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

My point was I don't think it's wrong to engage in a relationship with other adults. So there's no need to rationalize it.

What I'm trying to get at is what is the issue that people have with gay people having a relationship with who they want?

 

I believe the stigma and homophobia stems from misinterpreting key passages in the Bible.

 

I don't think this is homophobia. It's that people think with the more acceptance there is for it the more commonplace it will become and I don't think that's the case. I doubt it's very common that people decide to be gay for trendiness.

It's just as it becomes more accepted people are more willing to accept it themselves. So we have more people identifying as gay because there's not as much stigma on it. I think people think this is the idea that the more it's accepted the more people are trying it out.

 

Not sure what ur talking about. When did I bring up the question of a "mental disorder"?

 

The thread is about the APA which is the American psychology association removing homosexuality from the DSM as a paraphilia.

That's what I'm talking about and I figured because you posted on the thread that's what you were talking about? Was I mistaken?

 

The DSM was compromised late last century/early this century. Political expedience, is the answer.

The mental health sciences are not subject to 'new knowledge' in the way physiological medical science is, because the brain is plastic - unlike other body systems. We're also nowhere near even beginning to glimpse any real understanding of the root cause of mental illness - but all 'evidence' thus far indicates that none of it is a fixed disease state.

Because of that, the DSM has been predicated primarily on presentations, rather than aetiologies - because aetiologies are so uncertain. The political corruption came about via pressure to 'create' aetiologies, which in turn were used as a premise for the deleting of conditions from the manual.

 

You're not an easy guy to follow.

First ur asking me about "mental disorder" and now you're talking about the APA. One possible guess is that you realized that you were way out of line on the "mental disorder" thing & ur hoping I won't notice your slight of hand --but that might be wrong but no matter because we'd be a lot better off if we changed from "mental disorder" to the APA.

Better still, maybe we could get back to what I actually did say, namely:

Is this what u got upset about?

 

the APA is the American psychology association these are the people that put together the DSM that's used to Define mental disorders.

What I'm trying to do is figure out what you have to say about the topic. I assumed you were talking about the topic since you posted in this thread

The desire to start a conversation with somebody is not an indication that they are upset.

I was wanting to understand the reasoning behind your statements if you don't have any then I guess we're finished here.

 

IMHO it is a hedonistic model for the children. Haiti is a good example of a Nation that is hedonistic. Maybe they import them here so we'll be more like them! We are going that way......but you see no problem with that?

 

It's hedonistic to want a relationship? Seems the opposite of that.

 

I described this as my opinion. The relationship between a man and a women is an opportunity for completeness. We've always called it marriage. It is a model for our children. It nurtures our children and future generations. It has purpose outside of the indulgence of a same sex relationship.....but you can go ahead and call it marriage....might as well.

 

I just don't understand how committing yourself to somebody is hedonism.

It's not that I disagree with your opinion I don't understand it. Do you think just being gay in general is hedonism?

 

I have my frame of reference. I believe the Bible is true and I also believe it coincides with "natural law". There is a plan for humanity and how it propagates and how it prepares for eternity. Homosexual relationships might satisfy the "here and now" but I believe it completely ignores the idea of eternity. That is not to say brotherly love between same sex individuals isn't a valuable thing. I would point to the story of David and Jonathan in 2nd Samuel. I couldn't select a better "love story" between same sex individuals. I would challenge anyone to describe a greater commitment than these two had for each other. Never did it need to evolve into an imitation of marriage. When it does, it is just a deception or trick of the mind.

 

What do you base this on?

 

Please reread the 1st two sentences in my last post. It qualifies the answer to your question in a nut shell. You have asked me questions, very cleverly, but when I answer you try and morph it to your own frame of reference. I am an individual. Respect that!

 

I suppose you're not interested in the fact that the Bible never said or mentioned homosexuality until early 20th century. It was changed. So which Bible do you believe is truth the original one or the current version

Your responses seem bizarre and inconsistent.

 

[QUOTE="Polydectes, post: 1072959863, member: 49589"]I suppose you're not interested in the fact that the Bible never said or mentioned homosexuality until early 20th century. It was changed. So which Bible do you believe is truth the original one or the current version

Your responses seem bizarre and inconsistent.[/QUOTE] I am not going to even uproot that lie, but I will say, Jesus spoke of marriage in great detail. Never once did he reference same sex marriage. Show me where the culture of the time even accepted it. You just do your best to undermine my reference....that's all. Talk about bizarre and inconsistant....you begin our back and forth by feigning to really have an interest in what I think but then you show your colors and begin the attack you had planned! It's entertaining for sure!

 

Except it's not a lie. Homosexuality was added to the Bible in 1946.

 

Except it's not a lie. Homosexuality was added to the Bible in 1946.[/QUOTE]
Yes and the altered the Talmud as well I suppose.
Maccabee, on the chance you would do some honest research on this I will give you a frame of reference...https://thethink.institute/articles...-didnt-condemn-homosexual-behavior-until-1946.

It IS a lie.

 

Even within your own source it's not crystal clear.

" These were either sex slaves, or just homosexual men preforming the unnatural role of playing the woman, (Romans 1:27, Leviticus 18:22)."

So which is it? Sex slaves or just gay men? It also doesn't go into detail about the other verses original intent that the article quoted.

Here and better source.

https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/

 

What is going to happen in Cal.? It's beyond " next week" from the date of your post and I have not heard anything.

 

if he never once mentioned it he never once said it was unacceptable. That's some weak sauce

the reference was just an opinion based on an edit to the Bible in the 20th century

I'm not interested in preaching. This is a discussion and it's a two-way thing if you don't like it move along.

 

Yes and the altered the Talmud as well I suppose.
Maccabee, on the chance you would do some honest research on this I will give you a frame of reference...https://thethink.institute/articles...-didnt-condemn-homosexual-behavior-until-1946.

It IS a lie.[/QUOTE]
It isn't.

 

It isn't.[/QUOTE]

I don't need your source. You believe what you want to believe. Show me a source in the Holy Scripture where there is reference to same sex marriage anywhere before 1946. Then count all the references to husbands and wives." Husbands love your wives like Christ loves the Church"

 

It isn't.[/QUOTE]