Gay Soldiers In The Military Research Paper

Finally, we see political figures that used their power of persuasion to get votes. They were commoners of a higher caliber that use both sides of the spectrum to further their cause. All this came at a time of great turmoil, as the civil war is still going on and many great changes have come to America. Not only is there a mass influx due to the Irish trying to better themselves but also President Lincoln has freed the slaves and black people can no longer be considered property. Not only were they no longer servants but they were also allowed to serve in the military. The link between military service and full citizenship and inclusion is one that has had powerful resonance in our own time. The end of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” and the full participation of gays and lesbians in our armed forces represent, as Lincoln described the Emancipation Proclamation itself, a profound “act of justice,” a carrying forward in our time of the ideals that he and his words inspired. (Walsh, 2013)

Many homosexuals that served in the Military prior to 2015 had to hide who they were and their loved ones throughout their career. They were forbidden to get married and receive the same benefits as their heterosexual

This condemnation eventually led to the introduction of the separation of homosexuals from military service as seen with the neutral blue discharges which were often given to homosexual servicemen starting in 1916 . This neutral discharge was then labeled “general” and “undesirable”, resulting in a less honorable discharge. Discharges concerning men who were found to be guilty in engaging in homosexual acts were severely different than those who were neutrally discharged. If this were the case then you were then dishonorably discharged (“Don't Ask, Don't Tell” - Wikipedia). The current policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue1, derived from the original 1993 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14 coined Don't Ask, Don't Tell, ensures that any American citizen can participate in the Armed Forces. This policy is a step-up from the usual immediate discharge, however, this is only if the service member does not identify

The issue of gays in the military has been controversial in the United States for many decades. Over these decades there have been many different proposals as to what approach to take in order to handle the situation of homosexuals in the military. However, in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running for President of the United States, he made a promise to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military if he was elected (Washington Post). Bill Clinton followed through with his promise, and in December 1993 he instituted “a defense directive that military applicants should not to be asked about their sexual orientation” (Washington Post). This is now known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was the result

He attempts to squander the idea that every aspect regarding the troops were pleasant and agreeable. The system was not free from prejudice and discrimination. Minorities in the military was unpleasant, several black soldiers were killed or wounded for trying to integrate army facilities. “Others received dishonorable discharges for resisting discrimination.” Racist white MPs beat up black soldiers and white girls caught together. Jim crow was a part of the dominant military culture. Gay men in military were frowned upon during the war, according to Adams this is an understatement. Men who were caught and found guilty of homosexual acts received dishonorable discharges, which stopped them from getting veterans’ benefits and career advancement in Civilian Society. Sometimes those who were caught received heavy prison sentences or put in stockades where MPs often abused them. The pursuit to punish homosexuals wasted time and resources. The chapter features the events on the on the impact of America in World war II and the treatment of blacks, Indians, minority groups, women, and homosexuals in the military. He claims there are many myths surrounding World War II. Even Though, the achievement of the American War Machine was remarkable it was not the only factor in allied victory.  He dispels the idea that this era was a “golden era,” and does

Lately, there has been an outbreak of people of the LGBT community coming out in the military. Historically the United States has had a policy of discharging gays in the military. There has been an act called the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, it is basically saying that as long as somebody does not ask about your gender preferences, you do not have to tell. Even though the ban has been lifted, many militaries still say they cannot accept anyone from the LGBT inside. They do not care about how well you can perform or your strengths and that mindset is going to come back and hit them in the long run. Militaries that are judging these kids are taking them away from somewhere they feel safe and a place where they can finally belong. Members of the LGBT community find refuge in the military. It was one of the only places where they can prove their worth, where people aren’t focusing on their sexuality. They shouldn’t be judged based on their sexual preferences. Instead, they should be judged on their personality, performance, and their ability to get the job done precisely and correctly.

Post-World War II, everyday gay life and consciousness transformed. The war stressed the segue from connecting gender inversion with sexual non-conformity to constructing and adhering to the binarism between homosexual and heterosexual identities. The pre-war notion that anyone could capitulate to homosexual temptations was replaced by the omnipresent fear of contracting and developing homosexuality as an indeterminate hybrid of both illness and mental disorder. A homosexual was considered and regarded as a security risk to the sanctity of a functioning society. The diaries of Donald Vining and Martin Duberman, both well-educated gay men working within academia, shed light on the lives and consciousness of gay men in the years following the end of World War II. As they both recount, the post-war years witnessed widespread fear, policing, and marginalization of homosexuals, and this resulted not simply from the construction of homosexuality as an entity separate from gender. Rather, this marginalization stemmed largely from the recognition that homosexuality, in the way that it was expressed by gay men such as Vining and Duberman, defied the constraints that constituted the heterosexual paradigm of relationships.

If homosexuals are exposed while the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is still in effect, they could be discharged from the military. The blackmailing of fellow soldier is immoral and unethical and should not be put into practice. Discriminating upon homosexuals is wrong because everyone is equal and should be treated fairly. Soldiers that are discovered doing so should be discharged themselves.

Disorder”, therefore gays and lesbians were discharged under Section 8 as mentally unprepared for service. Eventually psychologists rejected this approach and the rationale transformed to an understanding that homosexuals posed a security risk because they could be

People in this era believed that gay people were sick and this is what cause people to act indifferent towards them. Gay people distanced themselves from a society that treated them indifferent even though they were from the same race. They would see an opportunity when the United States entered World War II. They would sign up to go fight for the country that treated them indifferent. Both men and women would leave everything behind and join the military, “…where for the first time they met large numbers of gays” as seen on The American Challenge (780). They joined the military for the same reason that all the other minorities did, to fight for their country and maybe they would be accepted by society when they returned home. Unfortunately for them, many people had not changed their views on homosexuality. People would still look and treat them differently just like they did to African Americans and any other minority that fought in the war. After returning home from the war, many gays established themselves in big cities and urban areas were other gays lived. Discrimination towards gays would get worse in the upcoming years. In the early 1950s the government would prohibit gays from working for the federal government. Many gay men and women would loose their jobs due to this. Gays were now being persecuted in America the same way they were persecuted by the Nazis in Europe, the only difference is that the United

Continuously deprived of acceptance, Americans from the LGBTQ community have fought and died in violent battles for this country throughout the entire history of the United States. Long before the terms gay and lesbian were even synonymous with sexual minorities, the designers of this country’s puritanical roots flaunted contempt for non-traditional individuals in the military through practice of sodomy laws. Emblematic of homosexuality today, sodomy was defined as basically any non-procreative sexual act with either a man or a woman. At best, suspected individuals were barred from enlisting, and at worst, these patriotic men were persecuted harshly with financial penalization or worse yet, mental/physical abuse dished out from their fellow

In 1999, more than 1,000 men and women were discharged from military service due to their sexuality. That number has actually decreased compared to recent years. (Suro NP) Homosexuals were purged from federal employment in 1950, with Bill Clinton updating that policy in 1993 by adding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” policy. (Deicher 176) This policy doesn’t work and needs to either be updated again or the ban against homosexuals lifted. Gays should be allowed to fight for the military for employment reasons, the right to fight for one’s country, and because they are no different from anyone else. The fact of the matter is that not even experts can argue in favor of keeping the

Gay people have not always been barred from military service, and in fact, have served in the nation's wars throughout its history. The military's official stance toward gays and lesbians has evolved over time, often in tandem with social change. In the 1920's and 1930's, homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment. That attitude began to change in the early 1940's,

Many individuals were highly gracious at this idea, no matter the negativity that surrounds this topic. When referencing to the article by the New York Times on Ashton Carter’s announcement, he states “Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so. After all, our all-volunteer force is built upon having the most qualified Americans” (Rosenberg, 2016). The article’s point of view perceives an appreciative tone towards the U.S. military members and how much they sacrifice. For their sacrifices, the government is willing to help formulate policies that can open doors to a new tolerance and acceptance towards sexual identity. Through my discovery of this change in policy, I realized how much this will help not only the individuals who are suffering from this condition but it will help the companionship of the military. I struggle with being completely open with my fellow service members because of the tension there was on the topic of sexual identity. After hearing the statements made by both the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Secretary, I felt like I am part of a whole different world now that there is an understanding of the struggles and tolls taken to maintain personal happiness in such a demanding career. Having higher authorities who are able to implement policies amongst the U.S. government who have vital points of views on this controversial

A society is only as equitable as the treatment accorded its most vulnerable members. Therefore, discrimination against anyone based on his or her sexual orientation is a clear and incurable symptom of an unjust society. For example, should someone?s sexual orientation be grounds for restricting their rights? (Daniel C. Palm) The impartial answer would of course be no, everyone should be treated the same. But we still hear the chant ?No gays or lesbians in the military?. This is because it is in the self interests of the heterosexual people in the military have homosexuals in the military. The injustice of this idea becomes crystal clear when we examine the opposite statement of ?No heterosexuals in the military? an idea that is equally ludicrous. (Kessler, pp.174) As a result of the way we instinctively treat those that are different because they are seen as a threat, our society is will remain perpetually unjust. (Richard E. Mohr)