NationStates Jolt Archive

The good ol' Pentagon, boldly fighting to bring the US into the 19th Century.
Pentagon gay 'disorder' list row

US lawmakers are calling on the Pentagon to change a document listing homosexuality as a "mental disorder".

Instruction 1332.38 on disabilities in the US military classes being gay under the same heading as mental retardation, personality disorders and alcoholism.

A group of 10 congressmen have written to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asking that "inadvertent outdated language" be updated.

The Pentagon says the list, which was re-certified in 2003, is under review.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5100828.stm

So at least that's one thing the Pentagon and al Qaeda can agree on!

Bout time. j/k

*assumes fetal position*

Hate to break it to you man, but Eutrusca beat you to it by many, many hours.

Honestly, I think joining the military should be classified as a mental disorder...





*I think I am going to run away and hide now, before I get buried for THAT comment*

Both Posi and Upper Botswavia will henceforth have mental disorders named after them.

And trust me, I will find a way to make each name as ironic as possible!

Hate to break it to you man, but Eutrusca beat you to it by many, many hours.
Really? I checked the first 3 pages and there was nufink.
I'll have to look further back next time.

Both Posi and Upper Botswavia will henceforth have mental disorders named after them.

And trust me, I will find a way to make each name as ironic as possible!

Woohoo! Posi, let's head over to our local psychiatrist and see if we can get a note excusing us from work on the basis of our new found mental disorders! Or at least see if we can get some sort of royalty checks if others are diagnosed with our disorders!

:p

EDIT* Oh, wait... were you trying to be INSULTING? Hmmm. Oh well.

Really? I checked the first 3 pages and there was nufink.
I'll have to look further back next time.

Yup, page 4.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=488566

Woohoo! Posi, let's head over to our local psychiatrist and see if we can get a note excusing us from work on the basis of our new found mental disorders! Or at least see if we can get some sort of royalty checks if others are diagnosed with our disorders!

:p
Alright. Doctor's excuses it is!



Botswavian Compulsion: An excessive focus on military matters, espescially equipment and lifestyle. Exclusively found in civilians whom the military deems psychologically unfit for service.


Posi Syndrome: It involves a fixation on gays. The origin can be found in either repressed experiences in childhood, or something latent or something like that. Does not mean that the sufferer is gay, but it happens to be that they have such a fixation.

Your letters of excuse.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/1687/untitled1uo.png

Well, while the note is VERY convincing, the disease makes me sound like some sort of backwoods survivalist nut, dressed in kevlar underwear, surrounded by guns and 12,000 MREs* living in an underground bunker 85 miles from the nearest phone. Which, considering I am an extremely left wing New Yorker who makes her living in theatre, hates guns, loves a good restaurant and is never more that 2 1/2 feet from her cell phone at any time of the day or night, is kind of unlikely, but what the heck.

Thanks?


*MRE=meals ready to eat. Is it a symptom that I KNOW that?

Both Posi and Upper Botswavia will henceforth have mental disorders named after them.

And trust me, I will find a way to make each name as ironic as possible!
Wait? I'm gay now?:confused:

First, I was a thought to be a girl, now I am thought to be gay. Meh, it's a step closer.

Wait? I'm gay now?:confused:

First, I was a thought to be a girl, now I am thought to be gay. Meh, it's a step closer.

I won't ask you, and, if anyone should ask me about you, I won't tell either. So you just go ahead and be whatever you want to be. Or not. Your choice.
:p

I won't ask you, and, if anyone should ask me about you, I won't tell either. So you just go ahead and be whatever you want to be. Or not. Your choice.
:p
I just kinda find it funny that the first 5-10 people who had a decent idea of who I was thought I was a girl.:eek:

I just kinda find it funny that the first 5-10 people who had a decent idea of who I was thought I was a girl.:eek:

I recall guessing at one point that you were, and, of course, since right now it says MISS Pacman Lover right under your name (even though that actually means Lover of Miss Pacman, not what it sounds like), well, it is somewhat odd, yes.

But I am here to tell you, being a girl is not that bad. I am quite fond of it, actually. Of course, I have never been a boy, and that may be good too...

If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

...Most people aren't gay, off the top of my head I blieve current figures are hovering somewhere around 11% of the overall population, although I suppose there may be a margin of error for the folks who weren't brave enough to admit it.

Now that we've established that much, we can move on and assume that there is probably some physiological reason for said gayness; I can't imagine anyone here would be prepared to contest the assumption that the reason for this behavior [along with the reason for all other behaviors]lies somewhere in the brain.

Taking these two suppositions into account , it's pretty safe to assume that it's fairly accurate to term it a "disorder" of one variety or another. [i]This doesn't mean that homosexuality is immoral or that it's something to be ashamed of. It also doesn't mean that it's fit for comparison to disorders lke, say, Down's Syndrome, since one's homosexuality doesn't affect one's ability to think or act. It is a disorder, but it's not a disorder of intellect or ability.

In short, I think it's might be a bit easy to overreact at a pronunciation such as this [and in my opinion, the OP has]. Terming it a "disorder" is merely a statement of the already obvious fact that this behavior is uncommon at best and isn't shared by the majority of the human population.

Honestly, I think joining the military should be classified as a mental disorder...


I don't agree with you, but do think that the military itself, as a being, has serious mental health issues.

Or maybe I'm just envious of disorders being named for other nations and hoping for one of my own. ;)

If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

...Most people aren't gay, off the top of my head I blieve current figures are hovering somewhere around 11% of the overall population, although I suppose there may be a margin of error for the folks who weren't brave enough to admit it.

Now that we've established that much, we can move on and assume that there is probably some physiological reason for said gayness; I can't imagine anyone here would be prepared to contest the assumption that the reason for this behavior [along with the reason for all other behaviors]lies somewhere in the brain.

Taking these two suppositions into account , it's pretty safe to assume that it's fairly accurate to term it a "disorder" of one variety or another. [i]This doesn't mean that homosexuality is immoral or that it's something to be ashamed of. It also doesn't mean that it's fit for comparison to disorders lke, say, Down's Syndrome, since one's homosexuality doesn't affect one's ability to think or act. It is a disorder, but it's not a disorder of intellect or ability.

In short, I think it's might be a bit easy to overreact at a pronunciation such as this [and in my opinion, the OP has]. Terming it a "disorder" is merely a statement of the already obvious fact that this behavior is uncommon at best and isn't shared by the majority of the human population.


Woops!!! That is a nice way to sugar coat the word disorder, but it is clearly not what the Pentagon meant when they originally published this ruling. They intended disorder to mean "something seriously wrong with these folks, get them away from 'healthy' and 'normal' people as quick as possible"!

Homosexuality is not a disorder, any more than left handedness, which also has about a 10% occurance rate. If the Pentagon had actually intended the original message to mean "something that occurs less frequently than something else" and with no negative connotations, they would not have used a word as loaded as disorder, but at the time they were using the diagnosis of homosexuality as the equivalent of a mental disease that prevented one from being able to continue in military service, and by not striking that language even 30 years after the medical establishment has, they are expressing a tacit belief that it is somehow still the case.

I don't agree with you, but do think that the military itself, as a being, has serious mental health issues.

Or maybe I'm just envious of disorders being named for other nations and hoping for one of my own. ;)

Speak to Andaluciae, who seems to be our mental health professional here, with one semester of Psych 100 under his/her belt and is the definer of our disorders. Plus, the excuse note is all purpose, so go ahead and use it, even before your disorder gets sorted out.

Woops!!! That is a nice way to sugar coat the word disorder, but it is clearly not what the Pentagon meant when they originally published this ruling. They intended disorder to mean "something seriously wrong with these folks, get them away from 'healthy' and 'normal' people as quick as possible"!

Homosexuality is not a disorder, any more than left handedness, which also has about a 10% occurance rate. If the Pentagon had actually intended the original message to mean "something that occurs less frequently than something else" and with no negative connotations, they would not have used a word as loaded as disorder, but at the time they were using the diagnosis of homosexuality as the equivalent of a mental disease that prevented one from being able to continue in military service, and by not striking that language even 30 years after the medical establishment has, they are expressing a tacit belief that it is somehow still the case.
Well, I suppose it depends on how you choose to interpret the term. I think your opening paragraph is somthing of a stretch since these physiological "disorders" or "differences" or whatever else you should choose to call them are definately not contagious. I didn't read the Pentagon report so I'm responding to it more or less on my own terms, and not theirs. The Pentagon [as with all other sectors of our government] has repeatedly displayed a shocking propensity for misunderstanding and misusing the most basic of terms. "Disorder" taken literally can mean just about anything, since very few traits are shared by all of us.

If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

...Most people aren't gay, off the top of my head I blieve current figures are hovering somewhere around 11% of the overall population, although I suppose there may be a margin of error for the folks who weren't brave enough to admit it.

Now that we've established that much, we can move on and assume that there is probably some physiological reason for said gayness; I can't imagine anyone here would be prepared to contest the assumption that the reason for this behavior [along with the reason for all other behaviors]lies somewhere in the brain.

Taking these two suppositions into account , it's pretty safe to assume that it's fairly accurate to term it a "disorder" of one variety or another. [i]This doesn't mean that homosexuality is immoral or that it's something to be ashamed of. It also doesn't mean that it's fit for comparison to disorders lke, say, Down's Syndrome, since one's homosexuality doesn't affect one's ability to think or act. It is a disorder, but it's not a disorder of intellect or ability.

In short, I think it's might be a bit easy to overreact at a pronunciation such as this [and in my opinion, the OP has]. Terming it a "disorder" is merely a statement of the already obvious fact that this behavior is uncommon at best and isn't shared by the majority of the human population.

As I asked in Eutruscas thread on the same topic: would you also call left-handedness a disorder to be consistent ? Considering people used to be executed for being left-handed (after all, such people were obviously in league with the devil) that comparision can even been taken quite far...

The problem with the word disorder is the extremely negative connotation people have when they hear it. So it may be better to add examples like this whenever it is mentioned.

It really depends on how much emotional baggage one insists on attaching to the term. Technically, it is a mental disorder. Technically, one could also file it under deviancy, as in, a behavioural deviation from the statistical norm. It's just that the choice of words gets questioned for political reasons. But it does not make it any less literally true.

It doesn't matter whether the Pentagon states that homosexuality is a disorder if they don't act on it. As soon as the miltary doesn't admit someone into the armed services because of their sexual orientation, then you can talk. Until then, it's just another line of text in a book somewhere.

I myself have no knowledge of what the Pentagon intends to do with this information, but meh. What ever it is, it doesn't affect me.

As I asked in Eutruscas thread on the same topic: would you also call left-handedness a disorder to be consistent ? Considering people used to be executed for being left-handed (after all, such people were obviously in league with the devil) that comparision can even been taken quite far...

The problem with the word disorder is the extremely negative connotation people have when they hear it. So it may be better to add examples like this whenever it is mentioned.
Well, sure, I suppose it can be, if you want. As I said in my first reply to that post, technically any physiological trait which isn't shared by the majority of the population can be called a disorder, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a disorder of earth-shattering magnitude or importance. A "disorder" in the loosest of terms [which is how I'm deploying it here] can mean just about anything under the right conditions. That doesn't mean I think people should be treated differently as a result of some of them [although it makes more sense with disorders like Down's Syndrome or what have you]; and in this and most cases I don't believe "disorder" should be received as a derogatory term. It just means your body operates in a slightly different manner than, say, mine. I agree that the term carries some "negative connotations," but that's a function of our reactions to it rather than the proper meaning of the term itself. People hear "disorder" and they typically conjure images of a psychiatrist's office or a nuthouse; I'm merely suggesting that this need not always be the case, and that the term may be reasonably accurate.

I think you all are jumping to conclusions here a little too quickly. The military is trying to legitimize its practice of excluding gays from the military. The classification of homosexuality as a disorder isn't meant to be something definitive, but rather a politically convenient way of upholding their selection practices.

NT

Well, I suppose it depends on how you choose to interpret the term. I think your opening paragraph is somthing of a stretch since these physiological "disorders" or "differences" or whatever else you should choose to call them are definately not contagious. I didn't read the Pentagon report so I'm responding to it more or less on my own terms, and not theirs. The Pentagon [as with all other sectors of our government] has repeatedly displayed a shocking propensity for misunderstanding and misusing the most basic of terms. "Disorder" taken literally can mean just about anything, since very few traits are shared by all of us.

I wasn't saying that the concern was contagion (even though that misapprehension does still exist) but that the general tone of the word disorder carried the connotation of sickness. And the fact that they did lump it in with impulse control disorders, mental retardation, personality disorders and alcoholism indicates even more strongly that the use of the word "disorder" was not an unfortunate miscatagorization, but a deliberate attempt to keep homosexuality as a valid reason to eject someone from the armed services despite the fact that it in no way hampers one from being able to carry out the duties and requirements of such service and long after (30 years after) the medical establishment determined that it is not appropriate to call homosexuality a disorder.

Yes, disorder CAN be taken to mean just about anything, but how often IS it taken so? Rarely if ever. It is a word that is loaded with negative meaning, and no one using it would be unaware of that fact. And taken in context, it would be extremely difficult to prove that the original regulation had anything except the negative meaning in mind. Even just reading the little bit of the story that the OP posted, there is absolutely no indication the Pentagon was just being particularly dimwitted on the day that document was being written.

And every indication that in the intervening years they HAVE been particularly dimwitted in not correcting it.

I think you all are jumping to conclusions here a little too quickly. The military is trying to legitimize its practice of excluding gays from the military. The classification of homosexuality as a disorder isn't meant to be something definitive, but rather a politically convenient way of upholding their selection practices.

NT

Which is, in and of itself, also wrong.

The big problem I see with the government classifying homosexuality as a disorder in this way is not so much just that it allows them to throw gays out of the military, but that it continues the perpetuation of (and for all intents and purposes, codifies into law) prejudice against homosexuals.

HOW it came to be in the first place is much less troubling to me than the fact that it has not been corrected, and that there is still discussion about whether it even SHOULD be corrected.

It doesn't matter whether the Pentagon states that homosexuality is a disorder if they don't act on it. As soon as the miltary doesn't admit someone into the armed services because of their sexual orientation, then you can talk. Until then, it's just another line of text in a book somewhere.

I myself have no knowledge of what the Pentagon intends to do with this information, but meh. What ever it is, it doesn't affect me.

They DO act on it. Quoting from the same article the OP linked...

Under the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the US military is prohibited from asking about the sexual orientation of its members, but must discharge those who are openly homosexual.

Replacing the 10,000 homosexual soldiers forced to leave the US army in the last 10 years has cost $200m (£106m), according to a report released last year by the US Government Accountability Office.
(emphasis is mine)

To this day, soldiers are prohibited from the simple act of admitting that they are gay. And the basis of that prohibition is in the regulation under discussion here.

It really depends on how much emotional baggage one insists on attaching to the term. Technically, it is a mental disorder. Technically, one could also file it under deviancy, as in, a behavioural deviation from the statistical norm. It's just that the choice of words gets questioned for political reasons. But it does not make it any less literally true.

Technically true, but there is a strong case here to be made from simply looking at context and subsequent usage of the regulation. This should not merely be a matter of striking the word "disorder", but rather of removing homosexuality entirely from the list.

Homosexuality is not a disorder, any more than left handedness, which also has about a 10% occurance rate.

On the other hand (pun not intended), left handedness does not serve to reduce the natural growth rate and survival chances of the human race.

On the other hand (pun not intended), left handedness does not serve to reduce the natural growth rate and survival chances of the human race.

Rifles are designed for righties. I wouldn't go into combat with a left handed soldier - he might pull a "Cheney" on me.

Rifles are designed for righties. I wouldn't go into combat with a left handed soldier - he might pull a "Cheney" on me.

Point, point :p

Woops!!! That is a nice way to sugar coat the word disorder, but it is clearly not what the Pentagon meant when they originally published this ruling. They intended disorder to mean "something seriously wrong with these folks, get them away from 'healthy' and 'normal' people as quick as possible"! *snip*

Yes, get them away from the "healthy" people. Y'know, the ones who've been trained to kill other human beings on orders from other human beings without thinking about it. Because that's normal.

(I know you weren't advocating that position, I was just reinforcing your disagreement, Bill Hicks style.)

DIS-OR-DER, n.
A state of confusion: tiresome days of mess and disorder. The disruption of peaceful and law-abiding behavior: recurrent food crises led to periodic outbreaks of disorder.

Medicine: A disruption of normal physical or mental functions; a disease or abnormal condition.

The denotation is only a bit shy of neutrality. The Pentagon, however, has certainly intended a connotative spin to the negative. Perhaps a better word might be "disorthodoxy", if it existed. So no, there's no shading the implication stamped on the OP source's use of the word "disorder". They mean it to be a dischargeable condition.

On the other hand (pun not intended), left handedness does not serve to reduce the natural growth rate and survival chances of the human race.

Nor does homosexuality, which has been a fairly consistant 10% of the population for pretty much the whole time humans have been around, as far as science can determine.

And lets not get into the fact that overpopulation is a much more serious threat to the human race than underpopulation at the moment.

And let us not forget that homosexuals CAN reproduce, they are as fertile as heterosexuals, they are simply not sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, which tends to limit the chance of pregnancy, but does not in any way make it impossible. Just as you could have sex with and get pregnant by/impregnate someone to whom you were not attracted, if somehow the population of the earth were to be decimated, homosexuals COULD help repopulate.

It really depends on how much emotional baggage one insists on attaching to the term. Technically, it is a mental disorder. Technically, one could also file it under deviancy, as in, a behavioural deviation from the statistical norm. It's just that the choice of words gets questioned for political reasons. But it does not make it any less literally true.
Yes, but when the words you suggest have been co-opted in their meaning in order to label (tar is a better way to put it) entire segments of society for easy ridicule, marginalization and denigration, the choice of words become more a pejorative thing than a semantic thing.

Someone may indeed (for example) be a communist in ideology, but in most circles in the US, that word has a distinct flavor in its usage. A flavor designed to separate and denigrate those who aren't even remotely communist but who disagree with the vocal majority.

Yes, get them away from the "healthy" people. Y'know, the ones who've been trained to kill other human beings on orders from other human beings without thinking about it. Because that's normal.

(I know you weren't advocating that position, I was just reinforcing your disagreement, Bill Hicks style.)


:p

Which goes right back to my first response on this thread...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11204061&postcount=4

Its that very assumption that I don't accept in its entirety. While I agree that prejudice against gay individuals is a part of the reasong for military screening of homosexuals there are other more utilitarian reasons.


Gay culture inhibits the training that the military tries to accomplish. Note that I am not talking about purely homosexual behavior; I am talking about the culture that goes along with being gay in American society. If the military had its way openly Metrosexual men would get their "condition" classified as a mental disorder so that they could start throwing them out too.

Homosexuality is less of a culprit, but most men in the military don't want to bond with openly homosexual individuals. Yes this is due to bias, but the military can't help it if a bias is widespread; it has to deal with the materials it is given. But the simple fact is that a military unit will not be as effective if a member or two is not accepted by the group either partially or wholly regardless of the reasons for that lack of acceptance.


It would probably help clarify the issue if the military was a private organization instead of a governmental one, but the real issue is whether the military should have total exclusionary power over who it lets into its ranks. I believe it should, but some people may disagree. My reasons for this effectively duplicate the above where instead of gay or homosexual you substitute another societal outlier. I can safely say that I don't want members of the KKK or Nazis in the military.

I understand how its not quite the same since the KKK and Nazis could be said to be a matter of moral objection, but I believe the utilitarian reasons have the power to stand alone on this issue. Again others may disagree and believe that any should be able to serve in the military. I'm not sure that sits well with me, but I can see the argument.

NT

Well, sure, I suppose it can be, if you want. As I said in my first reply to that post, technically any physiological trait which isn't shared by the majority of the population can be called a disorder, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a disorder of earth-shattering magnitude or importance. A "disorder" in the loosest of terms [which is how I'm deploying it here] can mean just about anything under the right conditions. That doesn't mean I think people should be treated differently as a result of some of them [although it makes more sense with disorders like Down's Syndrome or what have you]; and in this and most cases I don't believe "disorder" should be received as a derogatory term. It just means your body operates in a slightly different manner than, say, mine. I agree that the term carries some "negative connotations," but that's a function of our reactions to it rather than the proper meaning of the term itself. People hear "disorder" and they typically conjure images of a psychiatrist's office or a nuthouse; I'm merely suggesting that this need not always be the case, and that the term may be reasonably accurate.
But your choice of example (Down's Syndrome) is more properly termed a brith defect rather than a disorder.

And lets not get into the fact that overpopulation is a much more serious threat to the human race than underpopulation at the moment.

I agree, let's not - it's beside the point.

And let us not forget that homosexuals CAN reproduce, they are as fertile as heterosexuals, they are simply not sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, which tends to limit the chance of pregnancy, but does not in any way make it impossible. Just as you could have sex with and get pregnant by/impregnate someone to whom you were not attracted, if somehow the population of the earth were to be decimated, homosexuals COULD help repopulate.

True, but that's a practical viewpoint (I say that like it's a bad thing, but, you know ;)). I'm merely saying, if you're an evolutionist - what does survival of the fittest say about homosexuality, ceteris paribus.

So what?
People should stop paying attention to stupid little details, i.e a word in a line in some government report and start worrying about bigger issues at hand.

Do gays honestly feel offended by this? :rolleyes:

So what?
People should stop paying attention to stupid little details, i.e a word in a line in some government report and start worrying about bigger issues at hand.

Do gays honestly feel offended by this? :rolleyes:

Oh, they're never offended. They're merely overwhelmed with deep sympathy for all those self-opressed, narrow-minded homophobes. With a dash of self-righteous indignation, too :rolleyes:

On the other hand (pun not intended), left handedness does not serve to reduce the natural growth rate and survival chances of the human race.
Neither does homosexuality. Homosexuals are not sterile. The ol' egg 'n sperm equation still works, there's just no fun for them in making it work.

Nice try, though.:rolleyes:

True, but that's a practical viewpoint (I say that like it's a bad thing, but, you know ;)). I'm merely saying, if you're an evolutionist - what does survival of the fittest say about homosexuality, ceteris paribus.

Quite simply, evolution says "it exists, it persists, therefore it is not an anti-survival trait." If it were somehow contra-survival, it would not survive. It does, so it either has some survival value, or it is a neutral trait.

Quite simply, evolution says "it exists, it persists, therefore it is not an anti-survival trait." If it were somehow contra-survival, it would not survive. It does, so it either has some survival value, or it is a neutral trait.

Perhaps it is a neutral trait. Homosexuals (at least those who follow the value truly) die without contributing to the survival of the human race (ignoring in this case whether or not it is necessary).

Nice try, though.:rolleyes:

XD

My point is merely that if the behaviour is not deviated from, it is a survival issue.

If it's not something detrimental to human survival, what's up with AIDS?

Its that very assumption that I don't accept in its entirety. While I agree that prejudice against gay individuals is a part of the reasong for military screening of homosexuals there are other more utilitarian reasons.


Gay culture inhibits the training that the military tries to accomplish. Note that I am not talking about purely homosexual behavior; I am talking about the culture that goes along with being gay in American society. If the military had its way openly Metrosexual men would get their "condition" classified as a mental disorder so that they could start throwing them out too.

Homosexuality is less of a culprit, but most men in the military don't want to bond with openly homosexual individuals. Yes this is due to bias, but the military can't help it if a bias is widespread; it has to deal with the materials it is given. But the simple fact is that a military unit will not be as effective if a member or two is not accepted by the group either partially or wholly regardless of the reasons for that lack of acceptance.
*snip*
I'm not buying this, largely because it's just an opinion, but also because it's horseshit. My brother LEARNED his (what would now be considered Metrosexual) grooming habits in the military in the 80s. Military condition is specifically designed to drill the individual out of the soldier and make him a functioning unit of a highly organized team. How does being gay have anything to do with that? Surely that would mean that they'd rather not have individualists of any kind in the military, regardless of orientation. Anyone who is willing to accept the training will be very well trained by the military -- please don't try to tell me that there have bever been gay soldiers. Anyone for whom the military's rigidity and conformity is anathema (me, for example, and I'm straight, if it matters) will not be broken into the military either easily or at all. Sexual orientation has about as much to do with that fact as hair color.

So what?
People should stop paying attention to stupid little details, i.e a word in a line in some government report and start worrying about bigger issues at hand.

Do gays honestly feel offended by this? :rolleyes:

I do not know. However, let us see how people like these statements:

Being Christian is a mental disorder.
Being black is a physical disorder.
Being left handed is a mental disorder.
Having green eyes is a physical disorder.

Hmm.. put together it indeed does not seem so bad.

Perhaps it is a neutral trait. Homosexuals (at least those who follow the value truly) die without contributing to the survival of the human race (ignoring in this case whether or not it is necessary).
Really? So a homosexual who, for example, saves the life of a breeder hasn't contributed? A homosexual who desires parenthood enough to undergo or pay someone to undergo artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization hasn't contributed? A homosexual who teaches a kid how to properly handle a firearm so that the kid doesn't auto-target himself into a premature (and pre-breeding) death doesn't count? Open your eyes, pal.



My point is merely that if the behaviour is not deviated from, it is a survival issue.

If it's not something detrimental to human survival, what's up with AIDS?
What's up with TB, Cancer (specifically HPV-caused varieties), Syphilis, and any number of other diseases? AIDS was not caused by homosexuality. I realize that much of your generalizations are a result of ignorance, so I'm happy to let your unabashed gay-baiting slide as youthful misinformation.

Its that very assumption that I don't accept in its entirety. While I agree that prejudice against gay individuals is a part of the reasong for military screening of homosexuals there are other more utilitarian reasons.

Gay culture inhibits the training that the military tries to accomplish. Note that I am not talking about purely homosexual behavior; I am talking about the culture that goes along with being gay in American society. If the military had its way openly Metrosexual men would get their "condition" classified as a mental disorder so that they could start throwing them out too.

Nope, that does not wash. If it were the case that "gay culture" (and we will come back to that) actually interfered with military training, then there would be no need to use homosexuality as the reason to remove them. If someone does not measure up, they can be discharged for being unable to fulfill their duty. Just like firing someone who is incapable of doing a job for which they have been hired.

Homosexuality is less of a culprit, but most men in the military don't want to bond with openly homosexual individuals. Yes this is due to bias, but the military can't help it if a bias is widespread; it has to deal with the materials it is given. But the simple fact is that a military unit will not be as effective if a member or two is not accepted by the group either partially or wholly regardless of the reasons for that lack of acceptance.

For the same reason blacks used to be segregated into their own separate units. A practice which is no longer the case. And the military certainly CAN help to do away with the bias if they refuse to cater to that bias. It is not at all appropriate to say "people are prejudiced, so let's support that prejudice because it exists". I would hazard a guess that EVERY unit has its favorites and its scapegoats; the person who is slower, or a worse shot, or has bad breath... and the army still manages to carry on somehow. If the military continues to codify prejudice against homosexuals, the bias will continue. They can break the cycle by refusing to allow prejudice to be legal.

It would probably help clarify the issue if the military was a private organization instead of a governmental one, but the real issue is whether the military should have total exclusionary power over who it lets into its ranks. I believe it should, but some people may disagree.

The one organization that should absolutely, under no circumstances, in no way be allowed to let prejudice be an exclusionary reason is the government. There is, of course, valid reason to exclude people who are not mentally or physically capable of the job, but homosexuality is neither a mental nor a physical handicap, and as such is completely invalid as a reason for exclusion.

My reasons for this effectively duplicate the above where instead of gay or homosexual you substitute another societal outlier. I can safely say that I don't want members of the KKK or Nazis in the military.

I understand how its not quite the same since the KKK and Nazis could be said to be a matter of moral objection, but I believe the utilitarian reasons have the power to stand alone on this issue. Again others may disagree and believe that any should be able to serve in the military. I'm not sure that sits well with me, but I can see the argument.
NT

Again, you are making an incorrect assumption. Homosexuality is not at all the same as membership in the KKK or the Nazis. Both of those are ideological choices, homosexuality is neither an ideology or a choice.

You are also making the classic mistake of attempting to equate homosexuality with (basically) crime. While certainly not all members of the KKK or Nazi party are guilty of hate crimes, that would seem to be where your objection leads, but homosexuality is not only not in the same class, it doesn't even attend the same school. Homosexuality is not evil, not a crime, not a choice, it is just a fact, just as heterosexuality is.

Back to "gay culture" being an objection. What does that mean? What is "gay culture" and how would it interfere with military training?

Perhaps it is a neutral trait. Homosexuals (at least those who follow the value truly) die without contributing to the survival of the human race (ignoring in this case whether or not it is necessary).



XD

My point is merely that if the behaviour is not deviated from, it is a survival issue.

If it's not something detrimental to human survival, what's up with AIDS?

I wish I could remember where I read it, so that I could link to it... but I remember reading a study which said that the straight siblings of homosexuals were more fertile on average than those with no homosexual siblings. So that would certainly be a survival trait linked to homosexuality.

And AIDS is not a gay disease. PLEASE find out more about how AIDS is transmitted and how to protect yourself before you inadvertantly become infected someday because you are under informed. Always practice safe sex. Always.

Ever been to San Francisco lately? Gay culture is amok with individuals who are anti-gun, obsessed with fashionable attire, pacifistic (which is a PC way of saying someone is "anti-war"), etc. This sort of thing doesn't make people "fit in" well into a military unit. Now maybe you can make the argument that that is an extreme, but even if that isn't exemplary of the culture itself it does indicate a general trend.


And you can't kick someone out of the military for "not fitting in well." Yeah failure to perform your duties is one thing, but I am not aware of any req stating that you must be "presentable" or "sociable."




I will contend that the utilitarian reasons alone are enough. I will not state homosexuality is evil or anything close to that effect. But it does mean that someone is very likely to not fit in well, and the military should have the right to exclude those who will not be able to fit in.


You are right that the government should not show favoritism, but its rather difficult to do that without acknowledging the reality that hegemonic masculinity is afraid of homosexuality. You would have to warp the social fabric of the entire nation to let homosexuals into the military.

Its one thing to not condone discrimination, but it is entirely another to try and get rid of it. You try forcing homosexuals into the military and you are going to cause a social war to develop domestically within the military. These people will probably end up dead, and the investigations into the matter will fall behind a wall of silence no police investigator will be able to break.

I'd say that until the cultural climate changes in America its for the best that gays be left out of the military.

NT

Ever been to San Francisco lately? Gay culture is amok with individuals who are anti-gun, obsessed with fashionable attire, pacifistic (which is a PC way of saying someone is "anti-war"), etc. This sort of thing doesn't make people "fit in" well into a military unit. Now maybe you can make the argument that that is an extreme, but even if that isn't exemplary of the culture itself it does indicate a general trend.

But is this subgroup the one that intends to join the military ?

History has proven repeatedly that sexual orientation has got very little to do with military prowess one way or the other.

There have been, in the past, several all-gay units that have served with conspicuous distinction.
The Theban Hetaroi, for one.

Like I said I was talking about a "culture" and not homosexuals in general.


Obviously there are quite a few homosexuals who aren't "gay." Now if you are going to start desegregating the military by forcing openly homosexual individuals into the military, then you are bound to start putting people who openly identify with gay culture even if they don't accept all of its principles (like being anti-military).

NT

Like I said I was talking about a "culture" and not homosexuals in general.


Obviously there are quite a few homosexuals who aren't "gay." Now if you are going to start desegregating the military by forcing openly homosexual individuals into the military, then you are bound to start putting people who openly identify with gay culture even if they don't accept all of its principles (like being anti-military).

NT


Will you please tell me why the fiddlesticks we are supposed to bar recruits based on their culture?
What kind of incredibly DAFT Rupert-idea is that?


*fuming*

Me: Colonel ( Infantry ) ( retired )
You: ?

Obviously there are quite a few homosexuals who aren't "gay." Now if you are going to start desegregating the military by forcing openly homosexual individuals into the military, then you are bound to start putting people who openly identify with gay culture even if they don't accept all of its principles (like being anti-military).

I do not follow you reasoning I fear...
I agree with telling people who are terrified by the idea of breaking a nail or totally against the idea of holding a gun that joining the military is probably not the best choice for them. But if the individual that wants to sign up is not like that, what does it matter if he or she is straight, homosexual - or even female ?

Culture isn't reason to bar someone?


I obviously don't have the same credentials (no where near that of a full bird), but it does beg the question what you wouldn't allow in?


Would you allow in avowed Neo-Nazis? How about KKK members? Black Panthers? A person associated with an organization that was anti-government and whose members were connected with at least one bombing of a government building?


Ideology sounds to me like something that can be discriminated on the basis of. And that's all culture is. Ideology.



As to whether homosexuality can be discriminated on the basis of is an entirely different issue since it is not a matter of ideology, and some might contend it is not a matter of choice. The science is ultimately unclear here.

NT

I do not follow you reasoning I fear...
I agree that telling people who are terrified by the idea of breaking a nail or totally against the idea of holding a gun that joining the military is probably not the best choice for them. But if the individual that wants to sign up is not like that, what does it matter if he or she is straight, homosexual - or even female?


I don't think they should be denied the right to sign up, but I do think the military should be able to deny them the ability to join. They wouldn't assimilate well into military culture. And I think thats an understatement...

NT

History has proven repeatedly that sexual orientation has got very little to do with military prowess one way or the other.

There have been, in the past, several all-gay units that have served with conspicuous distinction.
The Theban Hetaroi, for one.


I don't think anyone is contending that being homosexual makes one a worse fighter.

American culture is quite vehemently against homosexuality. Going against the grain is quite difficult, some sociologists essentially say its impossible in any short order time frame.



But you do raise a valid point. Would you, if you had the power to do so, create an all homosexual division of the military? It would prevent discrimination from other members of the military, which I think is of the greatest interest; the safety of these individuals in the military is what I question above all else.

NT

Culture isn't reason to bar someone?


I obviously don't have the same credentials (no where near that of a full bird), but it does beg the question what you wouldn't allow in?


Would you allow in avowed Neo-Nazis? How about KKK members? Black Panthers? A person associated with an organization that was anti-government and whose members were connected with at least one bombing of a government building?


Ideology sounds to me like something that can be discriminated on the basis of. And that's all culture is. Ideology.



As to whether homosexuality can be discriminated on the basis of is an entirely different issue since it is not a matter of ideology, and some might contend it is not a matter of choice. The science is ultimately unclear here.

NT

Son, you don't get it.

If we don't want some chap in the Forces, we're awfully canny about finding individual reasons why that chap should not be in.
Also, also, you can always run 'em out if they can't cut it.
( If you really don't like a chap, sending him up for the Fan Dance in the Welsh mountains for a continous week will make him beg for the chance to resign. )

There is no science to it, it is an art.

Furthermore: we don't give a fiddlesticks about whether a chap is part of a drug-culture. We do care about substance-abuse.

We don't care a great deal about whether his culture rejects the use of armed force. We care about whether he does the job.

Meanwhile, unless you've been there yourself ( as in: performing national service ), I suggest you keep your trap SHUT about who is fit to serve, and who isn't.

If you don't understand what I'm on about, then you could try visting the Pegasus pub in Aldershot.
THE haunt of the SAS.
If you feel suicidal, tell 'em that you think sodomizers should not be in the Services at all...

Ever been to San Francisco lately? Gay culture is amok with individuals who are anti-gun, obsessed with fashionable attire, pacifistic (which is a PC way of saying someone is "anti-war"), etc. This sort of thing doesn't make people "fit in" well into a military unit. Now maybe you can make the argument that that is an extreme, but even if that isn't exemplary of the culture itself it does indicate a general trend.

And, just out of curiousity, how many anti-gun pacifistic individuals are clamoring to get IN to the armed forces? And why are you assuming that all homosexuals are members of that particular culture? Are you next going to tell me that just because some straight people like to go hunting and hang out at the local bar swilling beer with the guys that all straight people are like that? Another invalid assumption. A homosexual person who wants to join the armed services would not be likely to be a pacifist, now would he?

And you can't kick someone out of the military for "not fitting in well." Yeah failure to perform your duties is one thing, but I am not aware of any req stating that you must be "presentable" or "sociable."

I will contend that the utilitarian reasons alone are enough. I will not state homosexuality is evil or anything close to that effect. But it does mean that someone is very likely to not fit in well, and the military should have the right to exclude those who will not be able to fit in.

Not be able to fit in? Based on what? Based on the fact that you are prejudiced? That does not work. Any person who is capable of doing the job and wants to be there should be allowed to do so. Whether or not everybody likes them. The anti social unpresentable straight person may be less able to fit in, but would not be excluded. Once again, prejudice must not be the deciding factor, but rather ability to perform. By classifying homosexuality as a disorder in the first place, the military was placing it on the list of reasons that would make someone unable to perform, a position which has long since been debunked by the medical community.


You are right that the government should not show favoritism, but its rather difficult to do that without acknowledging the reality that hegemonic masculinity is afraid of homosexuality. You would have to warp the social fabric of the entire nation to let homosexuals into the military.

Again wrong. Homosexuals are already IN the military. They always have been. And they have performed just fine. The ONLY change is that they don't want to be forced to lie about it any longer. So the social fabric is pretty warped already, and it is time to take the warp OUT of it.

Its one thing to not condone discrimination, but it is entirely another to try and get rid of it. You try forcing homosexuals into the military and you are going to cause a social war to develop domestically within the military. These people will probably end up dead, and the investigations into the matter will fall behind a wall of silence no police investigator will be able to break.

I'd say that until the cultural climate changes in America its for the best that gays be left out of the military.

NT

By not trying to get rid of it, by allowing it to stand in the regulations as a dischargeable offense, the military has not only condoned discrimination, it has legalized it.

I am not trying to force anyone into the military. If I had my way, NO ONE would be in the military, we would disband the whole thing and live in peace. Until we figure out how to do that, well, we need to make it work better than it does. And there are homosexuals who see things differently than I do and who WANT to serve, all I am saying is that they should absolutely be allowed to do so.

As to the threat of them ending up dead... that is an entirely unacceptable reason. Again, these are all reasons that were used in the segregation of blacks in armed services, and today people of all races serve together. And somehow they did not all end up dead in the process. There may have been isolated cases, and it is the job of the military to police itself and not allow such things to happen. And today, with all the different races serving side by side, our society has managed to survive.

The only bar here is prejudice. And the military must not perpetuate it. The government must stop allowing it. And when they do, society will come around. The cycle of prejudice has to be broken, and here is one link that can and should be shattered.

I don't think anyone is contending that being homosexual makes one a worse fighter.

American culture is quite vehemently against homosexuality. Going against the grain is quite difficult, some sociologists essentially say its impossible in any short order time frame.



But you do raise a valid point. Would you, if you had the power to do so, create an all homosexual division of the military? It would prevent discrimination from other members of the military, which I think is of the greatest interest; the safety of these individuals in the military is what I question above all else.

NT

Yup.
Apart from the quibble that it would be on a regimental scale first, I would definetely raise an all-gay unit.
And if it were up to me, that Unit's standards would be just as high as those set for, say, the Blues and Royals.
And I know it would do well, very well indeed.

If memory serves me correct, Bradley performed the same thing with black units. With very good results.

PS: Asserting that queerness is a mental disorder is very much implying that the queers are unfit to serve. Inasmuch as it has owt to do with it, it is just plain slander.

Son, you don't get it.

If we don't want some chap in the Forces, we're awfully canny about finding individual reasons why that chap should not be in.
Also, also, you can always run 'em out if they can't cut it.
( If you really don't like a chap, sending him up for the Fan Dance in the Welsh mountains for a continous week will make him beg for the chance to resign. )

There is no science to it, it is an art.

Furthermore: we don't give a fiddlesticks about whether a chap is part of a drug-culture. We do care about substance-abuse.

We don't care a great deal about whether his culture rejects the use of armed force. We care about whether he does the job.

Meanwhile, unless you've been there yourself ( as in: performing national service ), I suggest you keep your trap SHUT about who is fit to serve, and who isn't.

If you don't understand what I'm on about, then you could try visting the Pegasus pub in Aldershot.
THE haunt of the SAS.
If you feel suicidal, tell 'em that you think sodomizers should not be in the Services at all...


In the ideal I have no qualms with homosexuals in the military.


And from what I gather yeah the military has no problem handing out shitty jobs that people will beg to leave.


But this essentially brings me back to my original point:


If the classification is essentially a political maneuver to justify their obvious discrimination in "hiring practices," then what is the issue? Everyone knows this isn't about actually classifying homosexuality as a mental disease right?


NT

I don't think they should be denied the right to sign up, but I do think the military should be able to deny them the ability to join. They wouldn't assimilate well into military culture. And I think thats an understatement...

NT

Huh? What is the point of signing up if one is not allowed to join? What would that even mean?

If the classification is essentially a political maneuver to justify their obvious discrimination in "hiring practices," then what is the issue? Everyone knows this isn't about actually classifying homosexuality as a mental disease right?

You would be surprised by how quickly that last part would be forgotten by people who like to forget it.

In the ideal I have no qualms with homosexuals in the military.


That is not at all obvious from your posts.

And from what I gather yeah the military has no problem handing out shitty jobs that people will beg to leave.


But this essentially brings me back to my original point:


If the classification is essentially a political maneuver to justify their obvious discrimination in "hiring practices," then what is the issue? Everyone knows this isn't about actually classifying homosexuality as a mental disease right?


NT

Of course we all know that. This is exactly what we have been saying. And not only is it not a mental disease, it is also not an impediment to being able to BE a soldier. It is now strictly the military's attempt to keep the codification of their discriminatory practices. At the time when the regulations were first written, it was thought by the psychiatric community that homosexuality WAS a disorder. For the past 30 years, that has no longer been the case. The military may not be the brightest of groups, but even they would have trouble arguing that they never changed the rules because they somehow missed the memo and they still thought it WAS a mental disease. Of course they kept it on the books to justify their prejudiced policies.

I guess we are all against the POLICIES, not just the wording of the regulation. And what we seem to have moved on to is the discussion of those policies, which need also to be stricken.

Like I said I was talking about a "culture" and not homosexuals in general.


Obviously there are quite a few homosexuals who aren't "gay." Now if you are going to start desegregating the military by forcing openly homosexual individuals into the military, then you are bound to start putting people who openly identify with gay culture even if they don't accept all of its principles (like being anti-military).

NT

Yeah? And? The military puts Jews, Christians and Muslims in the same unit. And they get along. So what? Not everyone is going to like the culture of his fellow soldiers. And what happens then? They get over it.

I have heard of many (hundreds each year) cases of homosexuals who were discharged because they simply admitted they were gay. In all of those cases, if there was someone who was openly flamboyant, considering that the military could certainly stand to have some appearance of justification for it's discrimination, don't you think we might have heard about it? I have never heard of such a case myself, have you?

But you keep trying to push the idea that simply the existance of prejudice is justification to keep and cater to that prejudice, which does not work for anybody, least of all the federal government.

Culture isn't reason to bar someone?


I obviously don't have the same credentials (no where near that of a full bird), but it does beg the question what you wouldn't allow in?


Would you allow in avowed Neo-Nazis? How about KKK members? Black Panthers? A person associated with an organization that was anti-government and whose members were connected with at least one bombing of a government building?


Ideology sounds to me like something that can be discriminated on the basis of. And that's all culture is. Ideology.



As to whether homosexuality can be discriminated on the basis of is an entirely different issue since it is not a matter of ideology, and some might contend it is not a matter of choice. The science is ultimately unclear here.

NT

I already dealt with the objection to the KKK and such, so go back and re read that one.

Homosexuality is NOT an ideology. The "gay culture" of which you keep speaking is a small subset of homosexuality. It is NOT representative of those homosexuals who want to join the military. Again, those pacifist anti gun individuals are not beating down the doors to get in to the army.

The science is NOT unclear. Homosexuality is not a choice. There is ongoing discussion as to the various factors that cause homosexuality (DNA, hormone shifts during pregnancy, etc.) but the consensus is that homosexuality is something you are born with, and that one cannot choose whether to be gay or straight. The only scientists who still think of homosexuality as a choice are those with a particular religious bias. As has been said endlessly by people who are gay "Why the hell would I CHOOSE to live a life filled with discrimination and hate, if all I had to do to avoid it was choose to be straight?" If you are still unsure, consider your own sexuality. At what point did you say "Hmmm... think I will go for the opposite sex." Could you change your mind and decide to be attracted to the same sex? Neither could a homosexual choose heterosexuality.

I already dealt with the objection to the KKK and such, so go back and re read that one.

Homosexuality is NOT an ideology. The "gay culture" of which you keep speaking is a small subset of homosexuality. It is NOT representative of those homosexuals who want to join the military. Again, those pacifist anti gun individuals are not beating down the doors to get in to the army.

The science is NOT unclear. Homosexuality is not a choice. There is ongoing discussion as to the various factors that cause homosexuality (DNA, hormone shifts during pregnancy, etc.) but the consensus is that homosexuality is something you are born with, and that one cannot choose whether to be gay or straight. The only scientists who still think of homosexuality as a choice are those with a particular religious bias. As has been said endlessly by people who are gay "Why the hell would I CHOOSE to live a life filled with discrimination and hate, if all I had to do to avoid it was choose to be straight?" If you are still unsure, consider your own sexuality. At what point did you say "Hmmm... think I will go for the opposite sex." Could you change your mind and decide to be attracted to the same sex? Neither could a homosexual choose heterosexuality.


Post wasn't even aimed at you; I've heard your objections and you've posted your response to it.


For your other postsL


In the ideal means a much better world where prejudices don't exist and people get along nicely. Hasn't occurred yet to my knowledge, so you have to deal with the way things are.

Some people get over culture. Others don't. You don't seem to understand how ingrained the fear of homosexuality is into the hegeomonic masculinity in America. If you think the prejudice ingrained due to slavery was/is tough to deal with, then you are in for a real kick the minute you try and lock horns with the anti-homosexuality prejudice. It's been around a lot longer and has a lot more institutions built upon it, than slavery and its subsequent anti-black institutions.



And again you are over-stating your case on the issue of choice-no choice. Some humans are born with the brain chemistry of the opposite gender. Quite obviously this person having homosexual tendencies has a biological component to it. But some people when they hit puberty don't immediately experience homosexual tendencies but develop them later. I've read much of the literature on homosexuality; I had to for my classes on masculinity.

There is strong evidence for a biological component in some cases, but it is altogether unclear in others.


If you can find for me a biologist who is willing to claim with certainty that homosexuality is entirely biological, then I might change my tune here, but until such time I've seen nothing close to being definitive.

NT

Post wasn't even aimed at you; I've heard your objections and you've posted your response to it.


For your other postsL


In the ideal means a much better world where prejudices don't exist and people get along nicely. Hasn't occurred yet to my knowledge, so you have to deal with the way things are.

Some people get over culture. Others don't. You don't seem to understand how ingrained the fear of homosexuality is into the hegeomonic masculinity in America. If you think the prejudice ingrained due to slavery was/is tough to deal with, then you are in for a real kick the minute you try and lock horns with the anti-homosexuality prejudice. It's been around a lot longer and has a lot more institutions built upon it, than slavery and its subsequent anti-black institutions.

I have been locking horns with anti-homosexuality prejudice for years. I continue to do it daily, where ever I see it rear its ugly head. I will continue to do so in the future.

And you persist in thinking that because it is there, it is somehow ok to let it be. The only way to overcome prejudice is to keep up the fight against it. Saying "I don't agree with it (wink wink) it's just the way things are" is a cop out. If you truly don't agree with a bad policy, you should not defend it.

I am vastly heartened by the fact that in the very recent past, and in more than one country, homosexual marriage has become a fact. A HUGE step forward, and one that shows that the prejudice CAN be overcome. Unless, of course, you think somehow the folks of Massachussets and Spain among others were somehow immune to that prejudice in the first place. I tend to doubt it. But they have learned and grown, and I believe we need to keep moving forward in that vein.

The "ingrained fear" is learned behavior. If people stopped teaching their children that it was good, children would not learn it. My grandparents thought that it was proper for blacks to sit on the back of the bus and have separate bathrooms. Some of my students didn't even know who Rosa Parks was, and were indignant at the idea that anyone would not have let them sit together with friends in a restaurant because of skin color. Prejudice to indignation in less than three generations. Change for the better can happen, but not if we don't work towards it.



And again you are over-stating your case on the issue of choice-no choice. Some humans are born with the brain chemistry of the opposite gender. Quite obviously this person having homosexual tendencies has a biological component to it. But some people when they hit puberty don't immediately experience homosexual tendencies but develop them later. I've read much of the literature on homosexuality; I had to for my classes on masculinity.

There is strong evidence for a biological component in some cases, but it is altogether unclear in others.


If you can find for me a biologist who is willing to claim with certainty that homosexuality is entirely biological, then I might change my tune here, but until such time I've seen nothing close to being definitive.

NT

I don't believe I am overstating, and this could devolve into a biology discussion but for two things. First, it is far off topic and would hijack the thread, and second, it makes no difference to the basic point of the discussion whether you are right or I am.

What I mean is, even if you were right (and I am not saying you are) and homosexuality were a choice, so what? It would not be a wrong choice, simply a choice, like choosing vegetarianism not meat eating, or Christianity not Buddism. And if people CHOSE to be homosexual, they should STILL not be discriminated against. We don't allow discrimination based on race or creed, nor should we based on sexuality.

And before you go there, no, I don't think pedaphilia or beastiality should be legal, consenting adults only please.

People who have a problem with gays, generally have that problem due to ignorance. Think back to middle school when your favorite insult was gay, and think how many gay people you actually knew. I doubt any of your "typical" gay people would sign up for the military, but I'd think those that would would probably only help to reduce the amount of prejudice within the military as it would only show people that we're not that different.

It's pretty obvious what the conservatives are trying to do here, regardless of whether they call it a disorder or not, and if you ask me discrimination against gays has been going on far too long within the military. If they fail to meet the military's standards, then by all means, kick them out, but I don't see how where they like to stick it matters to the rest of us.