Here's the short version:
Support for same-sex marriage and relations has been around since the 1800s or before; it was a prominent feature of liberal John Stuart Mill's philosophy during that time - people, whether they're called "liberals", "progressives", or otherwise who still adhere to that rather outdated ideology have always been pushing simply because of their "religious" or ideological reasons, or just because they want to, attempting to have popular organizations, such as psychological organizations update their definitions, so that they can then retroactively use them as arguments from authority fallacies in favor of their "religious" or ideological beliefs - which, ulitmately, they always had and will always have no matter what definitions, psychological or otherwise - change, much as how they denied the APA's classification of homosexuality as a paraphilia regardless of its credibility, and attempted to have it changed simply because they wanted to - much as organizations like NAMBLA (which were accepted as members of LGBT groups like ILGA up until the 1990s) have and continue to petition to have "pedophilia" considered a "sexual identity".
(Arguments comparing homosexuality to pedophilia based on legal defintions of "consent" are totally irrelevant to this discussion).
Even in light of many modern fields of information which have debunked myths and archaisms which previous support for so-called "LBGT" rubbish was predicated on, (e.x. outdated "blank state theories" of mind which even during its oudated day and age was known, such as in the case of legal philosophy" to be abject nonsense and snake oil sold by and to the lowest common denominator) and more or less universally proven that genetics play an inherant design and role in the sexual development of men and women - the lairs and ideologists continue to pedal their snake oil to the masses based on the outdated philosophical or quasi-"religious" beliefs of thinkers like John Stuart Mill, secular humanist philosophical thought, and other archaic sources - who more or less were proponents of homosexuality on the basis of "faith" alone, only retroactively attempting to have popular organizations like the APA update their defintions and "evidences" to match their faith, which they would still cling to no matter what, even if, say the APA reverses its definition and re-classifies homosexuality as a paraphila.
Support for same-sex marriage and relations has been around since the 1800s or before; it was a prominent feature of liberal John Stuart Mill's philosophy during that time - people, whether they're called "liberals", "progressives", or otherwise who still adhere to that rather outdated ideology have always been pushing simply because of their "religious" or ideological reasons, or just because they want to, attempting to have popular organizations, such as psychological organizations update their definitions, so that they can then retroactively use them as arguments from authority fallacies in favor of their "religious" or ideological beliefs - which, ulitmately, they always had and will always have no matter what definitions, psychological or otherwise - change, much as how they denied the APA's classification of homosexuality as a paraphilia regardless of its credibility, and attempted to have it changed simply because they wanted to - much as organizations like NAMBLA (which were accepted as members of LGBT groups like ILGA up until the 1990s) have and continue to petition to have "pedophilia" considered a "sexual identity".
(Arguments comparing homosexuality to pedophilia based on legal defintions of "consent" are totally irrelevant to this discussion).
Even in light of many modern fields of information which have debunked myths and archaisms which previous support for so-called "LBGT" rubbish was predicated on, (e.x. outdated "blank state theories" of mind which even during its oudated day and age was known, such as in the case of legal philosophy" to be abject nonsense and snake oil sold by and to the lowest common denominator) and more or less universally proven that genetics play an inherant design and role in the sexual development of men and women - the lairs and ideologists continue to pedal their snake oil to the masses based on the outdated philosophical or quasi-"religious" beliefs of thinkers like John Stuart Mill, secular humanist philosophical thought, and other archaic sources - who more or less were proponents of homosexuality on the basis of "faith" alone, only retroactively attempting to have popular organizations like the APA update their defintions and "evidences" to match their faith, which they would still cling to no matter what, even if, say the APA reverses its definition and re-classifies homosexuality as a paraphila.
