HOME | DD

Description
January 30th, 1993 is a milestone for the advancement of civil rights in America. On this day, the newly appointed President of the United States assured his people that there would no longer be a law denying homosexuals the right to serve in the Armed Forces. Nine days later, an executive order was already in motion. However, not everyone was enthusiastic about this new policy. When surveyed, ninety-seven and a half percent of all active duty Admirals and Generals did not want to have homosexuals serve in the military. Over ninety percent of the military's senior officers question "national security" if homosexuals were to serve next to them in the Armed Forces. Disregarding the requests of the senior officers, on July 19th, 1993, President Clinton announced his new policy called "Don’t ask; don’t tell." Under the new rules, recruits were no longer asked their sexual preference. The state of being homosexual was no longer a disqualifying attribute to the military. However, homosexual conduct is still grounds for discharge.

Despite Clinton’s efforts, many people still are not happy with the status quo. Many of the more traditional, conservative members think the ban on homosexuals should have never been lifted. The policy is actually a god set of guidelines for anyone, regardless of sexual preference. The four ideas are: don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, and don’t harass. The controversy surrounding this policy may have been avoided had the president not singled out any one group. The traditionalists hold arguments suggesting that heterosexuality is "right" and anything else is obstructing the high standards held by the military. Secretary of State General Colin Powell admitted, "It is just my judgment and the judgment of the chiefs that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with maintaining good order and discipline."

Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of pure morals in our free society, and that philosophy extended to our military. Even today, a high level of dignity is held throughout the military. However, a common confusion lies between what is different, and what is immoral. It does not require a homosexual to act in a promiscuous, self-depreciating manner. It is commonly alluded to that most homosexuals are sexually nonselective, madly lusting whores who only wish to corrupt as many heterosexuals as possible. As one may guess, this is merely a malicious stereotype maintained by homophobic people.

The most common facilitator of such intransigent slander is the insecure, close-minded person, commonly older and still gripping on to old social standards regarding sexual preference. Often, these types of people are often:

unsure of their true orientation,
have a strong dedication to their religion which opposes homosexuality, or
nothing more than cranky old men and women who wish they were back in the 1920’s again.
In the United States during the 1920’s and 1930’s, people were tortured and imprisoned for alleged homosexuality. Regardless of which category one may fall into, these people disperse their pungent venom upon the gays and lesbians who lead people to question their own orientation. The ignorant populace of this category is so worried about being different or even accepting new ideas that they are constantly assuming. They harvest ideas such as every homosexual wants to abduct straight people and corner innocent children in dark alleys to feed their primal urges. It is this type of naivete that starts social beliefs such as a heterosexual and a homosexual cannot share a platonic or business relationship, hence, the extreme negative emotions towards homosexuals. In addition, this is how generalizations are formed, especially the idea that all gays are licentious, merciless sexual predators.

The truth is that your sexual preference does not effect your personal ethics or likelihood to sleep around. Commonly misconceived, just because someone is of a less common sexuality, that does not translate to he or she is addicted to sex. Homosexuals are not aliens because they find the same sex attractive. In fact, homosexual people have no hereditary or developed disabilities attributed to their sexual orientation, and they have not shown any signs of being contagious. It seems as though Colonel Ronald Ray has been informed otherwise, "It has been proven in the scientific literature that homosexuals are not able-bodied." Not only did the speaker conveniently omit the title or details of this "scientific literature," but he also uses the word proven, implying that the study was universally accepted among scientists as true. When studies are disclosed in scientific journals and literature, the researchers state that their hypothesis was supported, but not necessarily proven true. This sort of commenting is yet another frequently circulated fallacy actualized with ulterior motives in mind. He went on to state that one homosexual could destroy the camaraderie that is developed when living with others. Some critics have even go so far as to say that homosexuals could ruin the military by sacrificing their bonds for flirtatious behavior. It is clear that people who assume such things are unaware of the fact that fourteen progressive countries successfully integrated open homosexuals into their military.

Another prevailing concern is one that is brought up often a week or so after living quarters and roommates have been assigned. David Crary of the Associated Press cited "Robert Maginnis, a retired Army colonel and military analyst, believes gays should be excluded altogether from the armed forces on grounds that their presence can make heterosexual soldiers uncomfortable." Yes, there may be a level of uneasiness experienced when a soldier questions his roommate’s orientation, however no one is promised that they will go through life without moments of discomfort. In a country with such great opportunities, heterosexual soldiers should be accepting of harmless differences and be proud to live and serve in such a free land.

Opponents of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" tend to dismiss this sexual privacy argument. One snickering response is that heterosexual men would then get the same unwanted sexual objectification they have given women for centuries. Unfortunately, that answer only reinforces the concerns to which it laughs.

Under the current policy, a straight soldier is not generally aware of who might be leering at him in the shower. Therefore, he has to wonder about everybody – hardly a reassuring prospect. Under a policy of openness, he would know who might be watching him. Therefore, he can take whatever modest precautions are available to minimize his exposure, thus reinforcing his comfort.

Another method the government is denying homosexuals the right to serve their country is prejudices covered in false displays of concern. They insist that if a soldier is openly homosexual, then they are going to be victimized by other soldiers. In some cases, this has been the case. However, as a group so dedicated to the preservation of pure morals, any servicemember that lacks the tolerance to coexist with people who are different needs to be automatically discharged. Homosexuality may not be typical or normal, but that does not permit anyone to assault and/or harass those who are comfortable with their own identity.

However, this is about more than the personal comfort of our officers. This is about the inherently oppressive condition of our government. Even under the current policy, homosexuals are expected to keep their "forbidden" personality features undetectable every day. With the Armed Forces placing much emphasis on integrity, it becomes difficult for one to hold the same regards for the same military that will only let certain people remain employees as long as they lie to everyone around them.

Why is it accepted and often expected for a heterosexual to openly date, marry and disclose their heterosexuality and yet gays and lesbians have to hide their relationships or even inner feelings? Perhaps what the military needs is an official rule of celibacy -- no one can be openly sexual, regardless of his or her sexual preferences. That would be the only just way to conceal those who are different without obvious intolerance for minority groups.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines homosexuality as, "Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." This puts the previously stated idea of "sexual orientation- ok, sexual acts- bad" into question. If you admit you are a homosexual, that simply means you are attracted to members of the same sex, not necessarily engaging in homosexual acts. Therefore, it is only to be assumed that the pubic is being lied to, because someone’s sexual orientation that is not classified as heterosexual is supposed to be ok, however verbal or written admission to such a sexual preference is enough to get a serviceman removed instantly. It is obvious that the "Don’t ask; don’t tell," policy is incorrectly enforced and just as oppressive as not granting them a chance to serve in the military.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a national legal service dedicated to aiding those disconcerted by the, "Don’t ask; don’t tell," policy, describes it as "the only law that punishes gays, lesbians, and bisexuals for coming out." Jamie Fellner, director of the U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch states that "'Don’t ask, don’t tell' panders to prejudice... Gay and lesbian servicemembers are discharged without regard to their skills, training, commitment or courage – victims of the irrational fears and stereotypes some heterosexuals have about them." This crooked sheath of discrimination that was constructed as a sign of hope for homosexual rights activists is now another way to separate them from the elitist heterosexual insecurities and maintain negative interdependence. A large majority of the reason behind hatred of gays is based on the problems caused by homophobia amongst heterosexuals. This homophobia is maintained and encouraged by continuous segregation. Allowing straight soldiers to see how effective and successful gay soldiers can be would reduce that hostility and prejudices caused by fear of the unknown. As we grow and develop as a nation, no longer can one realistically doubt the ability of a gay man or woman to be as hard working, coordinated, intelligent or patriotic as one of his or her heterosexual counterparts. It is therefore sheer intolerance to deny those who want to join the Armed Forces (and even to suffer its highly infectious homophobia) the opportunity to do so.

The only equitable solution to this mess of justified bigotry is simply to allow people to enlist regardless of which gender they find attractive. Closet homosexuals have been serving in the military for years without conflict, and it is only recently that the issue is so controversial. If homosexual people may serve as long as they keep quiet, then the military's official stance should no longer be that homosexuality and service are incompatible. It proves that homosexuality technically never was incompatible with the service. Henceforth, gay and lesbian servicemembers should not be treated any differently than the straight servicemember standing and serving next to them.