Homosexuality is psychological and not biological.

In Destructive Trends in mental health, respected veterans of the mental health industry Rogers H.Wright and Nicholas A.Cummings sought to educate consumers, practitioners, and policy makers about a variety of recent issues and trends that have significantly changed the mental health fields in America. They got established and revered practitioners to write chapters which explore these important issues. The following regarding the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 was written as a matter of verifiable fact: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalising homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted. Psychiatrys House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking for the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote than by scientific evidence (page 9) https://books.google.com.sg... Against a backdrop where homosexuals were gaining public sympathy and growing louder in voice and bolder in pressure lobbying, Destructive Trends in mental health reports: Bayer describes one instance in 1972 in which the New York Gay Activist Alliance organised a protest during a conference of the Association for the Advancement of Behaviour Therapy. The protesters called for an end to the use of aversion techniques to change the natural sexual orientation of human beings. The activists gained access to one of the conference rooms during a presentation in front of a large audience that included Dr Robert Spitzer, then a member of the APAs Nomenclature Committee. This was the first time Spitzer had been confronted with homosexuals demanding changes in psychiatry"s conceptualization of homosexuality. Apparently, impressed by the passion and arguments of the protesters, Spitzer arranged for a formal presentation of their views to the Nomenclature Committee. Spitzer was to become the one to spearhead APAs 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. (Yet interestingly, he undo his hero status among the homosexual community when some 28 years later, he argued in a paper that it is possible for highly motivated individuals to successfully change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.) Here are the chain of events: 1973 Board of Trustees of The American Psychiatric Association (APA) approves the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM-II and substitutes a diagnosis of sexual orientation disturbance. Intense discussion and debate followed. On Dec 15 1973, the Board of Trustees of the APA voted to delete homosexuality altogether from the DSM. Opposition from several psychiatrists immediately followed. A referendum on the Boards decision was called. 1974 " the entire membership of the APA was polled for their support or rejection of the Board"s decision. Of the 10,000 voting members, nearly 40% opposed the Board"s decision to normalise homosexuality. The decision was hardly unanimous. (Controversially, a survey conducted in 1979 asked 10,000 psychiatrists if they felt homosexuality "usually represented a pathological adaptation." 69% of respondents said "yes," and ï¿½60% said homosexual men were less capable of "mature, loving relationships" than heterosexual men.) The author of Destructive Trends in mental health was right to conclude: Diagnosis today in psychology and psychiatry is cluttered with politically correct verbiage, which seemingly has taken precedence over sound professional experience and scientific validation. Explaining how it is possible that intellectual openness, scientific inquiry, aspiration towards diversity, and freedom from political pressure that once flourished in the American Psychological Association has been eclipsed by an ultra-liberal agenda, the author describes: The field of psychology is severely fractionated into almost sixty formal divisions and fifty state associations, which compete for seats on the organizations governing body, the Council of Representatives. Originally intended as units organised around special interests and concerns within psychology, they have become power bases and self-interest groups that fiercely vie against one another for the limited number of seats on the Council of Representatives in order to influence the course and commitments of the APA. https://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com... ** Here ^^ we can see in greater detail, along with names and dates, that the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was not one born out of objective professional judgment, but instead clearly born from well organised political pressure. When one must use such covert and subversive measures to alter the very direction of something, then it becomes clear that objective reality is disregarded in favour of a false reality created from the pressure and intimidation. The only question here ^^ is why would these lobbyists have conspired and worked to have it removed? Clearly because they felt there was a benefit - to them. Not to truth or objective reality, but a benefit to them - or at least a perceived one. I guess they must have felt that until they had taken it off the DSM list then they, as a group, might find that their condition held them back from doing certain things. Even today any given employer might be able to reject someone on the basis they have paranoid schizophrenia for example. I doubt a paranoid schizophrenic would be allowed into the army. This is not because the army is inherently anti schizophrenic, but that on balance it would be reasoned that he may be a risk to himself and to others. There may be other jobs he could do, but there are a lot where it would fairly be something to consider for everyone's sake. While homosexuality is not schizophrenia it is rooted in the psychological and developmental, and so while it was deemed as a psychological condition, this was taken into consideration in certain occupations. Therefore, as far the homosexual lobby and their backers were concerned, to get off the DSM was a must. But not a must for truth and accuracy, a must for their perceived advancement. I contest that their motives were selfish and grounded in self advancement rather than being grounded in objective reality. I contest that the scientific and psychiatric community did itself a great disservice when they permitted themselves to be bullied and cajoled by a well organised and well- funded lobby. In practice, this means that any well organised and well-funded lobby could, were they dogged enough, get science to alter or distort some other reality. Or historians. It's alarming to think how our given reality can be malleable when you have well- oiled and well connected lobbyists using their money and tactics to advance their own agenda, whatsoever that may be. But as alarming as it is it's also a modern reality. Powerful and rich lobbyists change the political course of the USA. Why would they not be able to do the same in certain fields of science, and psychiatry and psychology would lend themselves well to it. There are two realities to the homosexual lifestyle. There's the reality manufactured by popular media, in which the homosexual is nearly always the good guy, the cool guy just that bit smarter and more erudite than the straight guys. Everything is portrayed as good and positive, I call it 'Will and Grace' syndrome. Albeit there are exceptions to all things, generally speaking and with only a relatively small amount of personal research, a true picture emerges that's often times one of drug misuse, promiscuity, high rates of HIV, low rates of contraception use (high risk behaviours), many empty sexual encounters with near or total strangers and a much shorter life span for acting upon their psychologically rooted symptoms. When organised homosexual lobbyists got it taken off the DSM, true they perhaps made some superficial or material gains. That's undeniable. But at what cost? Without recognition on the DSM it would then follow that even if a homosexual himself dearly wanted to address his homosexuality, then the mechanism would not be in place to assist him. Indeed, his peers would likely ostracise him for being a homosexual man that perhaps didn't want to be. The irony of 'tolerance' I guess. There are homosexual militants that would likely attack any clinic that offered any kind of therapy and/or non- invasive assistance to a homosexual that either wished to be hetero or simply abstain. As a result of being taken off the DSM many of the symptoms of homosexuality inevitably grew worse. HIV became rampant among them, they began killing themselves at a higher rate than ever, they began drug taking to a higher rate than ever. This is no surprise. If you took bi polar disorder off the DSM and failed to give any care to those that had it (since it would no longer be a condition), then it would also likely lead to greater levels of people with that condition getting worse than they presently are, esp if a media encouraged them to exasperate their condition by encouraging people with it to just act on a whim.