<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pentagon Says Homosexuality Not Mental Disorder</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pentagon_says_homosexuality_not_mental_disorder/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pentagon_says_homosexuality_not_mental_disorder/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:58:39 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: G A Phillips</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pentagon_says_homosexuality_not_mental_disorder/comment-page-1/#comment-104397</link>
		<dc:creator>G A Phillips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:09:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/pentagon_says_homosexuality_not_mental_disorder/#comment-104397</guid>
		<description>Yes Caliban, we can do better, just say no.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes Caliban, we can do better, just say no.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Caliban Darklock</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pentagon_says_homosexuality_not_mental_disorder/comment-page-1/#comment-104392</link>
		<dc:creator>Caliban Darklock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/pentagon_says_homosexuality_not_mental_disorder/#comment-104392</guid>
		<description>What the civilian public fails to understand is that a military defect is not an overall defect. 

Pacifism is a defect in a military man, because he is expected to kill the enemy. Even if he&#039;s given a desk job, ultimately his mission is to support and expedite the killing of the enemy. This is a conflict of interest. 

Likewise, homosexuality represents a conflict of interest. Sex is a distraction among men who may be about to die. There is a powerful biological urge to reproduce and fulfill one&#039;s [evolutionary&#124;divine] purpose. For this reason, the military keeps women off the front lines - not because they are in any way inferior, but because they represent a massive danger to the mission. The soldiers&#039; access to sex must be regulated and controlled. If they can have sex with each other, the regulation and control go out the window. 

It is also not clear whether a heterosexual&#039;s biological drive to reproduce will sublimate to a homosexual relationship in the absence of the opposite gender. History suggests it will, so it is in the military&#039;s best interest to actively encourage a degree of homophobia among combat soldiers: if military society does not accept sex among soldiers, they will reject it. Again, this is to maintain control over soldiers&#039; access to sex.

These have nothing to do with whether homosexuality in and of itself is a bad thing; it is simply whether it represents more risk or benefit to the mission. There is no benefit to having a homosexual on the front lines. If he were not a homosexual, he would be just as valuable and useful. But by being a homosexual, he represents a risk - and while I believe heterosexuals tend to overestimate that risk, the risk does exist. Education and familiarity will erase the overestimation, but not the risk.

The &quot;don&#039;t ask don&#039;t tell&quot; policy is stupid. I think we can do better, but my ideas are too complex to discuss here... and probably too complex for the military to accept.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What the civilian public fails to understand is that a military defect is not an overall defect. </p>
<p>Pacifism is a defect in a military man, because he is expected to kill the enemy. Even if he's given a desk job, ultimately his mission is to support and expedite the killing of the enemy. This is a conflict of interest. </p>
<p>Likewise, homosexuality represents a conflict of interest. Sex is a distraction among men who may be about to die. There is a powerful biological urge to reproduce and fulfill one's [evolutionary|divine] purpose. For this reason, the military keeps women off the front lines - not because they are in any way inferior, but because they represent a massive danger to the mission. The soldiers' access to sex must be regulated and controlled. If they can have sex with each other, the regulation and control go out the window. </p>
<p>It is also not clear whether a heterosexual's biological drive to reproduce will sublimate to a homosexual relationship in the absence of the opposite gender. History suggests it will, so it is in the military's best interest to actively encourage a degree of homophobia among combat soldiers: if military society does not accept sex among soldiers, they will reject it. Again, this is to maintain control over soldiers' access to sex.</p>
<p>These have nothing to do with whether homosexuality in and of itself is a bad thing; it is simply whether it represents more risk or benefit to the mission. There is no benefit to having a homosexual on the front lines. If he were not a homosexual, he would be just as valuable and useful. But by being a homosexual, he represents a risk - and while I believe heterosexuals tend to overestimate that risk, the risk does exist. Education and familiarity will erase the overestimation, but not the risk.</p>
<p>The "don't ask don't tell" policy is stupid. I think we can do better, but my ideas are too complex to discuss here... and probably too complex for the military to accept.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anderson</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pentagon_says_homosexuality_not_mental_disorder/comment-page-1/#comment-104365</link>
		<dc:creator>Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:39:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/pentagon_says_homosexuality_not_mental_disorder/#comment-104365</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;Pentagon guidelines that classified homosexuality as a mental disorder now put it among a list of conditions or “circumstances” that range from bed-wetting to fear of flying.&lt;/em&gt; 

Right, it&#039;s just a weird phobia of the other sex&#039;s genitals, plus an inexplicable attraction to genitals of the same sex.  Maybe the Pentagon will send gay soldiers to the same rehab Ted Haggard&#039;s going to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Pentagon guidelines that classified homosexuality as a mental disorder now put it among a list of conditions or “circumstances” that range from bed-wetting to fear of flying.</em> </p>
<p>Right, it's just a weird phobia of the other sex's genitals, plus an inexplicable attraction to genitals of the same sex.  Maybe the Pentagon will send gay soldiers to the same rehab Ted Haggard's going to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pentagon_says_homosexuality_not_mental_disorder/comment-page-1/#comment-125719</link>
		<dc:creator>http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/pentagon_says_homosexuality_not_mental_disorder/#comment-125719</guid>
		<description>&lt;!--%kramer-pre%--&gt;        Original Article syndicated via RSS from Outside The Beltway &#124; OTB  &lt;!--%kramer-post%--&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--%kramer-pre%-->        Original Article syndicated via RSS from Outside The Beltway | OTB  <!--%kramer-post%--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
