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

Marriage in general these days doesn't resemble the marriage in the biblical sense. So holding that standard selectively seems untenable.

 

Saul/Paul words are NOT Jesus' words.
Seems I remember you trying to pass his words off as Jesus'.

It stand to reason my observation is correct. That Saul/Paul never met or talked to Jesus so therefore, has no clue what Jesus would say. He makes it all up.

You also pick and choose, you choose someone who persecuted Christians and then claims his words are Jesus'.
It's not my job to change you either. I just wanted to be clear, you don't actually know Jesus' words on the topic.

 

That more or less proves that people (especially young people who's "self-identification" is prone to changing rapidly).are "identifying as such" at disproportionally high rates.

For example, some statistics have said that "true trangenders" are less than 0.01% of the population, so it's obvious that media propaganda and misinformation is leading to a lot of impressionable young people "identifying" at rates much higher than any presumed "natural" occurrences would be.

What we should do is shut down all LGBT media and propaganda for awhile, and then see how much the listed rates naturally decline. Or compare the number of people who have actually gone through with sexual-reassignment surgery to people who are just off-the-cuff "identifying" as transgender for god knows what reasons.

 

It's totally possible for people to have greater platonic love for someone than they do "romantic love" for someone else.

Such as how people who hook up or have one-night standards aren't intimate enough with each other for their shared romantic attraction to deepen, while in comparison, a person who has a lifelong, non-sexual friend likely has a stronger interpersonal bond.

 

I hope you do realize that stats on this vary wildly, according to the organization doing the surveys and releasing the stats.

 

Uh, what? What does this have to do with what I was saying?

 

Some people can't visualize that "deep platonic love" as illustrated in 2 Samuel between David and Jonathan. To them it doesn't exist without "what they call" sex. I think your observation is very astute!

 

Many of us see Marriage as a sacred institution. We are serious about it and our commitment. Yes, the culture does have a different take and to many it is a casual relationship. Guess it is not surprising as the courtship idea has turned into dating. Where young folks "go steady" for a period until they get what they want....then move on. It is Basic Training" for divorce. Personally I don't follow culture. My standards are different and when my opinion is asked....I give it. That's all. you don't have to agree.

 

That's great. I take absolutely no issue with that.

But sure what that has to do with others.

Don't disagree here.

I do like discussing opinions and what supports them. Fyi I don't fault you for any of the reasons you have given. I do question them it isn't meant personally or even adversarial.

Part of the reason I post in this forum is to better understand myself, to challenge my preconceived notions with those that are critical of them. That's why I talk to you. If I didn't value your input I wouldn't talk to you.

 

It's also entirely possible that they were in a romantic relationship. I'm not claiming definitively that David and Jonathan were lovers, however the language used to describe their relationship has another side to the coin.

 

Thanh for for ESTABLISHING that you do NOT understand anything at all about TRENDS and how they function WRT to society.

 

Yup, too guys weeping in each other's arms because they were being forced to separate otherwise run the risk of one of them being murdered by the father of the other sounds exactly like something that happens all the time to straight men...NEVER!

 

That's one way of looking at it, that Gallup's right & the Census Bur lied. Then again, another explanation is that Gallup has an agenda they're pushing, & still another possibility is that we've got more than one definition of what "gay" is so folks can conclude whatever they want.

Lots of ways to look at it.

Well, sort of. Many in the U.S. seem have become hyper-protective of the various victims in our environs, and while others in the U.S. disagree (w/ varying degrees of success) there are yet other jurisdictions that take a harder line. China's clamping down (the latest is their restrictions on gender choice w/ TV protagonists) and yet other areas go for flat out public executions for "gays".

Now that u mention it he seems to have been a bit provocative in this case, but hey --we're here aren't we?

 

--and it's a shame that such a major group (purportedly in the interests of bettering our way of life) should flip & go straight politics.

The behavior sciences have got serious credibility problems. Another glaring issue is that their "studies" cannot be reproduced. iow when some academic group announces that science proves that thus'n'so type of people will always do this'n'that, it turns out that with a subsequent group trying to confirm the original study usually ends up w/ wildly differing results.

Nobody wins a Nobel prize in behavior sciences any more because so-called 'discoveries' more often than not end up being debunked.

 

Not really!

Your Census data is NOT remotely similar to the Gallup data so comparing them is a waste of time.

The ONUS is on YOU to establish that Gallup has an "agenda" when it asks those that it polls to "self identify".

 

Where is YOUR credible substantiation for that allegation?

 

Please be aware that I'd never want to offend, my thinking is live & let live. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here about the 1973 APA decision, that my take was (from what I've been able to read) that the move was political & not based on new scientific findings. Please understand that this view in no way says whether "gay" people are bad, good, or indifferent but rather points to my problem w/ the APA itself.

Someone else's view might be that the APA was evil before 1973 when it classified homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle to be called "paraphilia" --and then out of nowhere it suddenly saw the devine light and became a good group when it de-listed the gay way of life. That my be true of course but personally I don't buy it. My take is that the APA saw that it was politically expedient to say homosexuality was a sickness before 1973 & then it flipped politically when the political winds changed. The question of gay wholesomeness never came up in any scientific study.

Once again this might be a good time to consider that I'm not talking about reproducing people being morally superior to the evil 'non-reproducers', but I'm merely pointing to the basic mechanics of how things work. For better or worse.

A living organism has to be able to eat, grow, and reproduce. This is a fact of life & we have to deal with it. Governments like it when people reproduce, populations grow, and the tax base increases. This is another fact of life for better or worse.

All this has nothing to do w/ the fact that some of my best friends are gays.

 

Although I've misunderstood a few things in the past, what I'm seeing here is that you disagree w/ virtually everything I say.

Hey, don't get me wrong I'm not complaining but I'm trying to see what's happening --and it's fine that you want to argue against everything I say. My experience is that everyone sees things differently and can disagree and this is a good thing because when we consult we have a better chance of understanding the truth. You can do what u want but for engaging me it's better to compare notes sort of, let me know what ur seeing that conflicts w/ what I see. The notion of just arguing for the sake of a good dust up has never been my forte.

 

Your posts contain baseless unsubstantiated assumptions and false equivalences.

To establish my point I am going to use this post of yours;

1st assumption on YOUR part lacking any substantiation.

2nd assumption on YOUR part lacking any substantiation.

3rd assumption on YOUR part lacking any substantiation.

False equivalence that all of those baseless assumptions are equally valid.

And this post of yours containing even more baseless unsubstantiated assumptions;

4th assumption on YOUR part lacking any substantiation.

5th assumption on YOUR part lacking any substantiation.

6th assumption on YOUR part lacking any substantiation.

7th assumption on YOUR part lacking any substantiation.

In order to have a debate you have to be prepared to have others request that you provide something that substantiates your position.

Otherwise all you are doing is posting YOUR OPINION which just exposes your own bias.

If you want to post your opinion that is fine but it would be better if you prefixed or suffixed your allegations with the caveat that it is merely your opinion and nothing more.

However if YOUR objective, as stated above, is to have a discussion in order to actually determine the "truth" then that requires a greater level of commitment on your part to ensure that YOUR position CAN be SUBSTANTIATED when challenged.

Your choice.

 

Whoa, u sure did disagree w/ everything I said --NEAT!

 

I respect that, the APA has proven that they are heavily influenced by politics. But I figure they always have been.

I think the demand for official recognition of certain things as mentally disordered or not has defeated the purpose of the APA. For instance the DSM upon first publishing was just a manual to help psychiatrists treat people in psychiatric hospitals. Now it has been elevated to the status of holy Bible for the field of psychology.

I don't think they were ever particularly evil just a political organization. The declassification of homosexuality is a paraphilia demonstrates this. Political reasons required them to have it in the DSM politics changed so the DSM changed.

I'm not aware that homosexuals aren't able to reproduce in fact I know quite a few that have.

I don't take your statements anti-gay per se, maybe a bit misinformed with regards to reproduction. They mostly come off as a distrust of it organization heavily influenced by politics.

The only question now is did you begin mistrusting them when their politics changed or would you hold them to that same standard before.

 

--and you know my statements are "misinformed" because what, you know the truth?

You'll have to forgive me here as I've just about had my fill of folks on these threads who know the truth & since they're right they're only willing to discuss how others are wrong.

 

it was a response to this statement.

I took that to mean that you don't realize homosexual people can and do reproduce.

I made an assumption. I do apologize.

So what did you mean by this statement?

If my assumption was correct you were objectively wrong. If you don't want to be told that make sure you aren't.

 

Yet another BASELESS ASSSUMPTION on YOUR part!

If you can SUBSTANTIATE your allegations then you could CONVINCE me to agree with you on them.

That YOU chose NOT to substantiate ANY of them only HARMS your credibility.

And that is YOUR problem, NOT mine.

Capisce?

 

Then again, we may want to consider that the question is controversial. Naturally we can say if any homosexual has a kid (though an opposite sex relationship) and then adopts the child into a same-sex union then u can say that homosexuals reproduce.

What I'm seeing is that out of hundreds of homosexuals about one or two will reproduce in a same sex household. Or, if we define homosexual as a confirmed permanent relationship and use the census/household numbers, we get one out of 50 that reproduce. Contrast that to the fact that most opposite sex people reproduce. You're free to fill me in if I'm overlooking something here, but my guess as to how many same sex households w/ children is about a hundred K (from here) and the number of opposite sex households can be 23 million from that site or 91 million from the census bur..

Where I'm going here is that the percentage of homosexuals who reproduce is clearly way below the maintenance level of their population, and they depend on opposite sex relationships to survive. iow, the human race survives because of opposite sex couples and any input from homosexuals is trivial.

Do you have hard numbers that show something else?