Pentagon lists homosexuality as disorder

[PhilosophyGenius]

Pentagon lists homosexuality as disorder
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060620/...DltBHNlYwM3MTY


By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

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.

Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the center, said, "The policy reflects the department's continued misunderstanding of homosexuality and makes it more difficult for gays and lesbians to access mental health services."

The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association.

"It is disappointing that certain Department of Defense instructions include homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake," said Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.

[James Redford]

Pentagon lists homosexuality as disorder
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060620/...DltBHNlYwM3MTY


By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

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.

Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the center, said, "The policy reflects the department's continued misunderstanding of homosexuality and makes it more difficult for gays and lesbians to access mental health services."

The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association.

"It is disappointing that certain Department of Defense instructions include homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake," said Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.

I support this policy full-force. Gays most definitely ought to be excluded from military service, the same as straights ought to be. Or for that matter any human beings, or non-human beings, as well. Or, just to be sure, non-beings included.

That right there would solve over half our problems. And I'm being quite serious here.

This matter reminds me of so-called "gay marriage." That is, the idea that the government ought to recognize gay marriages. No it shouldn't! The government ought not recognize any marriage. True marriage is a tribal or familial affaire (or even, a personal affaire, between the two people involved). Government ought not to have anything to do with it. Governments just like to butt into peoples business in order to better track and trace people. This is the same reason why they have enforced a government-monopoly on mail delivery since ancient times.

[AuGmENTor]

Amen brother... If we got rid of it completely (govt) it would be problem solved

[princesskittypoo]

i think government should recognize gay marriage. i use to think that they didn't but i have since desided that it really does not do anything for anyone other than separate us from each other. we are all human beings gay or not. allow them to be stable like strait people and have the option for divorce as well :P

[James Redford]

Amen brother... If we got rid of it completely (govt) it would be problem solved

Perhaps you are being genuine. Or perhaps you are attempting to be ironic.

No matter, you are absolutely correct either way.

But merely being correct on this subject doesn't necessarily convince others.

Hence, I provide the below in order to do so:

Below are some excellent articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

"The Anatomy of the State," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974), pp. 55-88:

http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

"Defense Services on the Free Market," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/marketdefense.html

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf

"The Private Production of Defense," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52:

http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf

"Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46:

http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf

"Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market," Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, Prof. David D. Friedman (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; originally published 1971):

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libert...hapter_29.html

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

The Ethics of Liberty, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (New York, New York: New York University Press, 1998; originally published 1982):

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995):

http://www.mises.org/esandtam.asp

"Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, On Freedom and Free Enterprise: The Economics of Free Enterprise, Mary Sennholz, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1956), pp. 224-262. Reprinted in The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School, Murray N. Rothbard (London, England: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255:

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf

Man, Economy, and State, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, second edition, 2004; originally published 1962):

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp

Power and Market: Government and the Economy, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf

These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

America's Great Depression, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, fifth edition, 2000; originally published 1963):

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

The above book concerns the how governments create depressions (i.e., nowadays called recessions) through credit expansion.

The small book Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe doesn't get into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of what economics is and what it is not. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the one economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.

[James Redford]

i think government should recognize gay marriage. i use to think that they didn't but i have since desided that it really does not do anything for anyone other than separate us from each other. we are all human beings gay or not. allow them to be stable like strait people and have the option for divorce as well :P

You are obviously slow. Please re-read my above comments on gay marriage and try, this time, to understand.

[AuGmENTor]

Well, I'll get back you all those links in a few. But first I want to say I was being 100% sincere when I said that. I don't know why I feel this longing for the ancient ways. Sounds corny I know, but I feel man was better able to realize his potential when he was free from the constraints of a controllong government. When I have to work this hard to pay my bills, I cannot be all I can be. I think Einstien said words to that effect, and I truly believe it.

[AuGmENTor]

P.S. I'm not crying about working hard to pay my bills, I LIKE to work alot, and I choose to, so I can have the things I want. But damned if I'm going to give my money to a government that doesn't act in anyones best interests but their own.

[James Redford]

i think government should recognize gay marriage. i use to think that they didn't but i have since desided that it really does not do anything for anyone other than separate us from each other. we are all human beings gay or not. allow them to be stable like strait people and have the option for divorce as well :P

Oh, I see that you have the little eyes with the tongue out. I hate that. Do you know why I hate that? If you don't, I will here tell you.

It's because I grew up reading books! That is, words on paper that didn't have weird little faces on them!

Irony was expressed in my day through the words that the writer used. Not funny little faces!

Damn you, damn you all to hell!

[AuGmENTor]

You are obviously slow. Please re-read my above comments on gay marriage and try, this time, to understand.

Poo, the man lacks social skills, so I emplore you to give him some slack. But there is genuine substance in his words.look past that, "I'm the greatest person in the world," complex that he drags around like a bag of bricks, and see that he is simply stating that no marrige HAS to be sanctioned by your government, cause it's in the eyes of your chosen higher power that unions exist.