What you said had no relevance to anything I or toast said, and the way you worded your first response was poor.
In the context to the (now pointless discussion since the article is bogus), the prospect AMA classifying it wouldn't legitimize the behavior nor does it downplay there being victims of those who acted upon those urges. That's why your objection to it based on that line of reasoning didn't have any relevance.
As far as sexual orientation, depends on how you define it. Most define strictly based on gender, but it since it largely overlaps with sexual attractions and how a person identifies with themselves I can see it also including other things (like people who are exclusively attracted to objects which is a real thing).
These definitions are constantly being changed though, so not something I would personally argue over.
You and toast weren't exactly saying the same thing. And as I explained to you three times now....you misinterpreted my post. We can move on now or you can continue to whine about that.
Your objection had nothing to do with what I was saying, and your first reply was very poorly worded. Yes we can move on.
Yes my objection did have to do with what you were saying. You said legitimizing it wasn't a big deal. I think it is. It does in some cases create victims.