I have to agree that psychology for much of its history looks like pseudoscience with unfalsifiable dogmas rather than testable hypotheses.<quoted text>
Epileptics, Tourette's patients and others aren't considered mentally handicapped in that way either. I never claimed that gays were mentally handicapped in a cognitive way. They have a medical symptom which may be the result of biology or environment. Some may have genetic reasons for the symptom, but not all. A lot of effort was made to find the "gay" gene. Nothing was found.
Freud's abstractions are awful. Even modern psychology is pathetic. Here's a good government source quote.
"The accuracy of psychiatric diagnosis was the highest for cognitive disorders 60%, followed by depression 50% and anxiety disorders 46%, whereas the accuracy of diagnosing psychosis was 0%."
Well, who's to say who is political and who isn't? The question is, if homosexuality is a medical problem, then is it sensible to address it constitutionally? Race? Sex? Part of the human condition and consistent with evolution. Religion? Sexual preference? Not so absolute.
We protect the medically afflicted. We don't nurture their conditions.
Perhaps now with some good hard neuroscience and direct observation we can get a bit further in understanding how we tick.
In the meantime...homosexuality is victimless, consensual behavior and therefore no more requiring government control than any other victimless activity, whatever its presumed causes. And disappointed mums or dads do not count as "victims".
As for the difference between "civil union" and "marriage", isn't that just primitive voodoo word magic? So long as any couple forms a permanent bond and is given the same rights in law (taxation, inheritance, etc) as a result of that bond, who cares what we call it?
Religions of course can forbid it internally as we always give cults the right to enforce whatever barmy idiocy they want on their subjects.