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

You need to fix your quoting. I'm getting tired of fixing it. With that aside, that's very dismissive of you and rather telling. So you're saying that you won't even consider a different view and verify it? Why should I continue this discussion if you're not willing to at least address what I'm saying? To your request, there's actually rather compelling evidence that David and Jonathan were more than just really good friends. The Bible describe their relationship as "souls knitted together" and their love "exceeding that of a woman." This is the same verbage the Bible use to describe a relationship between a husband and wife. In fact, had David and Jonathan were a man and woman, it would've been automatically assumed that they had a romantic relationship.

 

There wasn't references to using automobiles or computers but I do that.

Meh linguistics are often open to interpretation. There isn't any stipulation on what sex people are.

 

Actually barely 25% of the APA membership voted to remove it from the disorder list; 5,800 voted to de-list it, 3,800 voted against de-listing it, and some 10,000 more members didn't vote at all, out of fear of their practices being targeted and losing money. I.e. some 75% of the membership found the fake 'science' far less than convincing, but feared the political intimidation. Obviously the de-listing was entirely politics and nothing to do with 'science'. The so-called 'mental health professions' are loaded with quacks, political activists, and sociopaths, not 'scientists'.

 

Evidence?

 

Yes, I believe that there were political influences in the decision to de-list homosexuality as a paraphilia. I am generally against political interference in scientific matters.

This said, regardless of HOW it got to be delisted, the fact remains that it was the RIGHT decision.

Human beings come in different flavors regarding sexual orientation. The most common orientation is heterosexual. The second most common one is homosexual. Third comes bisexual, and fourth comes a-sexual, people who do not experience any need or desire to have sex.

Why should we list the second most common situation as a disorder? There are criteria that are required to call something a disorder... it must impact on someone's ability to function, and it must generate pain and suffering. Most homosexuals are perfectly happy with their orientation, and they function perfectly well, so what would be the justification to call it a disorder?

If you think of it from the standpoint of "second most common orientation" and you make some analogies, you'll see how absurd it is to consider it a disorder.

I just googled it; what's the most popular fast food chain, and what's the second most popular? McDonalds comes on top, and second is Starbucks. So, would someone who likes Starbucks be considered abnormal???

I googled the most popular cars in America. The Ford F-series pickups come on top. Second is the Honda Accord. Are people who prefer a Honda Accord, abnormal???

The most popular food in America is hamburgers. The second most popular is hot dogs. Are people who love hot dogs, abnormal???

Now, some would say, "but homosexuality is abnormal because it doesn't lead to reproduction, so its unnatural."

Well, if that's the case, then anybody who is not able to reproduce but still wants to have sex, must be called abnormal, regarding the sex part. Say, a women acquires a disease that makes it necessary to remove her uterus, while preserving her ovaries. She still has the same hormones, and still desires to have sex. But she can't reproduce. Do we need to call her sex drive, abnormal because the sex won't lead to reproduction???

 

Really? You didn't hear of the attempt to recall Governor Newsom? It failed by a landslide.

 

Actually Californians did vote to ban the homosexual 'marriage' hoax; Democrats found a mentally ill homosexual Federal judge to strike down the ban.

 

lol some 2% claim to be 'homosexual', and less than 10% of those claim to be exclusively homosexual. They also report a lot of associated disorders as well. It's a mental disorder, period.

 

I will leave you now to your perversity. The Book of Leviticus was not changed in 1946.

 

Why, as a Christian, are you relying on an old testament verse to judge my homosexuality? Leviticus also says that you can't eat pork, yet I don't see you condemning bacon lovers? Also, had you read the article I linked, in the original context, Leviticus was talking about either temple prostitution, or incestuous relationships.

 

How was he mentally ill?

 

First off, it's around 3% of the US population that are part of the LGBT community. Second, there are only 1-2% of the world population that are ginger. Does that mean gingers are mentally ill or otherwise don't deserve the same rights other people have?

 

Likely due to the fact that many laws of old were more religious based than science based and now that we've become more science based when it comes to laws, there's a reclassification of some human traits to be more aligned with the reality of humans.

 

False
LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% in Latest U.S. Estimate
7.6% of the population refused to answer

Younger generations identify as LGBT by up to 15.9%

Homosexuality does not meet the criterion of a mental illness as per the DSM-5. Period.
If you do believe it is a mental illness then should LGBT individuals be able to claim medical protections from discrimination and/or receive public assistance?

 

Religious beliefs of old had more to do with it's classification in the 1st place, and not basic human reality to all the different types of humans their are.
All animals need similar basic functions to survive. And most all animal classes have homosexual beings within it's species.

Just because reproduction is required to survive as a species doesn't mean 100% of those species need to reproduce. There are straight people that have never been able to reproduce and don't need medical attention as you think they do. And then there are homo people that can reproduce if they choose to.

So your reproduction claim is pure BS at an individual level..

 

I am not gay and even I was offended with your 1st post in this thread. As that has been a big mantra saying to all those who typically come off as hating gays in most every other thread on homosexuality. In particular, if one can't reproduce, they need medical help.
Keep in mind, as btthe... said, he is gay and reproduced and there are many non gay people who never have been able to reproduce.

So using reproduction as a claim that homosexuality is wrong is in itself very wrong. But is often used as a tool to shut down gay people.

 

Actually, its not a good question.
But why do you think it is a good question? Why does it matter if gay is or is not paraphilia?

 

i would suspect, those that know that are bisexual who find themselves in a heterosexual relationship still identify as bisexual.
Who one is in a relationship with has no bearing on their sexual being. Hetero is hetero. Gay is gay. Bi is Bi. Regardless of the relationship one is in at the time.

 

Ok, just have your fun.

 

What is psychological help for? If not for a 'mental disorder'?

 

Can you quote Jesus on his marriage stances? Which bible verses?

 

Before I do that would you tell me if you give any credibility to the words of Jesus? I have done this in the past. What happens is this, you come back and say it is all a fairy tale anyway. So why would I waste my time? You can have access to the Word of God. You could read it for yourself. You could be introspective. See, I know the teachings of Jesus. He said, "Do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and tear you to pieces". That is what I just described. Why else do you think He remained silent when questioned by Herrod? The word "swine" in that quote is not to demean you or anyone else. Swine depicts those enemies in the spiritual world. Perhaps some day you'll understand that.

 

Never mind.
I just wanted bible verses. But that seems rather difficult.

I wanted to see your proof and not use the words of Saul/Paul. I guessed that is the verses you would refer to, is Paul. The persecutor of Christians. And try to claim those as Jesus' words.

 

WHEN was that US Census Bur data taken?



As you can see from the Gallup data from 2020 there is a clear TREND towards a greater ACCEPTANCE within Society for all members of the LBGTQ community and while bi, gays and lesbians were less that one percent within the generation leading up to WW2 it is now 15% among Gen Z.

Society is recognizing that there is no STIGMA associated with same sex attraction because in all other respects they are normal people living normal lives.

Given other threads by the OP it appears that he has a problem with the entire LBGTQ community and is looking for support to classify 15% of the population as having a paraphilia.

 

There you go, you discount Paul....seems I remember that. The original disciples didn't so it stands to reason my observation of you is right. Why would I quote scripture to you?? You pick and choose anyway. That would be "casting pearls" and I won't do it! You go ahead, live your life and call it marriage. Not my job to change you.