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

Nope, it's based upon building a society where we can get along. The secular basis of morality is not harming others. The religious basis of morality is not offending an imaginary friend, and that imaginary friend can think whatever its bronze age fathers thought - including stoning people to death for not conforming, treating gay people badly, killing people of other religions. Religion is more a corruption of morality than a foundation of it.

 

I assume most of them have a preference.

 

I have a preference for big jiggly titties and a tight ass. My current companion of two years with tight titties and jiggly ass doesnt know about my preference. I suspect bisexuals who find themselves in a heterosexual relationship tend to identify as heterosexual. Same for those in a homosexual relationship.

 

That may or may not be true but I'm really not sure how we can determine what the earth's population's true motivation is --even if they don't know it.

Interesting. You know, I've never heard of any religious group that says "come join us because we have an imaginary friend!" If you're saying that this is the majority of the world's motivation even while this same majority will deny it, then once again I'm not sure how you'd go about proving it.

 

You know what I mean. Their gods aren't real, and have imagined desires made up by authors who clearly spoke from the perspective of their time rather than influenced by an infinitely wise deity. This is why the old testament and the quran are largely immoral. Jesus was at least a more likeable character than the other abrahamic ones though

 

Let's try to be a bit more careful about statements like that.

Nobody really knows what someone else is thinking, we can only guess. Part of the problem of guessing what someone else is thinking is complicated by the fact that virtually everyone's of many parts, and these varied parts are often at odds w/ each other. Often someone can be deceitful w/ other people about their thoughts, and worse yet one part of a person can deceive some other part.

Then again, you may or may not have ever considered how very complex people can be, so if ur not willing to follow me then just be aware that if u already know what I'm thinking then we're done here because u can just carry on a lively conversation w/ this magical person that ur imagining me to be.

You and I are in total agreement on this in many cases of religious experience. I get really tired of someone who insists he's got Jesus in his heart which (to me) means he's got God up his ass.

At the same time, please be aware that there are a lot of religions around and some (say Buddhism for example) that simply don't talk about God at all. Years ago when I was first looking into Buddhism a buddy of mine said that Buddhists don't believe in God but I came to find out that the issue is simply not addressed by them, and their emphasis is on living a correct life. Other religious groups say that an atheist can be religious. Unitarians & Humanists are examples, though there's controversy as to whether or not they're religions or not.

My take is that it depends on how we conceive of religion, that if we imagine it to be a search for truth, right/wrong, and meaning then Humanists are religious. If our definition is that we're the good guys and the religious people are idiots and bad guys then Humanists aren't religious.

 

The original form of Buddhism is the purest form. Like all religions, Buddhism has been corrupted by power seekers.

There was no god. There was only Buddha, who was a man who is claimed to have become totally enlightened and reached nirvana.

You do not pray to Buddha, rather you pray with Buddha. Buddha is nothing more than an inspirational role model, because if one person can achieve enlightenment, then it would seem so too can others, and one way to achieve enlightenment is to walk the Middle Path, because all life is suffering if not due to hedonism, then to due to abstention.

 

The rationale was that psychiatrists and psychologists were tired of being browbeat by homosexuals.

 

Yes.

It can objectively be called abnormal, meaning it isn't the norm. But to call it bad or list it as a disorder etc is a value judgment and not a scientific fact.

 

If psychology is able to be undermined by politics to the point where is owned it was never science.

 

That doesn't make much sense. We are talking about the realm of academics. And in academics it's publish or parish. Poking a hole in generally accepted psychology with legitimate data would certainly get published. I don't think academics are so afraid of the Velvet Mafia that they would choose perish over publish

 

That's not sound rationale. Academia is publish or parish. They wouldn't choose parish because people won't be happy.

 

Is it mentally disordered for a woman to marry a sterile man? Is it mentally disordered for a man to have a vasectomy?

 

Because more and more psychologists/and psychiatrists , like our educators are gay.

 

O.K. just have your fun.

 

Why is that not considered a mental disorder it's a paraphilia by the op definition.

 

Men and women are different IMHO. I know that does not fit the worlds definition. They each have something unique to offer a relationship. But if you want to follow the Adam and Steve theory.....I won't stop you.

 

Well yeah men and women are different. I'm not making the argument that they're not.

If you want a relationship with an opposite sex person that's your business. You don't have to rationalize it it doesn't matter.

 

To me at least it looks like we've left the subject of mental disorders and are now getting into the nature of human interactions and what kind of emotions are motivating our convo.

One possibility as to why you're unable to understand and "make much sense" out of what I'm saying is that I'm seeing something that you've overlooked. Then again, other possibilities could be that I'm completely stupid or I'm parroting an evil diatribe. My guess is that you've never considered the former & are fixated on the latter.

 

This is the second time I've tried to respond to this post but for some reason the browser or the website's programming has a glitch.

What ever; but what I'm trying to say is that this idea of "purest form" is very pliable, that folks can make any kind of religious offshoot all the while insisting that they're "restoring" the faith. Another controversy is whether Buddhism is atheist or simply focused on personal issues. There was a tradition shared on one of these threads where the Buddha asked his followers if he ever said there was or was not a God, and the answer was "no, you've only taught about the correct path".

 

I don't rationalize it. I don't want them rationalizing it either because it is not the norm.

 

disagree I want to know what you base describing something as a mental disorder on

 

Having a relationship with the opposite sex is not the norm?

I would disagree with that.

 

Sorry. I miscommunicated.