Here's one that is sure to offend.
When the DSM IV (the manual for diagnosing psychiatric conditions, 4th edition) came out, homosexuality was removed. Very recently the DSM V came out, changing transsexualism so that it in itself is not a psychiatric disorder, but the dissatisfaction with one's body which doesn't match one's internal gender is the disorder. While I am not here to argue the morality or anything of such things, I wish to point out the politics and imprecise nature of psychiatric conditions.
While we know why we have a heart, why it beats, what is going wrong when it beats incorrectly, what may cause cardiac conditions or what effects cardiac conditions may cause, etc, we know so very little about psychiatric conditions. When someone is having congestive heart failure, they receive a diagnosis based on the root cause, not the subsequent fluid buildup in lungs, lower extremities, lab results, etc. However in psychiatric conditions, we do not label based on the root cause, but rather the manifestation. So for whatever biological reasons a person may be severely depressed or seeing things that are not there, no matter how varied the root cause, they will receive a diagnosis of major depressive disorder or schizophrenia. My point: psychiatry/psychology is a far less precise science.
How is this relevant? Well, with such imprecision, it allows for a society to redefine psychiatric conditions with ease, depending on the prevailing winds of societal wisdom. Today, as Bruce Jenner transitions into Caitlyn Jenner, transgender rights and acceptance are at the forefront of many minds, particularly those who consider themselves very open-minded.
So let me challenge that open-mindedness. Are these changes always right? Or perhaps do they not go far enough? For instance, the differences in sexual orientation are in many ways analogous to the differences between normal adults and pedophiles. I am certain this will cause offense, but the parallels are many, regardless. The big difference is that it is socially wrong for adults to have sexual relations with children. Similarly, there are those who wish to have sex with animals, or sex with close relatives, but such things are not acceptable socially.
Now imagine a future society where we are more sexually open. Children are permitted to have sex with adults starting at the age of 9, perhaps with parental permission. People are permitted to get extra close to their pets, and the siblings are permitted to be partners. And over time, the psychiatric diagnoses that accompany these conditions are changed to suit public views. And of course there are those who do not approve of such behavior, but they are just close-minded and condemned for their bigotry and narrow-mindedness.
Do you feel these are extreme examples? There are societies, even primitive societies, where all young men (of minor age) must give oral sex to an older man in order to achieve their own status of manhood. There are societies where hallucinations are actually seen as visions, insight that those without schizophrenia lack. These things are seen as natural, and with further research, and with political favor, these things might even be seen as evolutionarily beneficial, just as the more pressing issues of today are now being explained as beneficial to human evolution.
My point is that the mind is a complex thing, and that politics are indeed involved in what is and is not acceptable, appropriate, or even a disorder. There are those who are cruel bigots, and I certainly don't feel such is appropriate. But while my views have liberalized quite a bit in recent years in these areas, I still feel I must defend those who believe such behaviors are not natural. There is plenty of justification for those views, and many of them are not bigots in spite of their beliefs. If you find some of the behaviors I suggested above offensive, just consider how those views may change some day, and just consider how resistant you might be to those changes.