Pentagon lists homosexuality as disorder

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060619/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays_1

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

< snip >

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.

I can't fucking believe this.

For years, they had two physical readiness standards of appearance for males and females. Male weight limits adhered to a "health standard" while female limits adhered to an "appearance standard" which was between ten to twenty pounds on average less than the applicable health standard, depending on height. It took years to get those regs changed, because some of the sexist bastards wanted the "dames" to be trim and tiny, never mind that their guts hung down to their knees and they had more chins than Rove!

in light of the last six years?

It seems to me that homophobia is the real disorder.

..I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL.' And I started jumpin up and down yelling, 'KILL, KILL,' and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, 'KILL, KILL.' And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, 'You're our boy.'" http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/alices.shtml

:grr:





"Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."

So what disorder is this boy suffering from? Cognitive disruption of the logic centers of the
brain?

How much longer before we are forced to salute in the streets and carry papers?

:shrug: Gotta love the progress..............back to the dark ages.

that they aren't discharging for a lot of 'zero tolerance' infractions lately. The herd is too thin...

Of course, the minute they do a drawdown, all of the hashish smokers and gays will be the first out the door...

they go to gay bars and walk around the parking looking for military stickers....no gays are actively being targeted.....this administration has pulled out all of the stops...and yes we are going back to the dark ages...

compulsive lying, war mongering, excessive greed (Scrooge Syndrome), and being a religious fanatic to the list of mental disorders as well.

And other than that, I really don't know what to say anymore. The 'f' bomb just doesn't express the anger I feel anymore. Language - esp foul - fails me.

War is a disease. State sanctioned killing of unfamiliar people creates psychological trauma. Why would ANYONE listen to an institution that causes a host of psychological/physiological problems?

Damn, all those years of them faithfully defending the constitution and doing their work WHILE THEY WERE MENTALLY DISORDERED!

Amazing!

I couldn't do that much with a mental disorder. And what's even more amazing is that these guys had higher security clearances than me. Wow.

Why didn't her family get help for her mental disorder?

since the eveidence is to the contrary -- then these guys are playin politics with gay folk and their lives.

i'm too cynical to believe that anyone believes that old wives tale anymore -- but i will always believe that people will want power -- and will find ways to create divisiveness and smokescreens while they grab it.

Religious Fundamentalism as well as those who claim to talk to god and/or jesus...Thats a mental Disorder.

So, if your straight and have a foot fetish, its ok...If your straight and like golden showers, Great. If your striaght, goto church then go home to your 6 wives, thats fine too....
But, if your Gay, you have a mental problem....the Pentagon can go FUCK ITS SELF.

Talk about Yesterday's Controversies Today ...

--p!

I know the Hoover building is not part of the Pentagon, but having this policy and having an intelligence building named after a cross-dressing homosexual should be at least troubling to these homophobes...

...Armed and dangerous.

Murdering and torturing people is ok, while loving and nurturing someone is screwed up. MmHmm. :eyes:

Time to wake up people... this is an attack on a group of people... OUR people. Anyone who doesn't think this is an attack on homosexuals is lying or just doesn't want to stand up and be counted!

pssst... I'm straight but wear the triangle in support of Gay Pride. Time for all of us to come TOGETHER!

to a pink triangle again? I'm straight too, but stand by the glbt people.

Well, if Rumsfeld is what passes for normal, I'll rather be having a 'mental disorder' anyway.

These people are wayyyy out there.

Department of Defense, or (most likely) the military departments (Army, Navy, Air Force), or military services that make policies. Does anyone have a link to it?

Normally, administrative policies covering areas such as discharges beling to the military departments and carry the authority of the service secretary - these sub cabinet presidential appointees (with Senate confirmation) are the Secretaries of Army, Navy and Air Force.

(Trivia - the Secretary of the Air Force is a West Point graduate. Guess there weren't any qualified USAFA-grad applicants)

This is because the Department of Defense itself, or consider the DoD Headquarters, has relatively few people belonging to it. Almost everyone is either in a military service or is a civilian employee of the Department of Army, Navy or Air Force.

Why? Because you don't join he DoD - you enlist in, or are commissioned in, the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines. Administrative areas such as joining, discharges, promotions and assignments are governed by the military departments.

Military services have the main missions to organize, train and equip the forces.

So who fights the wars? There are nine Combatant Commanders that report directly to the Secretary of Defense who reports directly to the President. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in the Chain of Command. Neither is the Vice President the Deputy Commander in Chief - the VP isn't in the Chain of Commander either and cannot issue orders to the Secretary of Defense unless acting President under the 25th Amendment.

Anyway, back to the Combatant Commanders and where their Headquarters are located - some are geographic: European Command (Stuttgart, Germany), Pacific Command (Pearl Harbor, HI), Central Command(Tampa, FL), Southern Command (Miami, FL), Northern Command (includes US Element NORAD, Colorado Springs, CO). The others are global with a functinal focus: Special Operations Command(Tampa, FL), Strategic Command (Offutt, NE), Transportation Command Belleville, IL), Joint Forces Command (Norfolk, VA).

What do they fight with? Great question - you must have read my mind. Combatant Commanders have forces, from the military services, allocated to them by the Secretary of Defense in an annual
"Forces For" Memorandum. Of course changes do not have to wait for the annual update as missions adjust throughout the year.

Anyway, enough DoD 101 and back on point, Regardless of policies (can be changed by Executive Order) in place covering sexual orientation, the bigger hurdle is the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which is the US Law passed by Congress and signed by the President. The UCMJ prohibits sodomy, either homosexual or heterosexual, without exemptions for married couples.

You need Congress to change the UCMJ and it simply is not going to change the law. Realistically, I doubt 50% of the Democratic caucus would vote for the change. But that doesn't make a president powerless. Just like my Battalion Commander reserved jurisdiction for DWIs (Company Commanders could not punish them - they had to be referred higher) as the ultimate UCMJ convening authority, ANY President COULD reserve exclusive jurisdiction in ALL sodomy cases and effectively end all prosecutions. Any President also is at the Top of the Administrative Chain and could require all separations for homosexuality require presidential concurrence.

But they won't. Bill Clinton wouldn't and Bush wont. It's too far off the radar screen and why bother to have a SECDEF and department secretaries if you are going to do their jobs.

My company command (84-86) was 22 months. It was before DADT but my company never had a sexual orientation discharge during my tenure. Someday this policy will change. It has to, because our constitution has to mean more than judging people based on what they are rather than what they do. I don't know when it will change or what the catylst will be, but when it does change, the military will survive, dire predictions of Armageddon notwithstanding.

I noticed that some posters hit on the weight policy. When I came in (1972), it was a straight height-weight table, by gender and age. Weightlifters with 4% body fat were getting kicked out. In the 80s, it moved to percent of body fat, still sliding for gender and age. I've been out for about 9 years but I believe that's still the standard although measurement methodologies have evolved. Appearance is an issue but is handled separately from the weight control program.

Nobody has ever been able to explain that to me. Can you?

Sodomy is a sex act that can be practiced by people of either sex. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and, as the word homosexuality makes clear, can only take place between people of the same sex.

Homosexual sex is sodomy, according any dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy

sod·om·y (sd-m)
n.

Anal copulation of one male with another.
Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
Copulation with an animal.

------------

The definintion as you see is very broad, and arcane in the modern world

according to this dictionary, and "member of opposite sex" means heterosexual, so why is homosexual sex sodomy and heterosexual sex is not?

I'm still not seeing it.

but I never got caught!

:shrug:

many representatives and senators in a few months. Of course, words like yours serve to elect Republican members of congress - but what the hell you scored your points against the troops that have absolutely no say in the policy and law. I'm sure Wes Clark appreciates you sentiments.:nuke:

Pfc. Barry Winchell would say not...

for your rights

are the one with the problem. I am a pacifist. I am with General Smedley Butler who said that war is a racket and always will be. I am with Thomas Jefferson who said that we should not have a standing army. Most of what is wrong with this nation is the use of military and CIA to control markets and peoples around the world -- over 250 military and CIA interventions since WWII. Why do they hate us? Because patriotic kids are lied to and used to harm people around the world for the benefit of the super-wealthy.

US Soldiers do not keep us safe - they participate in 'actions' that will have blowback - will cause us danger. While I understand that many in the military join for reasons that would be good if they were true - for our safety, for their liberty - the reasons are lies. How sane is someone who believes and acts in the interests of LIARS?

I think Wes Clark is a big boy and can handle my anti-military sentiments. He is sounding more and more like Dwight Eisenhower: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

Now, can Wes move all the way to General Smedley Butler? WAR IS A RACKET

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Thanks IndyOp.

established the US Military Academy at West Point. That's far more enduring than anything he ever said as President.

As a lesbian AND a veteran, I'm offended by it. The military might be in need of improvement, mainly due to its inept leadership, but why ridicule the (mostly) young men and women who would give up their lives for you if the situation required it?

This kind of shit really makes liberals look as extreme, radical and hate-filled as they are presented by the likes of Coulter. What a shame.

Rape occurs only in jail? Obviously, you are not up to speed. Ignored.

Educate yourself about rape.

To agree with the other poster: Ignore.

Enjoy your stay.

and until the prisons can stop it, inmates will be coming out far more angry and violent than they went in - and that puts everyone else at risk.

Now, which part didn't you get? That men are victims of violence. The ignorant will say they deserve it or they wouldn't be there - bullshit, rape isn't part of a sentence. Educate yourself.

The dates of origin of this one really need to be checked. Bush admin? Derived from Boy Scout policy? Borrowed from Hitler?

Thanks for the post, frightening as it is.

Even in the wording. This is a disgrace but not a surprise with this nutty crew in charge.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/i64904_082897/i64904p.pdf

DopD Instruction 6490.4 (August 28, 1997) Para E2.1.5 (page 20, Enclosure 2): "Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious,or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."

.. Psychiatric Disorder From DSM

Twenty-five years ago APA leaders, in the glare of a national media spotlight, took the controversial step of deleting homosexuality from the Association's compendium of psychiatric disorders. That action launched APA on a quarter century of efforts to end discrimination against homosexuals and coincided with the increasing willingness of gay and lesbian psychiatrists to insist openly that APA must listen to them ...

http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html

Could they have done this to have a way to give unfavorable evals to civilian DoD personel? If there were a whistleblower or another employee who won't play ball with team bush*, wouldn't this be a way to say that they failed a psych exam both for cause to fire them and or to discredit them?

Just thinking out loud.

That's a slight double entendre in a thread talking about homosexuality...

:rofl:

:spray:



It really was freudian. :dunce:

Same for Rumsfeld.

And none of them are homosexuality.

they WANT this 'issue' in the news. it sure beats having to report the administration's multiple failings.

By the pentagon's own definition, certainly none of these deranged individuals pictured above would be allowed to serve in the military either.

Not that they would, since they're all cowards...

Chicken hawk, murderous, lying, ugly, immoral, calculating racists.

But that's okay, huh?

I'm sure every damn psychiatrist on the planet would beg to differ.

Have a terrific day, pentagon :)

I'm not sure of the details of this particular policy however

The military doesnt get to decide weather or not gays can be in the military...
Why? Because the UCMJ says so.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

Who gets to change the UCMJ? ... Not the military... It's congress. Thats right.. if you want to change this, go talk to your member of congress.
So really, who should we be angry at? The military, who has no choice in the matter? Or the people who made the rules?

that gay people can be (and are) terrific soldiers?

Why don't you hear any military people say it's ridiculous we're kicking out gay linguists who speak Arabic and Farsi when we desperately need these people.

I can understand why current military leaders don't speak out about these issues.

But why never any of these retired generals and military analysts who all seem so vocal about everything else?

Yea, I blame congress and I blame Clinton for Don't Ask Don't Tell.

But I also blame the military which is seemingly led by homophobes who would rather keep things the way they are.

Because it's not the military's job to set policy.

We (I am an active duty serviceman serving oveseas) are an organization lead by civilians, we have no place in such places. Which is exactly why its not until after retirement that you see military generals coming out against Article 125.

Civilian control over the military is paramount.

But why can't any retired military people speak out against banning gay people?

I realize 99% of the guys in the military are more afraid of the thought of a gay person seeing their naked junk in the shower, than getting blown up by an IED.

I think they don't want gays in the military.

Otherwise, there's no law that says you can't express your view once you leave.

You never hear anyone say, "You know, there are obviously gay guys in the military and they fight just as well as anyone, congress or someone should really take a look at this..."

Do you?

True enouph,
your right, there's no law. but people have thier own reasons

Some don't want gays in the military because they believe it to be against good order and discipline for the unit as a while,
Some loath politics
Some hate gays
Someone like me, who'll retire as an E-7 or E-8 at 20 years, knows that no one will care what my opinion is.

I dont believe the military should be a bastion for social experiments or social change, but neither are we immune to it, the world has changed and so must we, go talk to your congressman / woman.

The military should be a bastion of hiring the best qualified, highly trained, brilliant people to protect this country, gay or straight.

That would not be a social change. It would be a common sense change.

fundamental orientation of a military person. A gay/lesbian who commits no homosexual acts does not violate the UCMJ. As long as they don't come out, they serve. If the declare their orientation, conduct or lack thereof, they will be discharged.

Difference? Yep, discherge under a UCMJ courtmartial may be dishonorable or bad conduct - both federal court felony convictions. Discharge for orientation general to honorable based on characterization of service. Receives VA benefits and all.

homosexual, they can be given a medical discharge?

I think they just shot themselves in the foot.

condition and by inference not a medical condition. Yes, a serviceman or women known to be gay/lesbian will be discharged, not may be discharged. But there's no special benefit to it, no disability rating, simply a discharge.

Acute cranial rectal aversion ... ;-)

All I can do is shake my head right now.

Homosexuality, Bedwetting, Allergy to uniforms, Fear of Tanks, Planes or Submarines, and unclean habits such as repeated cases of venereal disease in a short period of time.

We are really going back to the Middle Ages, aren't we? :eyes:

married,
white,
male,
old and
obscenely rich by the labor of others

It's the perfect time to offer an amendment to fix this.

The mere mention of it makes fundies and rightwingers go mental.

Which just might be another explanation for some of the fondness for Hillary around here.

Please note that it is listed where it is excluded from being defined as a physical disability, along with dyslexia, and being too tall or "Overheight", sleepwalking, ADD, airsickness, fear of submarine travel, alcoholism and being allergic to bee stings, and myriad other non-disabilities.

I guess we can get off the subject since Rove wasn't in Clinton's Pentagon - BUT HE DOES HATE TALL PEOPLE!!!

Here is the offending portion:

DoD Instruction 1332.38, dated November 14, 1996
SUBJECT: Physical Disability Evaluation

Quoted below:

E5. ENCLOSURE 5

CONDITIONS NOT CONSTITUTING A PHYSICAL DISABILITY

E5.1.1. PURPOSE. To detail conditions which do not
constitute a physical disability.

E5.1.2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

E5.1.2.1. Certain conditions and defects of a developmental
nature designated by the Secretary of Defense do not
constitute a physical disability and are not ratable
in the absence of an underlying ratable causative disorder.
If there is a causative disorder it will be rated
in accordance with other provisions of this Instruction.

E5.1.2.2. These conditions include but are not limited
to those listed in paragraph E5.1.3., below.

E5.1.2.3. Such conditions should be referred for appropriate
administrative action under other laws and regulations.


E5.1.3. DEVELOPMENT DEFECTS AND OTHER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

E5.1.3.1. Enuresis

E5.1.3.2. Sleepwalking and/or Somnambulism

E5.1.2.3. Dyslexia and Other Learning Disorders

E5.1.2.4. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

E5.1.2.5. Stammering or Stuttering

E5.1.2.6. Incapacitating fear of flying confirmed by
a psychiatric evaluation.

E5.1.2.7. Airsickness, Motion, and/or Travel Sickness.

E5.1.2.8. Phobic fear of Air, Sea and Submarine Modes
of Transportation

E5.1.2.9. Certain Mental Disorders including:

E5.1.2.9.1. Uncomplicated Alcoholism or other Substance
Use Disorder

E5.1.2.9.2. Personality Disorders

E5.1.2.9.3. Mental Retardation

E5.1.2.9.4. Adjustment Disorders

E5.1.2.9.5. Impulse Control Disorders

E5.1.2.9.6. Homosexuality

E5.1.2.9.7. Sexual Gender and Identity Disorders, including
Sexual Dysfunctions and Paraphilias

E5.1.2.9.8. Factitious Disorder

E5.1.2.10. Obesity.

E5.1.2.11. Overheight.

E5.1.2.12. Psuedofolliculitis barbae of the face and/or
neck.

E5.1.2.13. Medical Contraindication to the Administration
of Required Immunizations.

E5.1.2.14. Significant allergic reaction to stinging
insect venom.

E5.1.2.15. Unsanitary habits including repeated venereal
disease infections.

E5.1.2.16. Certain Anemias (in the absence of unfitting
sequelae) including G6PD Deficiency, other inherited
Anemia Trait, and Von Willebrand’s Disease.

E5.1.2.17. Allergy to Uniformed Clothing.

Studies of the brain show definitive differences between hetero and gay men which implies either hormonal or other changes taking place before birth. How can they possibly use the term "mental disorder"? At the very least, this is cruel!

in 1996 - it's his policy.

In 1992, candidate Clinton vowed to lift the ban. His vow created a firestorm of opposition among the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other opponents. Congress held hearings in 1993 and an interim policy of "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" was intended to be a compromise that would ease restrictions. Unfortunately the Pentagon couldn't handle the concept.......makes me like Clinton all the more for what he attempted to do!

rather than the other way around.

He had several ways to implement what he promised. He could have reserved original jurisduction for all UCMJ actions involving homosexual conduct and could have required all administrative discharges for orientation receive his written concurrence. Frankly, he caved and lost the fight before it even began and that set the tone for the 1st two years that culminated in the 1994 transfer of congressional power.

Turns out they aren't.

I think the Pentagon needs to do some serious upgrading of their files.

Or, to save time, they could just fire the fascists running their operations, beginning with Don Rumsfeld.

Shrinks have long ago told us that same-sex attraction should not be considered a disorder, period. Their convictions are unambiguous and could be checked with a handful of phone calls or emails in about half an hour.

and "gay to straight" camps? :sarcasm:

to treat several disorders, like severe depression. It doesn't "cure" someone if their issue is having a personality or wanting to be treated with respect. They really should be researching a therapy (estrogen shots,perhaps) for Homophobia and/or Stupidity, which are essentially the same disease.

the top disorder is obeying bush.

Pentagon are free to register them as homosexuals?

I smell an ACLU suit coming.

These GOP retards are a threat to the republic.