[quote=Lisa N]My understanding is that homosexuality was removed as a diagnosis of a MENTAL ILLNESS, not that it was deemed normal by the APA.
read what they say about it:
it would seem they consider it a normal behavior.
Futher even homosexual activists acknowledge that the change was not based on any kind of research or consensus amongst the group but more of a political capitulation to pressure groups. After all the term ‘mental illness’ is quite perjorative.
Cause there was data going back to 1950 that said straight men and gay men were equally mentally healthy.
Look at the definition of normal Tlaloc: Confirming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level or type. Biology: Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Yes, and? Homosexuality is a part of our species nature. Remember the genetics?
Now even though this is a Catholic list I know you are unimpressed with religious truths.
Unconvinced would be more correct.
So let’s stick to biology. All species of animals, including humans, have a biological “program” to do two things, survive and procreate. Survival is generally based on the need to live long enough to procreate and those species that fail to procreate disappear. So strictly from a biological basis there is no rationale to defend homosexual activity. It is both risky and by definition does not allow procreation. Normal? Oh I don’t think you have much evidence of that.
Your knowledge of biology is rather out of date. Many species, including primates, exhibit behaviors that are altruistic or in other words bad for themselves but good for the troop (deliniating good and bad in terms of reproduction).
Now if normal simply means normal for you, then admit that you have no point of reference other than your own emotions and desires.
No I’m happy using normal to mean natural. Afterall homosexuality occurs naturally so it tends to support my position. I can live with that.
Just don’t try to pretend there is any rational or normalacy involved.
So after all the science you’ve gotten wrong and I’ve corrected you on when do you actually start to think “Gosh all the supporting evidence for my point has turned out false, maybe my conclusion is too.” Just wondering.