“I find it interesting that by that same criteria, creationism is NOT considered ‘science’”

Creationism isn’t a science because it doesn’t follow the basic scientific principles. Creationist start with a premise that the bible is an absolute truth and anything that contradicts that is “wrong.” That isn’t science. While scientific theories do have a “belief” component (the hypothesis), if the observable facts contradict the hypothesis it is thrown out, altered or negated. Creationism refuses to do that, which is why it is not a science.

“Since you have a supreme interest relative to the positive personal outcome of ‘sciences’ conclusions as per the ‘homosexual mentality’”

I believe you are making a lot of incorrect assumptions here. What do you mean that I have a “positive personal outcome” wrt to whether homosexuality is a mental illness or not?

“That is your ‘inherent bias’, even if you have shown you are blind to the fact.”

I recognize I have a bias towards gay rights (and many other minority rights as well), but that bias doesn’t change the facts about research into sexual orientation.

“Money trail? Anyone with common sense can follow such a trail and others more dedicated to the hunt have shown ‘proof’ of such, only to have such rejected out of hand.”

Maybe because your “proof” wasn’t any such thing. Again the only “proof” you gave was innuendo. No evidence of bribes or any other improper influence. Yes, drug companies fund research, and there may be undue influence, but suspicion is not proof. And none of this has anything to do with why homosexuality was removed from the DSM (or why it was there in the 1st place – another argument you haven’t bothered to consider).

“The psychiatric field is NOT ‘science’, there is NOTHING in the field of psychiatry that is duplicable and falsifiable in relation to the human mind. ”

While psychiatric experiments are not repeatable in the same way that other hard science experiments are (ex. chemistry or computer science etc) the same is true of medicine and many other fields. That, however, doesn’t mean it isn’t science. Science is the observation and study of nature. Experiments are controlled observations meant to help with that study. Your argumenta depict a lack of understanding of how knowledge and understanding of various fields (esp. psychology) advance. Instead you resort to heresy and innuendo to knock a group whose results you don’t like. Comments I suspect are originating from anti-gay christian groups like FRC or AFA etc.

The psychiatric field is NOT ‘science’, there is NOTHING in the field of psychiatry that is duplicable and falsifiable in relation to the human mind. One might be able to stretch a point and label it as pseudo-science, maybe even ‘junk’ science, but it is totally a matter of individual opinion which is exactly why there is still so many in the field of psychiatry who STILL decry the APA decision of 20 years ago.

You have the last word. and thank you.

“The same can be said for your ‘innuendo’, there may not be any glaring ‘evidence’, but the money trail is quite easy to follow.”

Really, can you demonstrate this money trail? Can you show that the science was flawed in some way? What you are doing is maligning an entire field because you don’t like what they have to say. I’ll admit I think too many psychiatrists rely too much on medication, but that doesn’t mean I’ll accuse them of being in someone’s pocket w/o proof.

It is becoming quite clear you do not understand how the sciences (including the medical and psychiatric fields) advance knowledge. It certainly isn’t perfect, but it is a reliable and self-correcting method. So before you starting claiming it doesn’t work because of some example about where it may have failed (and there are, but I don’t believe this is one of them), perhaps you should educate yourself better on how it actually does work.