the simple resistance to the change in moral definition itself.

I hope I've made myself clear.  If not, I give up, and you may continue to hate my guts and think of me as a homophobic bigot if you like.  You don't know me.  You don't know those with whom I socialize, and thus you can make your own prejudiced conclusions if you like.  But I think I've made my point clear, and you can take it or leave it.

Have a nice day :)

Interesting that you actually do fail to see my point.  You've restated it, but you continue to argue against something else.  

Here is my original point from my original post:

darth_ender said:

My point is that the mind is a complex thing, and that politics are indeed involved in what is and is not acceptable, appropriate, or even a disorder.

 Basically, politics and and psychiatric definitions go hand in hand, and not just in sexuality, though that is most salient in present day USA.

Let me give you the same point, but using different examples.  Bear with me a moment.  Pretend all previous posts on this topic did not exist, and I introduced my idea with the following (though I'm sure I would type a much longer post were I truly introducing the topic for the first time).

In the Soviet Union, those who opposed the Communist Party were labeled as mentally ill.  Communist society, which gave the ruling party a great deal of control over individual lives, permitted such definitions, and the general populace agreed with such labels.

In modern diagnostic manuals, there are things called culture bound syndromes.  For instance, in many Latin-American cultures, there is something called attaque de nervios, a disorder that is not really present in our culture.

As the Soviet Union evaporated, the definition of many psychiatric conditions changed and modernized.  Perhaps one day, several other culture bound syndromes will change as well, depending on the prevailing views and morals of the society in which they exist.

*END OF POINT*

You see, my point remains the same, but the examples are different.  Yet you continue to harp on homosexuality and my comparison to pedophilia, which I have already admitted is a limited comparison (as is every other comparison).  You still treat that like it's my main point, even if you acknowledge with squeamish wording that maybe it's what I'm getting at.

DominicCobbsaid:

If that's your point it's a pretty thin one. I'm getting "some day values will not be the same as they are now and you may not like that."

DominicCobb said:

Ender, I'm just struggling to see your point. "Societies definitions change." Something like that.

So while you supposedly acknowledge my point, you continue to drive at something else.  Obviously you find my example, which was merely a bead on a necklace of argument, to be so offensive as to consume the whole argument.  So if you would kindly grant me the time to create another post before replying, hopefully I will clear up any misconceptions.

Yep, you  the nail on the head. You missed everything, and I've kept a level head, but I'm the sensitive one after all. You got me, bud ;)

I think a big part of the problem is your inability to distinguish between a suggested hypothetical situation and me demanding an actual parity or next step in cultural evolution. I will post my original post when I can once again, I will make slight but obvious commentary, and hopefully you will see the difference between your interpretation and  what I'd actually intended, making it clear no backpedaling has taken place, and hopefully clarifying the point one last time. If your sensitivities are too strong to allow rational discussion of uncomfortable topic  after that, I'm afraid I'll have  to let you sit convinced that I'm a bigot.

Gosh, Dom, I've not backpeddled on anything and if I had the time to point out every error in your interpretation once again, I would. It's exasperating having this conversation since you are dead set on interpreting examples as my pain point and a side note as my conclusion. I could have easily chosen other examples but deliberately chose a charged example because it is relevant today. I could have discussed the disposal of the five axis system or the removal of Asperger's as a diagnosis, never mentioned sexuality, and made the same point, but it would not be as relevant to most readers. I gave examples. I don't truly imagine pedophilia will ever be accepted, but it served to illustrate my point. I had hoped more people would be intelligent enough to see what I'm getting at and not let their sensitivities interfere with what I clearly had both written and intended. 

DominicCobb said:

Ender, I'm just struggling to see your point. "Societies definitions change." Something like that. But it's not a question of morals. But aren't those societal definitions based on morals? If not then what is your point?

I am saying I am not arguing the moral implications of either, and though I have not enumerated my recent conclusions on homosexuality here, I have implied them enough that I think you and Ryan are assuming a lot about my position.  Let me take several steps back, where we are now deviating from the whole point of my argument.

My boss, the director of nursing on the behavioral health floor of the hospital at which I work, is a lesbian.  I consider her a friend, trust her, and am happy for her that she is getting married in Vegas in the near future.

The psychiatrist who treats the majority of the patients on the floor on which I work is gay, is living with a man about half his age.  I laugh that it is a sugar daddy situation, but hey, if they're happy, power to them.

I am very tolerant of homosexuality.  Even if there are religious objections, I find no problem with people pursuing what makes them happy, as long as others are not harmed.  In other words, I am okay with a gay person being gay, and wish them happiness.

So what is my purpose in comparing?  It is not to equate.  It is to point out how things have changed.  Do you honestly believe society has stopped at the pinnacle of perfect values?  Do you truly believe that what you hold to be right and wrong somehow actually are right and wrong, today, tomorrow, and forever?  Has it occurred to you that when you are an old man, your grandchildren will likely consider you behind the times because you will probably be resistant to the changes that are coming down the pike?  Values have changed throughout humanity's history.  They will continue to do so.  And with it, our perspectives on mental health.

Homosexuality and transexuality are easy topics to discuss because they are still hot topics.  But while they were the primary example of my point, they were not my point.  I brought up the fact that societies have had different perspectives on psychosis/schizophrenia.  Once upon a time it was valued, at least in some societies.  Who is to say that it will not be seen for something good instead of bad in the future?  But our society considers the hearing of things others cannot hear a bad thing.  Therefore it is considered a disorder.

I am not making personal moral judgments.  If I were to do so, I would indeed say that there is a huge difference between consenting homosexual adults and the victimization of children.  I totally see where you and Ryan are coming from.  If that were my intent, I would have no problem conceding that you are right.  But you are wrong, because you are accusing of something I am not saying at all.  I am saying that society as a whole has made moral judgments, and that our definitions of disorders, which come from a soft and imprecise science, reflects what society believes, not what can be considered concrete fact.

Non-heterosexuality is technically a "disorder," but society has now decided otherwise. But why else other than "f that, there's nothing morally wrong with homosexuality and such"? How, in our opinion, might the definition of pedophilia be classified as any thing other than a disorder? If we're talking about societal definitions, then morality will always play a part. And since morality will always shape societal definitions, I'm pretty sure pedophilia will still remain a crime and a disorder.

Probably, and I'm okay with that.  But you fixate on these things, unable to see the forest for the trees.  But let's also consider that historically pedophilia was acceptable.  People married and bore children as soon as they were physically capable of doing so.  I'm certain pedophilia has been around as long as puberty.  Now consider how many things a child can do with parental consent.  Perhaps there will come a time where parents may consent on behalf of their children.  Do I like the thought?  No way.  But it's simply an example of a possible future permutation in society's moral system.  And if the change comes to pass, then I suspect the definition of the psychiatric disorder will change with it.

By the way, I do consider pedophilia a disorder. It is a terrible thing, but in many cases those perpetrating it are doing so because of serious psychological issues. So I think as a society we should move away from punishment for these "evil" people, and move towards treatment instead.

Agreed.  My brother is a counselor for sex offenders, and I'm sure he's seen many of the worst of humanity, but imagine the service he provides in helping people who are pretty sick find some value in their lives.

But that is still a wholly different thing from homosexuality, transsexuality, and all that. And, whether or not it was your intention, Ender, the implication was clear - gay used to be bad, but now it's not; maybe some day awful things will be okay too. It's the slipper slope argument almost exactly, again, whether you intended or not (but, again, I'm really not sure what you meant to say). And I have acknowledged the scientific comparison. That doesn't mean I can't say the implication is f upped. And I am not being overly sensitive, just trying to call out some bs. 

Call whatever you want, but you clearly fail to see my point.  Other things that seem bizarre maybe shouldn't be.  I mentioned incest.  Is there really scientific justification for consenting siblings to not have sexual relations?  What if they are homosexual, so there will certainly be no screwed up offspring?  What if they are sterilized?  What if the chances for genetic problems is far smaller than we think now?

I think you fail to see what morals truly are.  Unless one believes in a higher Lawgiver with absolute morals (and I know you do not), then morals are defined entirely by society.  And those morals have changed and will continue to do so.  I am not equating.  I am stating fact.  As those morals change, so will psychiatric definitions.  And this is not limited to sexual or gender preferences.

I think the root of the matter IS this idea of consent, whether you admit it or not. Naturally speaking, consent is not necessary. Look at any other species. But we are a civilized society with norms and rules based on MORALITY. And consensual sex is the only moral sex. Which means pedophilia and zoophilia will always be immoral because they will always be nonconsensual. The day zoophilia becomes culturally accepted is the day rape becomes culturally accepted. Same with pedophilia. What if the kid gives consent, though? Well currently kids aren't allowed to legally consent to anything, sex or otherwise, until they're 18. That's because we are a scientifically knowledgeable society and we understand that children have not developed their brains enough to drink, join the army, live on their own, etc. So the day pedophilia becomes culturally accepted is the day we let kids be thrown out on the streets. If you notice, as a society we're going in the other direction.

 I wish you'd see my point.  I think you simply see what you want to see, and you are in fact being narrow-minded.  Values change.  So do psychiatric diagnostic criteria.  The two are linked.  Examples given were simply examples, not the final point.  Perhaps one day values will change in the opposite direction or in some direction we haven't even thought of.  But when they do, so will the definition.

That is my point.  Nothing more, nothing less.

To reiterate what I wrote, if I wasn't clear

Is that you get to decide what we discuss here

Lord of your home, though right now you find respite

Yet here in this thread, why you're supreme despot

While far from your family and where you reside

We here are your subjects, in this thread you preside

Sounds good.  Want to start us off?

RicOlie_2 said:

darth_ender said:

P5vw-5uv

Yes indeed, Ric, we started out with you and your old man allied against me.  I have a theory that your dad still could have won the game where he was allied against us, and essentially I am testing my theory.

 Well, thank you all for telling me in advance... :P

S-14yz

 http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/How-about-a-game-of-Japanese-Chess-ie-Shogi-darth-ender-RicOlie-2-and-Post-Praetorian-playing-3-player-shogi-finally-yay/post/775462/#TopicPost775462

:P

;)

Post, my pawn is moving towards 5rs, towards your army.

Post Praetorian said:

darth_ender said:

This thread is a fun addition to the Off Topic section

But it's tough to know what to say sans direction

Perhaps, and I hope my suggestion's not treason

But could we actually rhyme with a reason?

 Well certainly that could be really good fun

But, how should we choose it? By referendum?

 I've long been a fan of autocracy

I say, "Topic by dictator's decree!"

This thread is a fun addition to the Off Topic section

But it's tough to know what to say sans direction

Perhaps, and I hope my suggestion's not treason

But could we actually rhyme with a reason?

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

Sounds like a question of lust

And a question of trust

And a question of not letting what we've built up crumble to dust.

 Cheater, cheater

Pumpkin eater.

Team Olie

 Though indeed these words I borrow

Your lack of appreciation gives great sorrow

For the piece to which these lyrics belong

I thought thought you had borrowed from the same song

But alas, hypocrisy! I'm not defeated!

Your rhyme here shows that you too have cheated!

In defense of dear Possessed

Your objection I contest

His last post where he with you concurs

Rhymes with the previous post of yours

So we never did get one of those games going.  Tobar sounded potentially interested in a 3d variant.  You suggested possibly shogi4, but here not to confuse the other game in the other thread.  Or perhaps we could try one of the Chess with Different Armies games you suggested.  Sorry we never finished the last game.  Life got really busy for me around that time, and it is better now, though still plenty busy.  Part of the problem is when I want to get a bunch of moves in a day.  I just need to be content with a slow, long game.  It's up to you, Ric.  Or Tobar.  Or anyone else.

P5vw-5uv

Yes indeed, Ric, we started out with you and your old man allied against me.  I have a theory that your dad still could have won the game where he was allied against us, and essentially I am testing my theory.

^I am not comparing them on a moral level and I didn't ignore the consent point. I am comparing the attraction, which is very real in both cases. I completely agree, morally they are  Very different. Nevertheless, for the purposes of my argument which is neither advocating or condemning either attraction, they are comparable. Both are essentially deviations from the most common and practical use of sex. And yes, you are right (as I pointed out in an earlier post today), even younger women might bear children.  Instead of missing the point based on an argument I am not making, read my point for what it actually is.  It might help to read my responses to DomCobb.

DominicCobb said:

Even if it is "technically" a psychological disorder, that doesn't matter, because, unlike the other disorders, it's not harmful (in fact the only thing harmful about it is other people making fun of them or comparing them to pedophiles). 

And DE you're going to have to explain yourself there.

 I explained it in my reply to Ryan McAvoy.  I don't understand why one's sensitivities to the plights of certain demographics always makes any analysis or comparison invalid.

Look, if a vegetarian said eating animals makes you like Jeffrey Dahmer, we might complain with a great deal of justification that such a comparison is inappropriate, yet there are valid comparisons when seen from a certain point of view.  Yes, we are in fact taking the life of another living creature and eating parts of it for pleasure.

But saying there is no room for comparison between homosexuals and pedophiles is stupid.  If we are trying to compare them morally (which I am not, and I'm in fact making nothing even close to such an inference), then there would be a flaw.  But we are comparing the actual sexual attraction, something which is technically not the "normal", yet is present in as real a sense for the pedophiles as it is for the homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Ultimately, my point has nothing to do with what is really right or wrong.  My point is simply that society's definition does indeed change.

The only time I brought morals into it was to point out that we might be offended by some changes that could very well face society in the future, but at the same time, some people (not me, because, as you hopefully read while incompletely taking in my initial message, I have really liberalized in my views in these matters) are offended by the changes we are facing in today's societal changes of morality.  And perhaps they deserve a little slack for being as resistant as you might be in 50 years.

DominicCobb said:

Monogamy is not normal sexuality. Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality. This is a two way street. Whatever "normal sexuality" is or was doesn't matter anymor. Open your eyes and get over it. Homosexuality is normal sexuality now.

You may be making a "scientific" argument but you're basically just repeating the typical homophobic "slippery slope" argument more eloquently. 

Maybe something like transsexualism is technically a "disorder" but who gives a fuck. If a guy feels like he should be a girl, then why not let him be a girl? It's a victimless act.

Having sex with children and animals is not victimles, however. That's the difference.

 If I were making any anti-homosexual argument at all, you could say this was a homophobic slippery slope.  Did I say either was wrong?  Did I say they were inappropriate?  Did I say they shouldn't have the right?  This is the problem with trying to have intelligent discussions with those who are far too sensitive on certain topics.  It's automatically taken as insulting.  My point is that things change, and as this is supposed to be the uncomfortable topic thread, I was making an uncomfortable point.  The same applies with other things that have or have not been called disorders.  I did bring up psychotic disorders, for instance.  But most poignant and recently applicable are those which have recently been hot news items.  Please, read my posts for content, and don't try to read between the lines.  As you point out in your first two sentences, even modern definitions of normal sexuality are not necessarily normal.  So instead of jumping down my shorts, read the posts, and consider the fact that you are in fact making my point, which, short and sweet is:

DEFINITIONS CHANGE BASED ON SOCIETY!

Ryan McAvoy said:

I like you most of the time Ender, but when you occasionally say insane things like...

darth_ender said:

the differences in sexual orientation are in many ways analogous to the differences between normal adults and pedophiles.  I am certain this will cause offense, but the parallels are many, regardless.  The big difference is that it is socially wrong for adults to have sexual relations with children.  Similarly, there are those who wish to have sex with animals, or sex with close relatives, but such things are not acceptable socially.

Sorry but f*ck you. I'm sure you'll argue that paragraph doesn't say "Being gay is like being a pedophile" but yeah it does. Children and animals can't give consent, adults can. You aren't an idiot, so I know you understand this distinction. So why make a post like that?

 To answer your question, don't look at it as a comment on morality, legality, or even today's social acceptability. Like all analogies, mine is not perfect for the very reason you pointed out. But the primary function of sex is reproduction, with the secondary of sharing love. Homosexuality is clearly not in line with the primary function. The same could be said about pedophilia or zoophelia. There are those who experience such attraction who even argue that they simply are another sexual orientation and shouldn't be persecuted for such attraction.

Don't read it any differently than I intend. Just read the point.

Final thought. Humans can reproduce at.  Very young age. Humans used to have a far shorter life expectancy. I guarantee that older men married very underage girls many, many times throughout humanity's history. We're they wrong to do so? My point is not what is right or wrong, but how psychiatric views are shaped by societal views.

Thanks imperialscum. You see my point for what it is, not a commentary on the morality of homosexuality, not an intended offense, but the point that it is a deviation from normal sexuality. I knew that would offend, and I'm sure my friend Ryan is not the only one I offended with that line of reasoning. I appreciate you seeing my intended point rather than the morality point.