Conservative. Liberal. Why we are what we are.

I did a very quick google search on why homosexuality was removed from the DMS.

Here is what I found. Bear in mind, this was a very quick search.

In 1952, the original Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) listed homosexuality among the sociopathic personality disturbances.
In 1968, DSM II removed homosexuality from the sociopathic list, categorizing it with other sexual deviations.

Then in 1973, the DSM III showed the most striking change of all: homosexuality was considered a problem only when it was dissatisfying to the person. When the condition was compatible (“ego-syntonic”)—and the person was comfortable with his homosexual thoughts, feelings and behavior— homosexuality was not considered pathological.
This is, I believe, a false distinction. The problem lies not in the person’s attitude toward his homosexuality, but in the homosexuality itself. I believe that while homosexuality may be compatible with the conscious ego, it can never be compatible on the deepest levels of self. Homosexuality, as we will show, is symptomatic failure to integrate self-identity. Symptoms will always emerge to indicate its incompatibility with a man’s true nature.
The DSM III was further revised, and now homosexuality is not referred to at all: no reference is made to it by name within the diagnostic manual.
Actually, there is an oblique reference in the catch-all category of “Other Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified.” Here they describe “Persistent and Marked Distress About One’s Sexual Orientation.” Reference to homosexual orientation is avoided as if “persistent and marked distress” could also apply to heterosexuality.
Yet in the history of psychiatry, has a heterosexual ever sought treatment for distress about his heterosexuality and wished to become homosexual? When I put that question in correspondence to the chairman of the DSM Nomenclature Committee, Robert L. Spitzer, he replied: “the answer, as you suspected, is no.” Why does the profession no longer consider homosexuality a problem?
Political Factors
In his scholarly analysis of the American Psychiatric Association’s reversal of the diagnostic classification of homosexuality, Ronald Bayer (1981) states: “the result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times” (p. 3-4).
The combined effects of the sexual revolution and the “rights” movements—civil rights, minority rights, feminist rights—have resulted in an intimidating effect upon psychology. Some writers have even questioned whether “straights” are capable of doing research on homosexuality (Suppe, 1982). Because there is a fear of offending any vocal minority or of being considered judgmental, there has been little critique of the quality of gay life.

Although recent behavioral inventories of homosexual men have revealed more anonymous sex than previously imagined, it is like the case of the Emperor’s new clothes: everyone sees the problem, but no one dares acknowledge the obvious.
The removal of homosexuality from the DSM had the effect of discouraging treatment and research. The bulk of early psychodynamic research and theory beginning with Freud indicated that homosexuality is not a natural, inborn condition. Yet the literature came to an abrupt stop when it became “common knowledge” that homosexuality was in fact not a problem. This discouraged clinicians from communicating with each other, and from making presentations at professional meetings.
The silence among researchers was not brought about by new scientific evidence showing homosexuality to be a normal and healthy variant of human sexuality; rather it became fashionable not to discuss homosexuality as a problem any longer.
Other pro-gay researchers fear any inquiry into psychological causes would amount to a concession of pathology; after all, there has been no similar investigation of the causes of heterosexuality (Stein and Cohen, 1986). They have encouraged only the search for a genetic or endocrine basis for homosexuality, in the belief that such a discovery would once and for all resolve the issue of homosexuality’s normality.
We too consider it possible that there could be some predisposing genetic factors; but in this regard we see a parallel with alcoholism. Although there is now greater recognition of some biological predisposition to alcoholism, we continue to acknowledge it as problematic, we continue to treat it, and we still find the most successful treatments to be psychological, social and spiritual supportive therapy.

 

The article goes in for 6 more pages, but, I recon I'd just give the first two, as to not entirely overwhelm this page with one post

 

If asked, I'll post the rest of the article. It does seek to back up cheeses possition, however.

 

More articles on the political nature of the removal of that diagnosis from the DSM.

I'm not well versed in this topic, but, I'm finding a ton of sources that say what happened was not at all scientific, but was very political

Here is an Excerpt from yahoo answers

The American Psychiatric Association

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, also known as the DSM, is the official list of mental disorders that all mental health professionals refer to when diagnosing patients.

The first version, released in 1952, listed homosexuality as a sociopath personality disturbance. In 1968, the second version (DSM II) reclassified homosexuality as a sexual deviancy. Soon afterward, gay protestors began picketing at the APA’s annual conventions, demanding that homosexuality be removed from the list completely. In 1973, after intensive debate and numerous disturbances by gay activists, the APA decided to remove homosexuality from it’s next manual (DSM IV) completely.

What followed was a swarm of outrage from psychiatrists within the APA who disagreed with the decision and demanded that the issue be reconsidered. In 1974, a referendum was called and approximately 40 percent of the APA’s membership voted to put homosexuality back into the DSM IV. Since a majority was not achieved to reverse the decision, homosexuality remains omitted from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical manual.

Many in the scientific community have criticized the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM IV, claiming it’s motives were more political than scientific. Dr. Ronald Bayer, author of the book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry writes:

The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.15

Along these same lines, a recent radio documentary on the subject of homosexuality revealed that the President-elect of the APA in 1973, Dr. John P. Speigel, was a “closeted homosexual with a very particular agenda.”16

Some have exaggerated or misrepresented these studies in attempt to prove that homosexuality is genetic. Others insist that homosexuality is developed after birth as a response to one’s environment. The truth is that we have no conclusive replicable research to prove either conclusion. However, most researchers have come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is likely determined by a complex interaction between a person’s genetic make-up and their environment.

Even the American Psychological Association asserts that:

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.17 (emphasis added).

And the American Psychiatric Association wrote:

Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.18

Whatever the case, we know from the personal testimonies of thousands that homosexuality is a changeable condition. Stanton Jones, who is Chair of Psychology at Wheaton College states: “Every secular study of change has shown some success rate...”19

 

Dragon:
I will remain ambiguous on this issue, but, I must take umbrage with your statement on the board voting.

Good science is borne out via reason, not votes. So, saying "this group took a vote, so the evidence presented MUST BE VALID" is an appeal to authority and not reason