As a member of the American Psychological Association for 36 years,
Certainly you are not saying that this is the first time in your 36-year long membership you have seen the APA arbitrarily revise its own policies and working texts? It has a long history of doing so, and while they deny it has anything to do with societal mores, their changes track right alongside changes in social mores. Nowhere is this more evident than in dealing with issues of sexuality.
You should be able to tell from you own experience as a member how something like homosexuality was approached (in terms of “treatment”) from the 1970s until today. Today, there seems to be no such thing as a person in a homosexual relationship who carries any guilt about it, who might inwardly question the validity of it, or who might not be exhibiting that behavior at the cause of or in place of something else missing in their lives. It’s almost as though this, as a possibility, has been declared off-limits by the APA, to where you are allowed to pose any other possibility, but NOT that one.
What is laughably deficient in their declarations is that you can find people who were in a homosexual relationship and are glad to be out of it. You can find people, I know of two personally, who are very open about their “decision” to enter the gay lifestyle out of sense of rebellion. Both are there still, seemingly satisfied with it, but honest enough to not pretend they were driven by some hidden, repressed connection of proteins in their DNA that led them uncontrollably to the way they live. They make no pretense about it being a choice for them, and both shake their heads when they hear the most renown mouthpieces of the gay movement stand up to declare there is no element of choice involved.
That might be true for some, the point is you can’t take all gays everywhere and lump them into one single pile and base decisions like psychological help on which direction the windsock of society happens to be blowing today.
Ask yourself these questions: Does every person with an addiction contribute exactly the same amount to their own misery? Does every one respond equally well to a given treatment? How about paranoiacs? How about those who suffer from claustrophobia? Each person has a different level of fear or inability to cope, and that requires different approaches to treat them, which is, in turn, why psychologists and psychiatrists have jobs, being that it is they who are the “experts” at determining the level of illness and what works best to try and heal or deal with it.
This topic, of course, is a hot potato and it is compounded by the activities of individuals and groups who seek to promote the gay lifestyle as something unchallengeable by anyone in terms of health concerns, mental fitness, and most of all, morality. To accomplish this task, it is necessary to lump all in that lifestyle together because few people care whether a few people are persecuted over here or discriminated against over there. But when you lump them together and paint it with the same brush as racism or gender bias, well now you have something tangible that virtually everyone can associate with and react strongly to, generally against.
Whenever you see a news story on a gay couple seeking to adopt a child, what is the picture that accompanies the story? Is it one of some bizarrely-dressed, half-naked individual on a parade float in San Francisco showing off his/her private parts for the crowd, or is it one of two well-dressed people sitting quietly in an obviously well-furnished home with an apprehensive look on their faces? It’s all about image, about marketing, and gaining support of the APA is a huge part of that effort. That is why it has been a gradual but continuing effort to get the APA to remove anything remotely resembling condemnation of anything whatever to do with these sexual issues.
Compare it to the Jesus Seminar, where a group of people with degrees in various disciplines get together and vote on whether they think something is scriptually valid or not. Once they vote to toss out a parable of Jesus that teaches something, there is no longer any leg to stand on to continue believing what that parable teaches. Do away with the parable, do away with the principle. In the APA, do away with the implication that any homosexual may have a problem, do away with the notion that homosexuality has anything wrong about it.