Quote:For someone who rails against analogies you don't like as dodging, you sure spend a lot of time dodging the question about accepting biological or genetic deformity. Which by the way is universal to every organism oorganism planet.


Again, you spend most of your time trying to prove a biological explanation because you have been conditioned to think that anything with a biological explanation should be ACCEPTED (your words) expressed and even celebrated. Any behavior that you don't like you push into the psychological corridor because you think that will save your world view. But that world view FALLS APART WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT OUR BIOLOGICAL MAKEUP CAN BE FLAWED OR UNHEALTHY.


If someone is born with a deformed hand, we look at the design of a healthy hand and try to heal them. If someone is born with a genetic defect that malforms an artery in their heart we look at a healthy heart and we try to heal them. You on the other hand believe that if a to year old boy says he wants a husband that we should put a dress on him and let him use the girls room because he might have a variance in the density of connectors between hemispheres of the brain.


That's literally insane.

So.. It's me pushing pedophilia into a psychological corridor? Not study after study? I couldn't help but notice the three yes/no questions you refused to answer (par for the course). And of course your tangents are all over the place.


So let me try again. When two female monkeys start rubbing their hoo-hahs together in an act of lesbian sex.. when two male lions couple with zero chance of passing on their genetic code.. is it biological or psychological? Why are humans different?


Study after study shows the biological explanation is the most widely accepted reason a person is LGBT. Study after study shows pedophilia is most likely explained as a mental disorder or due to brain structure. I have not seen you try to explain LGBT as psychological prior to this. If that's what you are doing now, where is your supportive evidence?


It's not that I cannot accept alternative explanations. It's that you are not providing any reason why I should consider them. I post links to show why I feel the biological explanation makes the most sense. You don't challenge (or acknowledge) them. You don't pose a counter explanation that goes anywhere further than your opinion.


And furthermore, you admit to having a moral hang up on the subject.


I put water in a tray. I put the tray in the freezer. The water turns to ice. I don't stop at this point and contemplate the morality of whether or not I can accept the scientific evidence due to my feelings on the subject. With this one, by your own admission, you do.


How can you possibly be objective in this discussion when you handcuff logic and reason with your feelings about possible conclusions? You can't. Which is why you keep spewing nonsense without challenging any link I reference or answering any direct questions I ask.

---