[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Here’s one of the opening paragraphs from the Spitzer paper I linked back on page 15:
The proponents of the view that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality argue for the elimination of
any reference to homosexuality in a manual of psychiatric disorders because it is scientifically incorrect,
encourages
an adversary relationship between psychiatry and the homosexual community, and is misused by some people outside of our profession who wish to deny civil rights to homosexuals.
Those who argue that homosexuality is a pathological disturbance in sexual development assert that to remove homosexuality from the nomenclature would be to give official sanction to this form of deviant sexual development,
would be a cowardly act of succumbing to the pressure of a small but vocal band of activist homosexuals who defensively attempt to prove that they are not
sick, and would tend to discourage homosexuals from seeking much-needed treatment.
There you have it, folks. Gay activism influenced the update to the DSM-II.
That paper, once again is here:
http://www.psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf [/quote]
That’s actually not what he says: he just quotes what some colleagues would allege this - just like it happens here. He doesn’t even make it his point.
From the same source - lets just read the immediately following paragraphs:
'[…]For a mental or psychiatric condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning.
With the exception of homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other sexual deviations when in mild form, such as voyeurism), all of the other mental disorders in DSM-11 fulfill either of these two criteria.
(While one may argue that the personality disorders are an exception, on reflection it is clear that it is inappropriate to make a diagnosis of a personality disorder merely because of the presence of certain typical personality traits which cause no subjective distress or impairment in social functioning.
Clearly homosexuality, per se, does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder since, as noted above, many homosexuals are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning.[…]’
So, even Spitzer, even in 1972, does not agree with your and others’ assertions that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Thanks - you just delivered your own agenda an impressive blow (pun intended). But lets move on:
'[…]The only way that homosexuality could therefore be considered a psychiatric disorder would be the criteria of failure to function heterosexually, which is considered optimal in our society and by many members of our profession.
However, if failure to function optimally in some important area of life as judged by either society or the profession is sufficient to indicate the presence of a psychiatric disorder, then we will have to add to our nomenclature the following conditions:
celibacy (failure to function optimally sexually), revolutionary behavior (irrational defiance of social norms), religious fanaticism (dogmatic and rigid adherence to religious doctrine), racism (irrational hatred of certain groups), vegetarianism (unnatural avoidance of carnivorous behavior), and male chauvinism (irrational belief in the inferiority of women).[…]’
I especially liked the comment about celibacy - a stalwart of conservative sex ‘education’ - defined as a suboptimal condition. 
'[…]What will be the effect of carrying out such a proposal? No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim that psychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as “normal” as heterosexuality. They will be wrong.
In removing homosexuality per se from the nomenclature we are only recognizing that by itself homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being considered a psychiatric disorder. We will in no way be aligning ourselves with any particular viewpoint regarding the etiology or desirability of homosexual behavior.[…]’
And again - a clear indication that the decision was driven by the science, not the ominous so-called gay agenda. Thanks - I couldn’t have argued it better.
'[…]Furthermore, we will be removing one of the justifications for the denial of civil rights to individuals whose only crime is that their sexual orientation is to members of the same sex.
In the past, homosexuals have been denied civil rights in many areas of life on the ground that because they suffer from a ‘mental illness’ the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate their competence, reliability or mental stability.[…]’
Beautiful. He even hints on discrimination and denial of civil rights. Oh, not to omit it - he further defines his therapeutic approach of this Sexual Orientation Disturbance not as a therapy for homosexuality, but as an attempt to heal people of the conflicts they may have with homosexuality (which he goes out of his way to describe not as a mental illness). I’m starting to like that man - obviously in a purely platonic way.
‘[…]This revision in the nomenclature provides the possibility of finding a homosexual to be free of psychiatric disorder, and provides a means to diagnose a mental disorder whose central feature is conflict about homosexual behavior.[…]’
Well, we certainly see a lot of that around here…
In short - thanks for posting this PRCalDude. Unfortunately, none of it supports any of your points. It’s clarified Spitzer’s position brilliantly and explains very clearly what led to the reclassification into DSM III - lack of fulfillment of criteria for a mental illness, not the evil gay lobby.
Makkun