Why was homosexuality de-listed as a paraphilia by psychology/psychiatry?

"There is no statement in the U.S. Constitution requiring a "separation of church and state". The closest we get is the first amendment-- ...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

passing a law based on religion is respecting an established religion, only if there is a valid secular reason for the law can it be passed

 

lol! Actually what I said was "U.S. Census Bur." and that's a heck of a lot better source than your "recent polling" info.

--but hey if you want to get into bisexual, trans-sexual, cross-dressers, and anyone else you want have at it. That way you can back up virtually any statement you want, so enjoy!

We can agree that in a lot of cases this is probably true, yet the story's going around in the likes of Wikipedia that I got into above where it's not a right. Maybe u & I could simply agree to disagree as neither of us cares enough to track down the individual court findings that pertain.

I was about to ask u if your were aware that there are Muslim jurisdictions where anyone convicted of taking part in a homosexual act can be publicly beheaded --but look, we're getting off track. This thread began w/ Black Irish asking about the rational for "de-listing" was.

Then again, maybe neither of us cares any more.

 

My bet is that you wrote that in kind of a hurry. Let's recognize together that this is a passionate subject & in that passion communications can get muddled. Let me know if u have the time or energy to make that a little clearer. If not, believe me I can well understand how we may have reached the point where we've exhausted this issue.

 

--& I have no wish to. There are lots of folks on these threads who are experts at offending and many of those get taken out by the mods. There are also a lot folks who are experienced professionals at getting offended, and you and I would (imho) be best served by avoiding either tendency.

This thread began w/ a query by Black Irish over the question "the rationale for de-listing it as a paraphilia is?" I personally think it's a good question.

 

I listed a source and a poll — you made a claim the census claimed 1% or 2% but I cannot find that information. Do you want to laugh more or back up your claim with a source as I have done?

That you edited out my source and then acted like I didn’t provide one calls into question your integrity.

Nice rant

I have listed the reasoning and that it does not meet the minimum classification of a mental illness which can be found here.
The APA affirming this sentiment here.

 

My bad, ur link was too easy to over look. By tracking the links to ABC News and then to Gallup we can see that they did some kind of interviews (exact methodology wasn't apparent) w/ one out of 20,000 Americans & they came up w/ a % that's now up to what, 5 or 6% --almost double what it was a decade ago. Somehow it's hard to believe that over 10 million people suddenly became homosexual in the last decade and we're not just talking about an artifact of the "interviews" but hey, if it's from Gallup it's got to be the truth, right?

--and that would require typing in "census" w/ ".gov", then hovering the mouse over the tab "Families & Living Arrangements" & then clicking on "Same-Sex Couples". At any rate u can find a .pdf that has this table:


--putting Same-sex couples and less than a percent of all married couples and couple that w/ unmarried partners --you see where we're getting?

Like I've been saying, this is a passionate issue & often the passion can muddle up the convo. Please understand that I honestly mean no harm & am very interested in our working together --I believe there's so much I can learn from others who're different than me & I want to come in w/ the utmost respect.

Let's be aware that there's no point in either of us "proving" that the other is wrong. My thinking is that if the two of us team up we can search for the truth together & both maybe learn something.

 

Gallup is a reputable polling agency.
As to your remark why homosexuality increased — people have a tendency to lie and burry things when there is a social stigma or it is illegal. This number will only go up most likely

That is family households and does not include individuals. You are making a ton of assumptions to reach your desired figure.

The truth is that homosexuality isn’t a mental illness and there is zero reason to subjugate them or revoke their rights outside of bigotry.

 

So you're saying virgins and sterile people need medical or psychological help?

 

Someone who is physically/sexually/romantically attracted to the same sex and/or gender. The same way a straight person is physically/sexually/romantically attracted to someone of the opposite sex and/or gender.

 

Arousal is more than just the clinical bodily functions. To be aroused in this sense means you want it.

I'm gay and I haven't been with anyone, male or female. Yet I know I'm gay because I'm sexually attracted to guys. BTW, I'm curious about what you define as a "gay experience" that you seem to think everyone goes through.

Well I'm glad you don't think we should make the gays straight.

There will always be enough straight people to do that. I'm sure there's a financial incentive for everybody to be right handed too, yet I don't see anyone saying being left handed is wrong or not beneficial to society.

The church has the biggest influence to government policy in the US so of course he's gonna refer to them rather than any of the lesser established religions.

 

--in many circles that's true, and in other groups it's got a reputation for being agenda driven. Just how many people we're talking about gets us a bit off topic.

You may be right. Of course another possibility is that Gallup can increase their interview fudging until they announce that virtually the entire population's homosexual. This would prove that Gallup announces everyone's homosexual.

My desired number is whatever the number really is depending on whatever definitions we want to use. You & I haven't yet agreed on definitions --mainly because we haven't gotten that far.

--which takes us into a long discussion on what's bigotry and what's racism etc. Life's really a lot more fun than just being the good guy w/ other guy being bad, but there are more important questions here.

One is whether you've ever considered that there are many valid reasons for anything under the sun, and it's our job to weigh all the conflicting arguments to decide for ourselves what's probably true. Naturally a much more popular approach is we individually decide what's true and anyone who we decide is disagreeing is morally deficient. Emotions get stirred up & reason/truth are out the window.

No matter because we do what we do, but (my other question) if u could do me a favor and please show me where I said that homosexuality was a mental illness?

 

lol, and I could say "so you're saying u like to rape mothers and stab babies and blow up government buildings?" Maybe we could agree on how silly this gets.

 

If we want to go forward w/ your deciding what I'm thinking then that kind of leaves me out --you can just carry on a convo w/ your imaginary me and u won't even have to post anything. Then again, another option is that u can ask me what I'm thinking. Your call.

Actually, over the past decade or so the U.S. population would have shrunk had it not been for immigration, but that's not the point. Usually governments favor people forming families & having kids. The only exception I can think of is China, and I understand they're cutting back on their population control policies. Now, of course u can say this is wrong or you can deny it's happening. My understanding (and of course I may be wrong) is that this is what's happening and it works, and growing nations are usually better off.

What, you can't be saying that every year the Pope mails a docket of U.S. federal policies and the president says "yes sir yes sir". How about we agree that most of the U.S. population is religious and that democratic governments tend to reflect public sentiment? Maybe ur gripe would be better aimed not at the church (I'm still not sure why you give a pass to the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc.) but rather at the American people.

 

Your premise is that those who can't reproduce need medical or psychological help. Virgins, sterile, and old couples fall into that catagory.

 

You literally said that virtually everyone has a gay experience. But ok, let's assume you didn't said or meant that. I'm still curious as to what classifies as a gay experience. Care to give a few examples?

So what are you thinking?

I'm not gonna deny the population shrink but people in the LGBT community can have families and reproduce as well. In fact they have a better chance of raising families than senior people who marry later in life and I don't see people campaigning against seniors marrying.

It doesn't work quite like that but there's a reason why Republicans placate to the evangelical demographic and the policies they promote reflect on evangelical principles.

 

You are making these assertions without data. The polling by Gallup matches that of other smaller sample size polling. Why would Gallup lie about this?

There is no discussion on definition needed. The polls ask people if they identify as lesbian gay or bisexual. (Same sex attraction)

The entire discussion was brought about by the complaint about homosexuality being delisted as a medical condition.

You are wanting to ignore polling data from highly respected polling agencies and then introduce data that doesn’t even look into the premise you are calling into question which is strange for someone wanting reason and truth in a discussion.

 

We're not really working together on this & I'm not interested in an endless contest of which of us is the 'good guy' and which is the 'bad guy'.

You saw how I said "you may be right". You may (or may not) be taking issue w/ doubts about Gallup Polls and there are a lot of folks who doubt Gallup Polls. It is a fact that you may be right and it is a fact that some question Gallup Polls. If we can't agree on those facts then we'd probably be better off taking a rest on this until we can see this together differently.

Personally, I don't see this controversy of Gallup Polls as being essential to the original question of de-listing homosexuality.

 

This is a bit foggy. Are u saying that your complaint is more w/ the Republicans than the Church?

 

Both. I'm still wondering what you define as a "gay experience" so that way we're on the same page.

 

The bad guy is probably the one wanting to revoke the rights of others

Your source is pages of Gallup links — the top one is a google groups thread from 1999 with around 15 participants many of them not agreeing with the premise.

Are you serious? That is not statistically relevant.
If you have a source that shows this data is inaccurate or you disagree with the methodology or language used in the poll that is one thing but you just wanting to exclude data you don’t like isn’t going to be taken seriously.

It isn’t. It was a different topic that you introduced where you used manipulated census data to say 1% - 2% of the population is gay.

The reason homosexuality was removed was because it did not meet the criteria of a mental illness and the APA could not justify its classification once people started asking questions. It was originally classified as such due to pressure and lobbying of the church.

 

You guys seem so upset that I've totally lost track of what we're talking about. Like this thread was supposed to be about the reason for de-listing yet cd8ed's hung up on what, my revoking his rights? Somehow that really doesn't compute. Maccabee's now perhaps snagged on what I was talking about earlier about some kind of homosexual encounter but I'm really not sure.

Like I've said before, this is a hot button issue & my guess is y'all have gotten ur buttons pushed & unless we can reset we may want to take a break for a while.

 

No need to take a break. We deal with people — who dishonestly edit down posts because they cannot come up with a valid response — on a daily basis.

The reasons for it being delisted have already been given to you. If you prefer we only discuss that you should attempt to not add new topics to the conversation.

As to @Maccabee’s idea that there may have been some homosexual encounter, that is what you can expect when you say “anyone who lusts after the same sex, however occasionally --and that's a definition that might take in virtually everyone.”

If one has a “very strong sexual desire” for a member of the same sex — they are at minimum bisexual. Sexually is indeed on a curve and you may have a point that many people are somewhat bisexual but this is far from the average.

 

ok, that's what I figured.

cheers

 

I dont know that many gays but it seems the norm for gay men in their 50s and 60s is that they have ex wives and kids.

 

It seems that most bisexuals choose to either identify as heterosexual or homosexual.