(October 13, 2015 at 12:29 am)ronedee Wrote:(October 13, 2015 at 12:26 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Um, I don't think you read that entire article. Here's his conclusion:Where did I say the author said they were ill?
(Bold emphasis my own.)
His article was not saying that Homosexuals are ill, he is saying that the APA's process of classifying mental issues in general is bogus. There's nothing in that article that suggests the author feels that homosexuals were ever properly classified as mentally ill. He is saying that none of the categories described by the APA are valid.
You deliberately manipulated the title, which contained the phrase "mental illness", to try to support your original claim that homosexuality was scientifically shown to be a mental illness, which was the question that had been put to you.
Except he is using the term ironically, because he doesn't think mental illnesses described in the DSM are a real thing. I'm not arguing the pros or cons of that position, only that the article does not say what you seem to hope it says. You quote a bit out of the middle to talk about how a vote cancelled the classification, as if to show it was just a political decision but that gays are really mentally ill despite the politics (I can think of no other implication or intent you may have had in using that quote in your post), but the reason the author mentioned it is to show that it was never a mental illness in the first place.
The article basically says the opposite of what you contended.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.