“broadening the minds of our future generation”
An Australian daycare center has adopted a program where they will start teaching children 6 months - 6 years about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and inter-sex issues. They hope to challenge little children’s perception of what is normal gender and sexuality. I remember my perception of sexuality and gender were pretty much in place at about 9 1/2 months old, as best as I can remember.
“At Marrickville we believe in offering children and families an inclusive program based on social justice,” he told The Saturday Daily Telegraph. “These are reflected through an open environment where alternative perspectives, values, beliefs, lifestyles and people’s identities are respected and accepted.”
Here are some of the books that are used in the programming.
.jpg)
“Here are some of the books that are used in the programming.”
I suspect that if the books instead portrayed gay and lesbian people as being sick, you wouldn’t be calling it “programming”, but education. Or perhaps you would prefer that we not be mentioned at all.
The great crime you seem outraged about here is apparently having teachers acknowledging the fact that some boys like boys and some girls like girls. But that is simple, undeniable, truth. To say differently is a lie, and to omit that fact is a lie of omission.
Oddly enough, I think that educating children should be done by telling them the truth, rather than by lying to them.
But of course this particular lie has been and continues to be a traditional part of Catholic education going back hundreds of years, so I suppose I can’t blame you for wanting to perpetuate it. You are after all, just a product of your upbringing. Too bad you didn’t have better teachers.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 26, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
What is outrageous is that subject of sexuality is being broached at all with six-year-olds. The crime is robbing these youngsters of their innocence.
They have no need for knowledge on the subject; indeed, they are far too young to even grasp the basics to critically assess what this day care center wants them to believe. Therefore, it is “programming” which serves the political agenda of the teacher, not the genuine educational needs of the child.
Let the kids enjoy their blissful ignorance while it lasts in this vulgar hyper-sexualized culture of ours.
Regards, Bill
Comment by Bill Tingley — May 26, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
Patrick,
The only lie is to suggest that SSA is normal; a lie that damages lives and society.
Comment by David — May 26, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
No no, don’t bring that stuff into this, David - this isn’t an issue of “the Truth,” it’s simply an issue of sexuality, children, and the fact that the two are sort of immiscible. Children really won’t be able to understand whatever we tell them about heterosexuality, let alone homosexuality.
“Let the kids enjoy their blissful ignorance while it lasts in this vulgar hyper-sexualized culture of ours.” - amen to that.
Comment by Wondertwin — May 26, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
“Hetero-” … “other-oriented”
“Homo-” … “same-oriented”
Which is broader?
.
Comment by Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B. — May 27, 2006 @ 11:37 am
And we wonder if “Western” values as now practiced are worth preserving? If this is coming, can an Islamic world be far behind with its long sojourn as God has sickened on what were once Judeo-Christian nations?
Comment by John Hetman — May 28, 2006 @ 9:11 am
Don’t be silly. 6 year olds and younger know the differences between boys and girls, they are already “exposed” to sexuality. A real reason you can never have a sane discussion with a religious zealot about sexuality and education is that they immediately equate any knowledge about sex at all with demonstrating positions from the Kama Sutra in Kindergarten. Children are not asexual amoebas, little blobs of jello that magically transform into people when they start puberty.
Some boys like boys and some girls like girls. If you want to teach your children that such people are bad, go ahead, but it doesn’t change the facts.
With all the suppression the Church has done and attempted to do over the last few thousand years, you would think gay people would have been wiped put long ago. But apparently God has different ideas about that than the Church does. Because inconveniently, we just go on existing. Divine Providence.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 28, 2006 @ 10:15 am
Try “Human being”.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 28, 2006 @ 10:17 am
Don’t be silly. 6 year olds and younger know the differences between boys and girls, they are already “exposed†to sexuality.
Distinctions must be made here. SSA is, at root, a temptation toward the inappropriate genital expression of a disordered sexual attraction. Children at six years old certainly know there are anatomical differences between boys and girls and in fact they intuit that there is an ontological difference as well. It is worth pointing out that because there is no other difference in nature, six year old children would have nothing further to inquire about sexuality of their own volition, in a well ordered society. Sexual intercourse is not appropriate to discuss with children of such immaturity and certainly, this applies to disordered sexual intercourse.
A real reason you can never have a sane discussion with a religious zealot about sexuality and education is that they immediately equate any knowledge about sex at all with demonstrating positions from the Kama Sutra in Kindergarten.
Patrick, you just are not able to discuss these issues without recourse to ad hominems and caricatures are you? I realize that this reflects a subliminal recognition of the impossibility of rationally defending your position.
Children are not asexual amoebas, little blobs of jello that magically transform into people when they start puberty.
This reflects a very distorted anthropology and an inability to make proper distinctions. Genital sexual expression is not a realized capacity for a six year old for the very reason that he is not physically mature. This physical maturation process is linked to his psycho-emotional maturation. A child who is exposed to matters beyond his level of maturity with which he can safely appropriate them can be emotionally damaged by such exposure, especially if this exposure is graphic. Your’s is a very disturbing view that if it becomes widespread is certain to do damage to untold numbers of innocent children.
Some boys like boys and some girls like girls. If you want to teach your children that such people are bad, go ahead, but it doesn’t change the facts.
You know better than this caricature. It is true that acting on SSA is a grave sin. However, I have seen no one here make a subjective judment about the moral state of those engaging in SSA activities as this is a matter between them and God (and for Catholics their confessors). Neverthess, again young children have not yet actualized the potency for sexual attraction that will come with maturation. To confuse the expressions of friendship of a child with any sort of sexual attraction reflects the disordered thinking of those making this claim; it has no claim to the title “fact.”
With all the suppression the Church has done and attempted to do over the last few thousand years, you would think gay people would have been wiped put long ago. But apparently God has different ideas about that than the Church does. Because inconveniently, we just go on existing. Divine Providence.
We live in a fallen world. Psycho-emotional disorders will always be with us this side of the eschaton, as will other types of disorders and illnesses. However, it does no one any good to pretend that disorders are natural or normal. Certainly, it is impossible to claim that they are Providential when one considers the physical, psychological, and emotional damage that SSA causes to those who engage in it and the damage it does to societies that become confused and embrace it.
The proper Christian response to SSA is rather to embrace those who suffer from this scourage and encourge them to fight the temptations, to seek help from those professionals with an authentic understanding of the human person, and to stand by and pray with and for those of our brothers and sisters whose cross it is to bear such a difficult burden.
When it comes to children, it is necessary for Christians to protect them from predators who would justify themselves with perverted anthropologies and from even well meaning, but similarly distorted views of those who think that SSA is natural or that it could possibly be manifest in a child of such a tender age.
Comment by David — May 28, 2006 @ 11:58 am
While I disagree (partly) on your approach to homosexuality in general David, you are dead on about the sexual maturity of children. Until a child has reached (and, I believe, surpassed) sexual maturity, their relationship with sex and love is vastly different than what we perceive sex and love to be as adults. Children do not and cannot comprehend the complexity of physical and emotional attraction at the same level whatsoever. They are simply not ready for that amount of responsibility.
Simply exposing children to sexuality doesn’t mean they will understand it how you and I would. Children think about things much differently, even in their faith.
Comment by Wondertwin — May 29, 2006 @ 11:00 am
While I disagree (partly) on your approach to homosexuality in general…
What’s your disagreement?
Comment by David — May 29, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Genital sexual expression is not a realized capacity for a six year old for the very reason that he is not physically mature.
Actually David, you’d be wrong there. You obviously have never gotten 3AM phone calls from worried mothers discovering their wee tots playing joyously with themselves. Nor have you ever had to counsel foster parents that, absence a clinical history to the contrary, two six year olds playing doctor isn’t a sign of disorder or disease.
The fact is that sexuality is there from day one. It grows, changes and becomes more nuanced the older and more mature we get. While a first grader’s sense of sexuality isn’t the same as an adults, it would be wrong to think it of being nonexistent. It more on par with something like “humor,” there both in adults and children, more nuanced in one and less so in the other.
Teaching a child it’s perfectly natural and normal that some boys love boys, some girls love girls, and others still love their opposites, isn’t “programming.” It’s telling them the truth. In the real world, homosexuality isn’t a disorder.
Comment by Jody Wheeler — May 29, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
You obviously have never gotten 3AM phone calls from worried mothers discovering their wee tots playing joyously with themselves. Nor have you ever had to counsel foster parents that, absence a clinical history to the contrary, two six year olds playing doctor isn’t a sign of disorder or disease.
You conflate natural curiosity with sexual attraction. Children clearly have natural curiousity, including about their bodies, but they neither have the maturity to deal with nor the capacity to express sexual attraction. It is up to parents to help them understand, to the extent each is capable, their sexual identity as a male or female. However, to confuse a child’s curiousity with mature sexual interest is a confused and potentially destructive theory.
Teaching a child it’s perfectly natural and normal that some boys love boys, some girls love girls, and others still love their opposites, isn’t “programming.†It’s telling them the truth. In the real world, homosexuality isn’t a disorder.
This is anything but the real world. It is a world in which people blind themselves to the truth by convincing themselves that their wills can change reality. Others confused by a false sense of compassion listen to these same suffering souls who are in no condition to self-diagnose and become convinced that they are not. In the end those who choose to succumb to their temptations end up being damaged or destroyed by them and those who stand by and support them are simply enablers.
It is programming to try to convince impressionable little children that what is obvious to the most casual observer of nature is actually a figment of one’s imagination. In other words, it is quite obvious that nature has given us men and women and that the organizing principle of their sexual difference is procreation. All else must be ordered to this procreative principle or it is, by definition, …”disorder.”
Comment by David — May 29, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
You conflate natural curiosity with sexual attraction.
No. I make no distinction between the two. The two feelings aren’t “separate” but intertwined.
Children clearly have natural curiousity, including about their bodies, but they neither have the maturity to deal with nor the capacity to express sexual attraction.
Children have the capacity to express sexual attraction, it happens all the time. Grade school crush, first kiss, second base — all before puberty. As for maturity no, children don’t have the maturity to know all the repercussions of t heir actions. Then again, I’ve worked with a great many adults who lack the same thing. The difference with children is that our job is guide them in their explorations, answer their questions honestly, and keep them away from people who’d exploit their inexperience.
It is up to parents to help them understand, to the extent each is capable, their sexual identity as a male or female.
The issue of gender isn’t on the table here. Gender identity and sexual orientation aren’t the same thing. Psychology has progressed a lot in the last fifty years. Keep up.
However, to confuse a child’s curiousity with mature sexual interest is a confused and potentially destructive theory.
Other than you, no one has conflated childhood sexual interest with adult sexual interest. Opposite ends of one spectrum, my dear. To think that a child doesn’t have sexual feelings at all because of a mythological embarrassment at that cold, hard truth is the destructive “theory.”
It is a world in which people blind themselves to the truth by convincing themselves that their wills can change reality.
[Administrator: adolescent ad hominem deleted]
Others confused by a false sense of compassion…
[Administrator: adolescent ad hominem deleted]
…it is quite obvious that nature has given us men and women and that the organizing principle of their sexual difference is procreation.
No. The organizing principle of nature is evolution and what maximizes the success of genetic transfer from one generation to the next. It’s quite obvious, to anyone who’s bothered to study the subject, that sexual differentiation is a rather recent advent in that evolutionary process, being only a bit more than 500 million years old. Even then, intercourse itself only ensures genes get passed from one generation to the next, not that they survive. Crack a book by Gould or Dawkins and join us in the 21st Century.
Talk about programming: Telling kids that the point of their existence is “procreation” is an incredibly sexually obsessed view of life.
Comment by Jody — May 29, 2006 @ 11:30 pm
Jody, you again fail to demonstrate that you have the capacity to discuss these issues objectively. As such, I have chosen to delete your more immature comments that had no intellectual content to them.
As I have said before, you may discuss the issues here intelligently if you wish but if all you can come up with are ad hominems and caricatures then you please avail yourself of other venues. Nevertheless, here are a few comments:
The two feelings aren’t “separate†but intertwined.
Neither are feelings but appetites and they are quite distinct. One may have curiousity without sexual attraction. The former is primarily an intellectual appetite and the later primarily instinctual.
The issue of gender isn’t on the table here. Gender identity and sexual orientation aren’t the same thing. Psychology has progressed a lot in the last fifty years. Keep up.
No, they are in fact modern fictional constructs that deny reality as it is given for the sake of pushing ideological agendas. When their failure becomes manifest, as it will, they will eventually disappear as is now the 70s era radical feminist uni-sex anthropology that was the latest in “progress” of a generation ago.
The organizing principle of nature is evolution and what maximizes the success of genetic transfer from one generation to the next.
One might debate the contention that random genetic mutation, genetic drift and natural selection can in any way be called “organizing.” Nevertheless, following your presupposition that SSA is actually something ontological, this would make it parasitic on heterosexuality and if successful, ultimately its own undoing. SSA then is antithetical to biological evolutionary theory. If you want to embrace neo-Darwinian mechanisms to explain common descent then you must follow its implications to their logical conclusions. If you embrace it only as justification for the incoherent theory of philosophical materialism (and so postmodern voluntarism) then it appears you need another theory.
Crack a book by Gould or Dawkins and join us in the 21st Century.
Citing Dawkins and Gould as your authorities tells me much. One eminent evolutionary microbiologist has termed these two “the carpet baggers of evolutionism.” In other words, he says they have done much damage to the science of biological evolution to which he has dedicated his last 50 years, because they use it as justification for their materialist agendas and so remove it from the discipline of modern science. Therefore, I conclude that you are not very well educated about biological evolution. Rather, you have been converted by the prophets of philosophical materialism. If you want to educate yourself on the inability for modern science, keeping to their methods of competence, to make claims about design or lack thereof, you might read through the posts on the Natural Philosophy and ID meta-thread in the sidebar.
Talk about programming: Telling kids that the point of their existence is “procreation†is an incredibly sexually obsessed view of life.
I cannot figure out how by what tortuous logic you proceeded from my statement that ‘the organizing principle of sex difference is procreation’ to arrive at your conclusion that this infers the point of man’s existence is procreation. Nevertheless the fact of my statement is quite obvious from the biological evidence. The primary sexual anatomical features are constructed for insemination, gestation, and giving birth. Secondary sexual features such as the differences in masculine and feminine skeletal-musculature including bone density, muscle mass, adipose tissue distribution, etc., endocrine systems, psycho-emotional structures, and brain structures are all integrated into these primary features in such a way as to support the primary sexual functions. Even biologists who are atheists will ask the question of purpose when it comes to biological entities. What is the purpose then of sex differences? For a materialist one can only answer ‘procreation’. For Christians, they of course go much deeper. However, some people delude themselves by spitting at strawmen because of the discomfort of the ramifications of Christianity and the effort it takes in learning about other ideas before dismissing them.
As for the incredibly sexually obsessed view of life comment, I would term this projection on your part.
Comment by David — May 30, 2006 @ 7:26 am
I can’t respond to your comment earlier (or your exchange with Jody) right now, since I’m a bit busy, but perhaps later. Just letting you know I wasn’t ignoring it.
Comment by Wondertwin — May 30, 2006 @ 8:44 am
You do realize David that you are making biologically inaccurate statements about childhood physical sexuality. There is an extended period of dormancy in children from about 3 years to puberty, but thats dormant, not absent. Sex hormones, testosterone and estrogen, are still present in the bodies of children. And very young children and infants experience stronger sexual feelings, become aroused, etc. No, its not the same as in an adult, but its not non-existent as you seem to think. You don’t even need to crack open a book on Darwin to verify that, try a Biology 101 textbook, even a Christian one.
You have it half right David, your failure however is a flawed, near-sighted and almost deliberate and dishonest observation of “Nature”. Nature does indeed give us “men and women”. It also gives us hermaphrodites, transsexuals, effeminate men, masculine women, gays and lesbians, and everything in-between and outside. Not to mention the very small percentage of men and women that experience no sexual desire at all. As well as the presence of qualities that belong to neither men nor women alone but to human beings as a species. Take a look at that old “Why do men have nipples?” question.
You act like a person sitting in a movie theater watching the movie through binoculars you have made with your hands. The picture on the screen is simply larger than the small portion you are looking at. Try lowering your hands and looking at “Nature” a bit more fearlessly and honestly.
The truth does not necesarily invalidate all of Christian thinking on sexuality, it can instead enrich it.
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — May 30, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
You do realize David that you are making biologically inaccurate statements about childhood physical sexuality. There is an extended period of dormancy in children from about 3 years to puberty, but thats dormant, not absent.
You will have to show me where I said that there are no sex hormones present in children? If you read closely my wording you will see I have discussed prepubescents’ in terms of unrealized capacity. Classical philosophy calls this active potency.
And very young children and infants experience stronger sexual feelings, become aroused, etc. No, its not the same as in an adult, but its not non-existent as you seem to think.
And just how does one determine the sexual arousal of an infant? If you are referring to reflex erections as discharge channels (which also include smiling, reflex sucking, and other mouthing actions) of infants you are barking up the wrong tree.
You have it half right David, your failure however is a flawed, near-sighted and almost deliberate and dishonest observation of “Natureâ€. Nature does indeed give us “men and womenâ€. It also gives us hermaphrodites, transsexuals, effeminate men, masculine women, gays and lesbians, and everything in-between and outside….
We have discussed this many times. Christians recognize that with Original Sin mankind finds itself in a fallen state. This falleness includes nature. I have mentioned many times how one distinguishes between the order of nature and disorder; once again, one must look at the end or telos. Most of the examples you give are thankfully rare disorders that cannot reproduce themselves. The conditions have no biological purpose (notice I am not talking about the persons but their conditions). As such, most of these are still listed as sexual abnormalities in the medical literature (except for those that were reclassified in the 70s without rational justification). I will not accuse you of dishonesty but you do seem to be very forgetful.
The truth does not necesarily invalidate all of Christian thinking on sexuality, it can instead enrich it.
The truth corresponds exactly with Christian anthropology; perhaps one day you will be able to accept it.
Comment by David — May 30, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
…When their failure becomes manifest, as it will, they will eventually disappear as is now the 70s era radical feminist uni-sex anthropology that was the latest in “progress†of a generation ago..
Translation: “I don’t like it. Ergo, it’s wrong.” That’s rhetoric, David and not evidence. It’s also doesn’t “…demonstrate that you have the capacity to discuss these issues objectively.” Not at all.
… Citing Dawkins and Gould as your authorities tells me much. One eminent evolutionary microbiologist has termed these two “the carpet baggers of evolutionism”…
Translation: “This other guy doesn’t like them. Ergo, it’s wrong.” Again, David, that’s rhetoric. Not evidence. Not discussion. Not science. (And not objective discussion either.)
Your discounting of Dawkins and Gould, reveals your own ignorance on the subject of evolution, not mine. Personally? I blame that intellectual crack of ID theory you read. Stuff rots your brain, son. Just Say No.
Nevertheless, following your presupposition that SSA is actually something ontological, this would make it parasitic on heterosexuality…
Had you read Dawkins or Gould (or even Trivers and his response to Dawkins) your might have advanced your 19th Century understanding of Evolution away from such silly notions as the one you site. When I have more time, and am up for the pain, I’ll discuss with you the last hundred and fifty years of research into evolution. We can then get into a discussion on the evolutionary benefits of having a percentage of your population unconcerned with procreation.
And just how does one determine the sexual arousal of an infant? If you are referring to reflex erections as discharge channels (which also include smiling, reflex sucking, and other mouthing actions) of infants you are barking up the wrong tree.
I remember one of my clients describing her four year-old daughters interesting choice of picking the middle of dinner party to wander demonstrate, al natural and in plain sight of all the guests, her discovery of a “present” (the child’s words) imbedded… well, you know.
Luckily, I’d been prepared for the subject just such as this due to my gradschool Human Sexuality instructor, a no-nonsense Ph.D who’d frown if she knew how I avoided using “that word” above, the mother of six kids, who’s goal was to dispel such naieve notions as yours above, David. When faced with an impertinent student in the back row (not I, for I sat in the front) who questioned her skewering of Rosenfelsian dogma with clinical observation and developmental data, said “Young Sir, I have changed the diapers of four boys and I can tell there’s nothing reflexive in the discovery of the joys of rubbing their own penis.”
She was a good teacher.
David, despite what you argue, the “fact[s]” of your “statements” aren’t “obvious from the biological evidence.” Your facts — as you demonstrate here time and time again — are plain and simply wrong. You discount a century and half of progress because it doesn’t agree with your needs for how the world is supposed to be. While you are free to interpret facts however you wish, it doesn’t change that it’s still wrong.
Comment by Jody — May 31, 2006 @ 2:59 am
Translation: “I don’t like it. Ergo, it’s wrong.†That’s rhetoric, David and not evidence.
No, it is pointing out the provisional and tenuous nature of theories in the modern sciences. Your appeal to “progress” and your berating of any knowledge that has not come in the last 40 years I suppose is convenient given your ideology, though it insinuates postmodernism and scientism. This rejection of common sense knowledge, because doing so is necessary for the deconstruction of reality so that one may construct it according to his own liking, is arbitrary and certainly not rational.
I have addressed the particular theory we were discussing many times in these discussions and have shown why gender identity and sexual orientation are simply fictional inventions, the former origninating in the feminist movement in an attempt to deconstruct any relationship between roles and sex differences by labeling it as a social construct and the latter is a euphemism for SSA and other ailments in an attempt to eliminate their identification as a disorder. You may read through the various posts again but I consider it unnecessary to continually restate my case because you choose to ignore it.
Translation: “This other guy doesn’t like them. Ergo, it’s wrong.â€
If you were to read the academic literature in addition to the popular literature in this field you would find these two have little credibility among those practioners who limit themselves to the competence of the modern scientific discipline.
When I have more time, and am up for the pain, I’ll discuss with you the last hundred and fifty years of research into evolution. We can then get into a discussion on the evolutionary benefits of having a percentage of your population unconcerned with procreation.
A stalling tactic? Please embark on an understanding of evolutionary theory and you will find that unless you posit an insect sociology you will find no genetic, and so evolutionary, advantage to SSA. However, the first step will be trying to find a genetic basis for SSA. None has yet been found in more than 20 years of research. Simon LeVay states this even though his research has been spun to suggest otherwise.
Luckily, I’d been prepared for the subject just such as this due to my gradschool Human Sexuality instructor,…
Apparently not so prepared. Your recollection from grad school does not offer much to the argument as I see it. In fact, your anecdote about your “no nonsense professor’s” actions appears to fit under the category of intimidation rather than education. It may simply reflect an inferiority complex on her part or it may rather have been the attempt to cloak a weak argument. In any case, the question is whether there is realization of the sexual urge in prepubscents. The spontaneous erection of an infant or their proclivity for tactile curiosity do not prove this or provide evidence for whatever point you may think it makes in supporting your agenda. We do know that children exposed to sexual activity by adolescents or adults causes them long term psychological and emotional harm.
David, despite what you argue, the “fact[s]†of your “statements†aren’t “obvious from the biological evidence.†Your facts — as you demonstrate here time and time again — are plain and simply wrong. You discount a century and half of progress because it doesn’t agree with your needs for how the world is supposed to be. While you are free to interpret facts however you wish, it doesn’t change that it’s still wrong.
Jody, you will have to excuse me but I have not found that you have provided anything but assertions. Thus the latest assertion that I have provided incorrect facts is likewise meaningless.
As a matter of fact, I do not discount any valid progress. I simply do not blindly swallow every theory that comes down the pike because the priests of science say so. Especially in the area of the human person, the theories are especially transient because so many are reductionist and do not take into account the whole human person. It is not surprising that two people looking at the same data but with different models will arrive at vastly different conclusions. However, the materialist model of the human person is incoherent and therefore far from monolithic. The Christian understanding of the human person, informed by the findings of modern science, turns out to be the most successful for the very reason it is grounded in the truth.
Comment by David — May 31, 2006 @ 9:51 am
Jody - In this final installment of our discussion I will admit that there is an unfortunate trend toward trying to normalize disorders by those with an agenda. This certainly abets your denial. Denial is natural and the intensity of the disorder is a strong motivator toward it. You apparently are not ready yet to face the unspun facts but eventually you will reach a point of crisis; it is inevitable. Remember that there are many others who have gone through it and used it as an opportunity to seek compassionate assistance to help them manage their addiction and many have fully recovered (Dr. Robert Spitzer, a supporter of the gay community and a member of the APA who removed SSA from the list of disorders in 1973, in 1973 published results of his 16 month study of 247 individuals who responded successfully to therapy to heal themselves from the disorder, 11% were completely successful in eliminating SSA temptations from their lives others had varying degrees of residual struggle).
Comment by David — May 31, 2006 @ 11:14 am
As I have said, it is not the same as adult sexuality. I take it however, that you have never seen an infant humping a pillow before. Try more babysitting then. And that is sexual behavior, even if its purpose is physical pleasure, rather than procreation.
Exactly how do you know that the conditions serve no “biological purpose”? How do you even know what that purpose should be? Exactly how do you define the difference between disorder and simple difference? A person may be born with extra fingers and toes, but that does not present some sort of barrier to that person’s existence. And it does not prevent them from reproducing either. Is this a disorder or a difference? Why? What is your “rational justification”? If a majority of humans have brown hair, but some have blonde, is being blonde a disorder? And you call these things “rare disorders”. Exactly how do you define “rare”? They may appear in small numbers, but they do show up very consistantly, and at all times, in each human generation.
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — May 31, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
I take it however, that you have never seen an infant humping a pillow before.
Patrick, if this is how you interpret what you have seen, you are a very troubled person.
Your litany of questions is incoherent with respect to the point you obviously think you are making as you seem to presuppose within them the answer to your questions (in other words variations such as hair color certainly are just that and attributable to genetic expression. Abnormalities such as non-functional extra digits and nonfunctional sexual organs are not, they have no function/purpose and so are attributable to genetic defects). We have discussed this many times and you continue to seem either to consistently forget or simply ignore my responses. As this is about the fourth or fifth time I have mentioned this, I must interpret your behavior as compulsiveness and draw this discussion to an end.
Comment by David — May 31, 2006 @ 6:39 pm