Sexual Orientation Classification: Framework Consistency, Epistemological Integrity, and the Problem of Selective Premise Modification

This paper examines the epistemological consistency of con- temporary health consensus regarding sexual orientation classification. We demonstrate that the current paradigm—which categorizes homo- sexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality while maintaining other non- reproductive orientations as abnormal—relies on framework substitution rather than consistent application of unified criteria. Through systematic analysis, we show that objections based on biopsychosocial models, moral agency criteria, and evolutionary psychology do not resolve the fundamental inconsistency but rather confirm our thesis: the classification represents a value-driven paradigm shift disguised as empirical discovery. We preemptively address six major categories of anticipated objections and demonstrate that regardless of terminological choices, the logical problem of selective normalization remains unresolved. Using formal log- ical notation, comparative analysis, and historical examination, we argue for intellectual honesty in acknowledging the normative foundations of psychiatric classification rather than presenting value-laden frameworks as purely empirical science. This paper is not a moral or psycholog- ical evaluation but an epistemological audit of scientific classification frameworks, focusing on consistency and conceptual integrity.