Homosexuals combat roles changing in America’s military essay

President Clinton made an effort in January 1993 to end discrimination of homosexuals in the military. Before this, US and a few other nations belonging to NATO completed banned gays and lesions from the Army, especially those who went open about their sexual orientation (Geoffrey Bateman and Sameera Dalvi. 2004). Bill Clinton directed the Secretary of Defense to put an end to discrimination of people with different sexual orientation in the Army. To determine the manner in which the presence of a homosexual in the army affected the functioning of the troop, a study known as the ‘RAND study’ was conducted by the NDRI.

It researched two major areas (Rand. 2000): – 1. The manner in which other nations treated the presence of homosexuals in the army. 2. The fire and police departments of six major cities in the US that had homosexuals. Researchers found that several nations including Netherlands, Canada, Israel and Norway followed a nondiscriminatory policy towards homosexuals in the camps. In the US fire departments and policy quarters that contained homosexuals, the presence of the homosexual usually did not disturb the functioning of the group, and the effectiveness of the group usually did not reduce.

Usually the homosexual would not break the norms and rules within the organization (Rand. 2000). A public survey conducted on the topic found that people had a mixed response to the recruitment of homosexuals in the army. In July 1993, one of the surveys found that only about 21 % did not favor the removal of a ban on the recruitment of homosexuals in the army under any condition. About 38 % of the public felt that homosexuals should be permitted provided they could keep their orientation private.

However, studies conducted in the Army suggested that a majority did not want homosexuals to be allowed, as they may have to share rooms with them or would be forced into immoral acts. Other considered religious beliefs and the possibility of spreading HIV infection (Rand. 2000). In a similar study conducted in the military in May 2007, 79 % felt that homosexuals should be permitted to serve in the military. Only 18 % felt that they should not be permitted (CNN. 2007). The attitudes of the current military personnel towards homosexuals seem to be changing.

Personnel were becoming more and more aware of discrimination towards homosexuals. The army began to realize that sexual orientation did not matter. Behavior and conduct was more important, and all army personnel had to respect the army rules. The army personnel were becoming more and more aware of the rights homosexuals and heterosexuals had. Homosexuals had to know that the army atmosphere was no place where they could exhibit their sexual orientation. On the other hand, the heterosexuals had to understand that homosexuals should not be discriminated (Rand. 2000).

There were also popular beliefs that if a homosexual is made to hide his sexual orientation, they were chances that they were likely to indulge in inappropriate conduct and become less trustworthy. However, no evidence has proved this (Lindy Heinecken, 1999). In the 1950’s, a ban was imposed by the Federal Government against homosexuals citing security reasons. During that period homosexuals were considered to be perverts and be affected with a mental condition (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 2005). Many people feel that consensual sodomy would not be a crime in the army.

Having this as a crime could be considered as unconstitutional and unwarranted. Sex between two individuals of the army of the same sex could be permitted if they are mutually agreed upon. The US Government has increasingly found that in the case of homosexual issues, civilian rules should apply. Having strict army rules is not only unnecessary but also unconstitutional (Charles Aldinger. 2005).


Charles Aldinger. “U. S. military moving to change anti-sodomy rule. ” Dr. Bob Martin. 2005. 24 Oct. 2007. http://www. doctorbob. com/2005k_04_19news31. html CNN.“Poll majority: Gays’ orientation can’t change. ” CNN. 2007. 24 Oct. 2007. http://www. cnn. com/2007/US/06/27/poll. gay/index. html Elizabeth Lutes Hillman. “Defending America: Military Culture and the Cold War Court-Martial. ” Princeton University Press. 2005. 24 Oct. 2007. http://press. princeton. edu/chapters/i8046. html Geoffrey Bateman and Sameera Dalvi. “Multinational Military Units and Homosexual Personnel. ” Institute for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research. (2004). http://repositories. cdlib. org/cgi/viewcontent. cgi? article=1003&context=isber/cssmm Lindy Heinecken.

“The silent right: Homosexuality and the military. ” ASR. 8. 5 (1999). http://www. iss. co. za/pubs/ASR/8No5/TheSilentRight. html Naoko Wake. “Psychiatry, Homosexuality, and U. S. Postwar International Leadership. ” Medical Humanities Report. http://www. bioethics. msu. edu/mhr/07f/Wake. htm Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. “Events in the media 1950 to 1980. ” OCRT. 2005. 24 Oct. 2007. http://www. religioustolerance. org/hommili1. htm Rand. “Changing the Policy Toward Homosexuals in the U. S. Military. ” RAND (2000). http://www. rand. org/pubs/research_briefs/RB7537/index1. html