Pentagon: Gays Are "Sick"

This is absurd, and only serves to justify the military's harassment of gay service members. I would be interested in what "references" this directive uses to support its conclusion- perhaps some of that nonsense on the Focus on the Family website.
When I was in the military, I was disgusted to see some of our best people "outed" and given administrative discharges because they were gay (this was before "don't ask, don't tell".) And "don't ask, don't tell" is still a repressive policy, and it was an ill-conceived compromise by Clinton who capitulated to the conservatives rather than upholding his promise to lift the ban on gays in the military.
Not only does this ridiculous policy paper (which disregards the opinions of the professional community of psychologists and psychiatrists) serve to make it more difficult for gay service members; it will certainly be used, as a document from an "official" source, to justify discrimination against gays in general.

 

Finally, proof that homosexuality is a mental disease!


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 21 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]274629[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ghostofjk @ Jun 20 2006, 06:18 PM) [snapback]274316[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm, how would classifiying homosexuality as a "mental disorder" make it difficult for gays and lesbians to access mental health services? Seems like it would make it easier.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 21 2006, 02:41 PM) [snapback]274768[/snapback]</div>

Suppose a gay service member goes to a military hospital to seek treatment for a disorder not related to their sexuality (depression, for instance.) It would be difficult for a patient to not disclose sexuality to a mental health professional, even if it was unrelated to their problem. But now the military medical professional is obligated to follow a Pentagon directive which states that homosexuality is a medical disorder, despite what their medical training tells them and despite the opinion that has been agreed upon by their professional organization. The mental health professional would be required to treat the individual as if he/she has a mental disorder and it would be entered into their medical record. I don't know the details of the directive, but it might lead to that service member getting a discharge (either medical or administrative.)
As a result, I would suspect that many gay service members who suffer from depression, PTSD, etc. will avoid seeking treatment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 21 2006, 02:54 PM) [snapback]274777[/snapback]</div>

That makes sense. I understand now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 21 2006, 12:05 PM) [snapback]274782[/snapback]</div>

Exactly. It's not a mental disorder. Just a disorder period.

 

Why are we STILL talking about homosexuality on PriusChat?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 21 2006, 02:41 PM) [snapback]274768[/snapback]</div>

If the mental health professional treating someone is a member of the military or an employee of the military, they may be required to reveal things uncovered in therapy that would normally be protected in a health professional - client relationship. If that equates to 'telling' under the "don't ask/don't tell" policy, that could mean dismissal from the military.

The military doesn't have to be "nice" in determining that a 'disorder' prevents someone from carrying out their duties and dismissing them from the service rather than finding the person an assignment where the 'disorder' doesn't constitute a 'risk'. Through my involvement in a diabetes forum, I learned of a career navy man who developed 'Type 1' diabetes (often called Juvenile Diabetes) in his late 30's, quite possibly as an allergic reaction to some paint or cleaning chemical that was used on his ship. (Type 1 diabetes is an auto-immune disease that kills off the islets in the pancreas that produce insulin). He was trying to appeal the dismissal, saying he could easily work in an 'office' job on a base, for example. (I don't know if the appeal worked, btw.)

I've heard that many police and fire professionals refuse to seek counselling help after being involved in a traumatic incident, fearing that the confidentiality won't hold, even when they're assured that it will. So I can easily understand someone gay in the US military being reluctant to seek mental health care when it's warranted, even if the 'problem' has absolutely no relationship to the person's sexual preference.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(remaxmanager @ Jun 22 2006, 04:26 AM) [snapback]274829[/snapback]</div>

Good question. Seems that most of the talk about homosexuality is coming from heterosexuals. The Pentagon position is totally consistent with its demonstrated anti-intellectualism, ignorance of history and culture, and, given the pre-eminent US position on the world stage, a remarkably provincial and xenophobic mindset. By the way, a big reason for the shortage of Arabic speakers in Iraq is that the Army discharged most of them because they were gay. Go figure.
B

 

The job of the military is to protect this country. It is not a social experiment, it is not a feel good organization. Their mission is to pound the enemy into submission as fast as the politicians will let them. If you don't think sticking your d**k in another guys *ss isn't sick or a mental disorder, what is?

 

Bigotry?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jun 23 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]275991[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I believe bigotry is also a sickness.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Jun 23 2006, 02:38 PM) [snapback]276000[/snapback]</div>

Hmm... so when are you checking yourself in? Sounds like you are bigotted against gays.

Unless you are a world expert, it's not your place or mine to rule homesexuality as a "sickness". Instead, it is our job as citizens to promote American Values, one of which is equality for EVERYONE - gay, straight, male, female, white, black, christian or muslim. This is what makes us different from groups like the Taliban or any other oppressive society. While I may not choose to follow thier lifestyle (or many other lifestyles for that matter), as an American I have to support thier right to choose it. It is our military's job to fight to protect that freedom of choice when threatened. Unfortunately, with people like you, it's being threatened from right here in our own country.

 

There is a difference between sexual activity and sexual orientation. It is pretty much agreed upon by everyone that any kind of sexual activity does not belong in a barracks or on a ship (now that women are in more and more combat billets, that applies to hetero sex as well as gay sex.) That does not mean that gay men and women cannot serve in the military.
When I was on active duty (early 1980s), women were still prohibited from many roles, and there was still a mindset that they could not serve in combat, on ships, etc. The military eventually came around, although they were slower than the rest of society. Going back a few years before that, racial segregation was rampant in the military. And if prohibitions against gays serving in the military are removed, they will learn to deal with that as well, although it may take awhile. The military forces of many other countries allow gay men and women to serve, and thay have not experienced any ill effects as a result.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 23 2006, 10:23 PM) [snapback]276121[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Jun 23 2006, 04:30 PM) [snapback]275972[/snapback]</div>

Ok, well let's break this down.

First, "social experiment?" Ok, so do you think is was wrong to not only allow Blacks into the military, but to allow them to serve alongside Whites? I'm not talking now--I'm talking back when the military was first being racially integrated? Would that have qualified as a "social experiment" of the kind that you consider to be so inappropriate for the military? Sure it all turned out ok and there are very few problems with it now, but do you think it was irresponsible for the military to ever adopt the policy in the first place?

Second, anal sex. I'm just wondering, do you think it is sick or a mental disorder when heterosexual couples do this? How about when heterosexual couples have oral sex? How about when heterosexual couples have genital-to-genital sex and the woman enjoys it? You know, there was a time when women who enjoyed having sex were considered sick or mentally ill--were the people who thought that wrong? In any case, it's my impression that a large number of gay men do not actually have anal sex at all (and perhaps some of them, just like some heterosexuals, consider it to be "sick").

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San Diego Steve @ Jun 23 2006, 05:52 PM) [snapback]276010[/snapback]</div>

I think most bigots believe their views are justified. It's OBVIOUS that <group x> are bad, wrong, less than human, etc., but if you say anything against <group y> you're a bigot.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 23 2006, 10:23 PM) [snapback]276121[/snapback]</div>

I agree! Your example of the thoughts on women in the military 20-30 years ago points out an unspoken assumption that either men are promiscuous by nature or that they are incapable of resisting 'temptation'. Personally, I know many men who are either celibate or faithful in a committed relationship, both of which are choices that people can and do make.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San Diego Steve @ Jun 23 2006, 02:52 PM) [snapback]276010[/snapback]</div>

Very well said. Thanks for typing my thoughts.