Gay in the Military Essay

Nowadays gay in the military is a widely discussed topic, because the practice of military service of persons with non-traditional sexual orientation, and psychological, social and legal problems caused by this practice are familiar to all armies of the world. Thinking about this question in global sense we see that western governments, while avoiding charges of discrimination, are making arrangements for access to military service for all who are willing and suitable to do it. But authorities of a variety of other countries vice versa restrict or prohibit such military service, up to the prohibition of homosexuality in principle. Thus, it is necessary to discuss the topic of gay in the military in specific details and prove that it is a negative practice of some countries to accept gay recruits on the military service.
Let us examine this question from the historical point if view and remember about “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law existence. First of all it is necessary to mention that this law prohibited homosexuals, who openly declared their orientation, to serve in the U.S. Army. Thus, after the situation when sexual orientation of military personnel, for whatever reason became publicly available, they were subject to dismissal from the U.S. armed forces. Continuing discussion of the question about homosexuals’ place in the military from the historical perspective we see that it was prohibited to serve open homosexuals in the army since the founding of the U.S. Army. However, in 1993 a rule “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was introduced, according to which gay men and women can join the army if they conceal their orientation. At the same time, commanders and fellow soldiers were not allowed to elicit from the military personal information about their orientation. If information about homosexuality is revealed, the soldier will dismiss. As it was above mentioned, “Do not Ask, Do not Tell” is U.S. military policy regarding homosexual soldiers. Summarizing its meaning it is possible to say that the policy prohibited U.S. citizens who had sexual contact with persons of their gender, to serve in the U.S. Army, and also prohibited sexual minorities to disclose their sexual orientation. The policy also required that the command did not find out information about the sexual orientation of their subordinates.
Thinking about the way how the policy of “Do not ask, do not tell” was adopted we see that in 1993 it was a kind of a compromise, when U.S. President Bill Clinton in the framework of the campaign promises instructed to prepare an order to lift the ban on homosexuals reception and other members of sexual minorities in the army. President Clinton promulgated his new policy on July 19, 1993.
According to President Bill Clinton “One, service men and women will be judged based on their conduct, not their sexual orientation. Two, therefore the practice … of not asking about sexual orientation in the enlistment procedure will continue. Three, an open statement by a service member that he or she is a homosexual will create a rebuttable presumption that he or she intends to engage in prohibited conduct, but the service member will be given an opportunity to refute that presumption…. And four, all provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice will be enforced in an even-handed manner as regards both heterosexuals and homosexuals. And thanks to the policy provisions agreed to by the Joint Chiefs, there will be a decent regard to the legitimate privacy and associational rights of all service members.” (President’s News Conference, 1993) According to Ruby we also see that “on December 22, 1993, Secretary of Defense Aspin released new DOD regulations to implement the statute enacted the preceding month. Language in these regulations indicated that the Secretary was trying to incorporate both the restrictions in the law, and the President’s desire to open military service “to those who have a homosexual orientation.” (Ruby, 1997) In such a way it becomes obvious that U.S. government was trying to be as democratic as it was possible and the way to homosexuals into the military service was open.
Further to the previously stated information Belkin stated that “in a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers, the Canadian Department of National Defence found that 62 percent of male service members would refuse to share showers, undress, or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier, and that 45 percent would refuse to work with gays. A 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members reported that more than two-thirds of male respondents would not willingly serve in the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve. Yet when Canada and Britain subsequently lifted their gay bans, these dire predictions were not confirmed.” (Belkin, 2003).
Analyzing statistical data we see that many people believe that lesbians and gays are not capable of serving in the U.S. Army due to their bad influence on other soldiers. Sexual health is a central link in achieving of happiness and welfare, it allows to ensure sustainable development and, more specifically, to realize developmental tasks in the current millennium; thus sexual health and homosexuality are different and even mutually exclusive notions. It is a well-known fact that prosperous individuals and communities are better equipped to ensure the elimination of individual and community poverty. (Bogart, 1969). But it seems that homosexuality is in conflict with previous statement due to several reasons.
It has become politically correct acceptance of the argument that homosexuality is rather acquired trait than a learned behavior. All other terms condemned as an expression of intolerance, not sympathy or even homophobia.
Let us examine some of these reasons and understand why people are against gay in the military.
The first reason is negative impact of homosexuality on physical health. Many natural scientists believe that homosexuality is biological feature of an organism, determined by genetic or other congenital factors. Biological studies of homosexuality are maintained in the following areas: the study of homosexual manifestations in animals and the search for genetic and hormonal characteristics that distinguish people of homosexual and heterosexual orientation. A number of scientific journals published biological studies of homosexuality, but main features of homosexuals’ genetics still have been little studied.
Answering the question about the nature of homosexuality, according to McKnight (1997) we see that “the vast majority of human sexuality researchers, therapists, religious liberals, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals generally agree that a person’s sexual orientation is determined before reaching school age. Once established, sexual feelings are always or almost always unchangeable.” Despite the fact that biological and social factors may contribute to human predisposition to homosexual lifestyles, yet it can not justify such behavior.
Thinking about negative impact on health exactly AIDS and its many famous and unknown victims first come to mind. Mcghee said about this, because analysis of obituaries found that even in the absence of AIDS, and in the presence of regular partner gay men live on average 10-15 years less than heterosexual men. (Mcghee, 2001). It can be explained by the fact that, apart from AIDS, they are vulnerable to several dozen specific diseases and in connection with AIDS it looks like real danger for many people.
The next reason is negative impact on the moral health. The question of whether homosexuality has natural or cultural origin is debatable. On the one hand, as a proof that homosexuality does not violate the laws of nature, often lead facts of homosexual pairings in animals, although the full scientific explanation of these facts is not found yet. On the other hand, human behavior in general are very far evades the natural given, including in the sexual sphere: in nature, for example, there is no contraception. It remains unclear why it is in the case of homosexuality, to follow nature – is good, and not to follow – is bad (while in many other areas, such as nutrition, for example – departure from the natural position is estimated as normal). In such a case suicide rate is higher among homosexuals and saying about military service it is not the best practice not to be sure in moral certainty of own soldiers.
The third and the most valuable reason is negative impact on the society. Army is a place where young boys become not only soldiers, but real men. And how does widespread “rainbow” of love affect society and young mind of soldiers? First of all, it blurs the concept of the norm. Homosexuals begin to dispute own rights and normal people just on the contrary, are in a strange position: for example, friendships between men seems to have deliberately suspicious – gay convince everyone that men can not be only friends. (Herek, 1993). Young people, who are balancing between two genders, can choose the way of homosexuality due to the presence of homosexuals in the military, because at first homosexuals trying to be friends and then begin to persuade young people that their non-traditional sexual orientation is normal and some people could use their behavior as an example.
Returning to biological theories of homosexuality base in this part of the paper it is necessary to say that libido depends on personal experience and cultural values, and desire is too complicated, varied and interesting, to reduce it simply to genetics. If something is inherited genetically – such as hemophilia – its manifestation can be predicted with a certain population frequency. In the case of homosexuality, we find that its occurrence in the community spontaneously varies depending on the types of social control and tolerance prevalent in this society.
If it’s not genetics, then what is it? There is ample evidence that the acquired experience (through seduction, general education, harassment, and experiments) leads young people to homosexual behavior. Homosexual lifestyle is sterile. Therefore, by physical necessity homosexuals, using seduction and general education system should recruit its ‘next generation’. And exactly this reason proves us again that the presence of homosexuals in the military has negative impact on society, because it even leads to demographical crisis, when men prefer men and can not born children and educate them in the right way.
People argue against homosexuality in virtue of the fact that it fights against the procreative function and natural purpose of sexuality during different debates. Instil public tolerance of homosexuality is dangerous primarily because it will increase the percentage of heterosexuals who have tried same-sex love, which in turn will lead to a substantial increase in the number of people living with AIDS and other pathogens.

Homosexuality – is not an alternative lifestyle, it is – an unnatural style. This imposes serious imprint on society and destroys the argument that homosexual behavior – is a purely private affair of man and does not affect other people. (Rayside, 1998). Proving the position of negative impact of homosexuality on young people in the military and on society as a whole it is possible to say that homosexuality – is an evil, indicative of the moral decline, and asking for the war against it. And it is also hard to understand why our government has not yet become clear that the fight against this evil spirits must be conducted seriously and systematically. And last observations showed that as soon as people voice their negative views on this question, they get a lot of accusations and claims. It is rather strange… Why do so many normally react to gays, but the opposite points of view meet very aggressive reaction? Summarizing the above stated it is possible to say that in social terms, there are three laws of well-being: a person must live in a family and raise children, do not harass others and to produce more than he consumes. All these rules violate homosexuals, and therefore they represent a great danger to others.
Thus, basing on the above said we can come to the conclusion that in recent years, along with numerous threats of political, economic and natural character (terrorism, inflation, global warming, etc.), appeared one more the world’s total spread threat that impact on spiritual, social and cultural character of society and named homosexuality. Homosexuality – is one of the most eloquent evidence of a serious distortion of human nature. As any deviation, this vice affects the most delicate structures of the inner world of spiritual personality; it has distorting and devastating influence on human nature. Sodomy destroys the family as the foundation of society that makes the state weak and lifeless. Sodomy is a moral degradation and there should be no place for such degradation in the U.S. armed forces. It seems that poison of moral degradation is a slow poison action, but its insidious features not become less dangerous due its slow effect. Gradually, more and more people quietly accept degradation. And this is result of not the fact that the situation is improving, but it is the fact that we surrender, accustomed to degradation, and the poison slowly begins to poison our souls and minds.
To sum up, we discussed the topic of gay in the military in specific details, using historical reference to “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, showed the negative impact of homosexuals on soldiers and other people and proved that it is the negative practice of some countries to accept gay recruits on the military service.