Posted on 06/19/2006 4:35:58 PM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position.
The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities, and in a section on defects lists homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders.
Critics said the reference underscores the Pentagon's failing policies on gays, and adds to a culture that has created uncertainty and insecurity around the treatment of homosexual service members, leading to anti-gay harassment.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeremy M. Martin said the policy document is under review.
The Pentagon has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.
The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, at the University of California at Santa Barbara, uncovered the document and pointed to it as further proof that the military deserves failing grades for its treatment of gays.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
In 1973, the APA took homosexuality off the disorder list....NOT because of ANY research findings....only because they were harassed and intimidated by homosexual activists until they caved in.
Now, homo activists brag about how it is no longer a disorder....
And that has to do with my post ... what, exactly?
Agree, it is a moral disorder, but more to the point, it remains a profound mental illness that no amount of politics is going to change.
Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle. It's a mental condition where an individual is sexually attracted to others of the same sex.
A homosexual 'lifestyle' is a full indulgence of that disorder as if it were normal.
Homosexuality is a disorder. The 'lifestyle is a choice.
I did not note that; however, I tend to take a wait and see stance on such reviews.
I'll second that!
It's a mental disorder.. the APA dropping it from the DSMIV had nothing to do with new studies or science showing otherwise.. in fact ever study ever done to date draws its a mental disorder.
No scientific study has ever shown it to be anything but.
"Same goes for masturbation. That shouldn't be tolerated and is the sign of moral weakness."
Oh Gee.
Does the writer mean Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy?
**Same goes for masturbation. That shouldn't be tolerated and is the sign of moral weakness.**
That's an interesting twist!
Shouldn't be tolerated by whom?... by the Pentagon?
One reason is because of the open door(s) legalized homo-"marriage" brings with it.
"Makes you wonder why 99% of the entire population needs to be protected by a 'marriage' amendment, since it's so small."
Because an even smaller percentage of the American population -- federal judges -- can radically redefine marriage despite the overwhelming support of the American people for keeping it as it should, one man and one woman.
It's one man and one woman at our house, and that's not going to change no matter what any "redefinition" says. I'm sorry you don't feel as confident.
I appreciate your "sorrow" on my behalf.
Wisdom would be more appropriate. The reason your "one-man, one-woman" home won't change is because you were raised in a society in which marriage was defined as a social ideal whose worth to society and children had never been questioned.
It's not your marriage or mine that is threatened by demands that the institution be radically redefined. The issue is whether marriage -- if radically redefined to meet the demands of homosexual activists (now), then polygamists (next), then polyamorists, then who knows what -- will have any meaning remaining in the world in which your kids and grandkids have to try to raise their families.
Radically redefining marriage has obvious consequences re: religious free speech rights. Ask Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, which was just told it would be compelled by the state to process adoptions to "married" homosexual couples, despite the fact that the Vatican has formally declared such adoptions to do "violence" to children. Ask organizations and individuals in various countries who have been threatened with or actually prosecuted for so-called "hate crimes" for daring publicly oppose so-called homosexual "marriage."
Radical redefinition of marriage will also lead -- it already has in Massachusetts -- to public school children being taught that homosexual behavior and "marriage" is morally, socially, and legal equivalent of marriage between a man and a woman...including, according to an 8th grade teacher interviewed by NPR, graphic discussion of homosexual sex itself.
Redefining marriage has fiscal as well as social and moral implications. The Wall Street Journal published a Harvard University's professor's report that the Canadian government estimates that legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage" will cost taxpayers "hundreds of millions of dollars" just to provide retroactive Social Security survivor benefits to one new class of beneficiaries: homosexual "spouses." If you like the tax implications of homosexual "marriage," you'll love the tax implications of polygamy and polyamory (group marriage), which the Liberal government had just proposed legalizing before it was thrown out of power several months ago.
And the devaluation of marriage will have long-term demographic impact as well on the birth rate. Europe's a good example, where they've embraced the abortion-on-demand mantra and homosexual "marriage" and other social policies contributing to a dramatic decline in the birthrate...except among immigrant Muslim populations. Result: France projected to be a majority Muslim country by 2040, the entire continent by 2100.
So if you don't mind your grandkids growing up in a world where expressing a preference for real marriage is a "hate crime," facing an even higher tax burden as they try to raise their kids, and having to wear a burkha to visit Paris, then you're right, Grandma, radically redefining marriage won't have any effect on your family.
But surely you can't be that sel-centered and selfish.
Whew! Feel better now? I don't see it happening, which is why I'm not all "het up" about it (thought I'd better talk in Grandma-speak, since that's how you referred to me).
You were pretty skillful at working in the other standard issue rants on "too many Muslims" and "bad ol' France" too. :)
WELCOME TO FREEREPUBLIC... Nice meeting you...
But I smell ozone....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.