prweek.com
There may not be a real point in a genuine census of the personnel employed in the White House but it's difficult to ignore the fact that a number are openly homosexual. Statista.com says that 7.9% of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
Openly sexually deviant people were probably fairly unusual in government, both before the psychology industry identified them as mentally ill in 1918 and listing them as such in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association in 1952. Political pressure by gay rights activists resulted in a vote by the APA board of trustees removing sexual deviance from the list of mental disorders in 1973, although a condition called ego-dystonic sexual orientation took its place until 1987.
Since 2013 there has been no diagnostic that includes nonheterogenous sexual activity as an illness.
Of course, regardless of whatever position the psychology business might take, flexible as it may be, it would be morally wrong to despise and abhor sexual deviants just as it would be to have a similar attitude to the blind, the deaf or someone with a wooden leg. Ultimately, this is because they had no choice in the matter. No one chooses to be blind. If sexual deviancy is a genetic or environmental product, as it's generally considered to be, rather than a choice, why should it be a matter of "pride"? It makes sense to be proud if one is an astronaut or successful author or accomplished scientist, things that are achievements. But if an individual is born black, Chinese or homosexual there really isn't anything meaningful to take pride in. No individual achievement occurs in one's birth.
Ultimately, is it in the best interests of the country to have people who were only a short time ago considered basically handicapped making and implementing government policy?
No comments:
Post a Comment