60 Minutes "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (2)

The second half to the 60 Minutes investigation on the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 60
• Minutes
• Don't
• Ask
• Tell
• Gay
• GLBT
• Lesbian
• Gays
• Equality

[ERAUPRCWA]

4:53 I met the guy in the blue shirt... he lives in Tacoma, WA with his partner. They're awesome and really nice.

[jusitke07]

@woodchucko And it shouldn't be an issue when DADT is repealed. It ain't right at all to kick out qualified military members just simply because they're Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual. It's a stupid law,.

[woodchucko]

help me understand why the government is using the military as a social experiment. When does this politically correct bullshit end or does it? The military is not about sex or making people feel good or wanted, there is a job to do one's sexual orientation should not even be mentioned. I'm for don't ask don't tell. It's the only protection gays have. when I served it was never an issue at all, as it shouldn't be.

[4173david]

This man is a asshole because he acts as if gays are not already in the armed foces.

[clubindiana4]

@aasarsak "Just because research failed to prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

You are SOOO right!!!! I swear....I saw Bigfoot at Starbucks the other day drinking a Mocha Latte. But Im sure he was a heterosexual Bigfoot!

[RebelWrestler45]

@aasarsak In addition, the DSM-IV was more reliant on empirical data, and less on political considerations, than were earlier DSM's. Homosexuality was included in DSM I-II without a hint of scientific research, a bit of shoddy psychoanalysis, but was centrally included due to socio-political pressure. You may want to see the article by Bayer & Spitzer in which edited correspondence by the DSM-III framers is presented on the issue of homosexuality (J Hist Behav Sci 18:32, 1982).

[RebelWrestler45]

@aasarsak Research has demonstrated that homosexuality retains no qualities to be considered a sexual dysfunction, therefore exclusion from DSM-IV was warranted. Just because research doesn't support what you want it to, does not make it flawed or non-thorough Homosexual egodystonicity is still considered by a minority of psychologists as a legitimate mental condition; but the pathology lies in the egodystonicity, the root conflict is same gender sexual preference. Homosexuality itself

[aasarsak]

@RebelWrestler45 Just because research failed to prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means the research was either flawed or not thorough enough. Based on what I've read from the report on the decision to have it removed from the DSM, it is clear that the decision was made not on the grounds of the condition of non-conformity with the model, but based on a political move to avoid confrontation that could later evolve to a civil liberties issue.

[RebelWrestler45]

@aasarsak That's the point, there is no research whatsoever that would even suggest that homosexuality is a disorder. If you cannot operate with respect to definition, then your argument for homosexuality as a disorder has no substantive basis. Homosexuality may be an anomaly, a deviation from the status quo, but that hardly makes it a disorder. Psychology cannot be analyzed in layman's terms, because that would expatriate the field from its substantive scientific basis.

[aasarsak]

@RebelWrestler45 Again, you're arguing semantics. I'm not trying to specify whether it is a phobia or a disorder. Get out of your psychology textbook key terms mentality for just a second and recognize I'm referring to homosexuality as a psychological disorder in the most general, layman sense of the phrase. You're trying to add credibility to your argument by making this an issue of definition, when it is an issue of principle. Again, please point to this "research" of which you speak.