FREE ESSAY ON WHOSE FAULT WAS WW2

WHOSE FAULT WAS WW2

Homosexuals in the Military
Homosexuals have been excluded from our society since our country's beginning, giving
them no equal protection underneath the large branch of the law. The Emancipation
Proclamation gave freedom to 
blacks from slavery in the 1800's and women were given the freedoms reserved for males in
the early 1900's with the women's suffrage movement. But everyone still knows the
underlying feeling of nation in dealing with minorities and women, one of contempt and
disgust. Hate crimes are still perpetrated to this day in this country, and most are
unpublicized and swept underneath the rug. The general public is just now dealing with
the struggle of Homosexuals to gain rights in America, although this persecution is
subtle, quiet and rarely ever seen to the naked eye or the general public. 
The big question today in Homosexuals rights struggles are dealing with the right to be a
part of our country's Military Forces. At the forefront of the struggle to gain access to
the military has 
been Female's who have tried to gain access to All Men facilities and have been pressured
out by other cadets. This small group of women have fought hard, and pressured the
Government to change regulations dealing with the inclusion of all people, whether female
or male, and giving them all the same opportunities they deserve. The Homosexual struggle
with our Nation's Armed Forces has been acquiring damage and swift blows for over 60
years now, and now they too are beginning to 
fight back. 
With the public knowledge of initiation rights into many elite groups of the military,
the general public is beginning to realize how exclusive the military can be. One cadet
said after hell 
week in the Marines, It was almost like joining a fraternity, but the punishments were
1000 times worse than ever imagined, and the Administration did not pretend to turn there
back, they were 
instrumental in the brutality. The intense pressure of hell week in the Marines drove a
few to wounding themselves, go AWOL, and a few even took there own life. People who are
not meant to be in the Military are usually weeded out during these initiations and
forced either to persevere or be discharged dishonorably. The military in the United
States has become an elite society, a society where only few survive. 
In a survey taken in 1990, the United States population on a whole is believed to consist
of 13-15% Homosexuals. This figure is believed to have a margin of error on the upward
swing due to the fact 
that most homosexuals are still afraid of their sexuality and the social taboos it
carries along with it. With so many Homosexuals in the United States, how can the
military prove its exclusion policy 
against Homosexuals correct and moral? Through the long standing tradition and policy,
says one Admiral of the U.S. Navy. But is it fair or correct? That is the question posed
on Capitol Hill even 
today, as politicians battle through a virtual minefield of tradition and equal rights. 
Historically, support for one's military was a way to show one's patriotism, if not a
pre-requisite for being patriotic at all. Society has given the military a great deal of
latitude in running its 
own affairs, principally due to society's acknowledgment that the military needs such
space in order to run effectively. The military, in turn, has adopted policies which, for
the most part, have lead to 
very successful military ventures, which served to continually renew society's faith in
the military. Recently, however, that support has been fading. The Vietnam War
represented both a cause of diminishing support for the military by society as well a
problem. The Vietnam War 
occurred during a period of large-scale civil disobedience, as well as a time where peace
was more popular than war. Since the effectiveness of the military depends a great deal
upon society's support, when society's support dropped out of the war effort, the war
effort in turn suffered. The ultimate defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War
effort only lead to less faith in the military's ability. This set 
the stage for society becoming more involved in how the military was run. 
The ban on homosexuals serving in the military, was originally instituted in 1942. Though
some of the reasons that were used to justify it at the time have been debunked
since-that homosexual service members in sensitive positions could be blackmailed, for
instance (Gays and the Military 54)-the policy was largely an extension of the military's
long-standing policy against homosexual 
acts. At the time, the prevailing attitude was that homosexuality was a
medical/psychiatric condition, and thus the military sought to align itself with this
school of thought. Rather than just continuing to punish service members for individual
acts of sodomy, the military took what was thought to be a kinder position-excluding
those people who were inclined to commit such acts in the first place, thus 
avoiding stiffer penalties (including prison sentences) for actually committing them. As
society and the military came to be more enlightened about the nature of homosexuality, a
redefinition of the policy became necessary. In 1982, the policy was redefined to state
that a homosexual (or a lesbian) in the armed forces seriously impairs the ability of the
military services to maintain discipline, good order 
and morale.' Essentially, it was reasoned that homosexuality and military service were
incompatible, and thus homosexuals should be excluded from the military. Only in 1994 was
this policy changed, and then only the exclusion of homosexuals-acts of homosexuality or
overt acknowledgment of one's homosexuality are still forbidden in the military. But we
must ask ourselves, why was this ban upheld for so long? 
The primary reason that the military upheld its ban against gay service members was that
it was necessary for the military to provide cohesiveness. Society bent to accommodate
homosexuality. The 
military, however, cannot bend if it is to effectively carry out its duties. The
realities of military life include working closely while on duty, but the true intimacies
are to be traced to less bellicose 
surroundings-to the barracks, the orderly room, the mess hall. If indeed the military can
lay claim to any sense of `organic unity,' it will be found in the intimacy of platoon
and company life. The military demands an extreme amount of cohesiveness, and this is
very much reinforced in barracks life. You must sleep with, eat with, and share
facilities with your fellow platoon members. Life in the barracks is extremely intimate.
Men must share rooms together, and showers are public also. Having homosexuals be part of
this structure violates this cohesiveness. Men and women are kept in separate barracks
much for the same reasons. 
However, the true purpose behind barring gay service members is how the individuals who
are part of the military feel about them. Members of the military are more conservatively
minded people, but, 
moreover, they are overwhelmingly opposed to having homosexuals among their ranks. To
then force these individuals to serve with gays only undermines the morale of the
military. And when morale is undermined, the effectiveness of the military drops as well.
The leadership of the military has always been persistent in its position-Up and down the
chain of command, you'll find the military 
leadership favors the ban.. And, as one navy lieutenant put it: The military is a
life-and-death business, not an equal opportunity employer. 
No one is doubting that gays have served in the military. Ever since Baron Frederich von
Steuben (a renowned Prussian military-mind and known homosexual) served as a Major
General in the Continental 
Army, there have been homosexuals serving in the military. Even today there exists a Gay
American Legion post in San Francisco. However, the general consensus is that allowing
them in the service represents a rubber-stamping of their existence rather than a
concerted effort to discourage it. Though the homosexual lobby often cites the fact that
gays have always served in the military as a justification for lifting the ban, this sort
of reasoning is wrong. There are many other types of behavior that the military has been
unable to completely eradicate, such as discharge and use of illegal substances. No one
would ever deny that these things happen in the military. But the point is that if they
were made legal, there would be more instances of them. To use the lack of perfect
implementation as a pretext for legalization is equally absurd in the civilian world: Do
we legalize criminal behavior on the grounds that people have always done it? 
Another parallel that is frequently drawn with gays in the military is that of the
situation of women in the military. Though largely a male institution-Symbolically, the
military represents 
masculinity more than any institution other than professional sports"-women have been a
part of the military since World War II and the women's support units have been abolished
since 1978.But, like that of race to homosexuality, the comparison is invalid. Women are
not permitted in combat units -an exclusion that for homosexuals would be hard to
implement, at best. They also have separate barracks and facilities, which would be
equally as unpractical to homosexuals. 
If the admission of homosexuals into the military causes adverse effects on the morale of
the soldiers, then the debate should be re-opened there. The military's function is to
protect democracy. 
The sacrifices associated with military service may be very great-up to giving up one's
life. Excluding homosexuals from military service seems petty, everyone should be allowed
to defend their country. 
Moreover, the politicizing of such issues undermines the military's faith in the civilian
leadership that guides it. The military is quickly loosing its prestige, its traditional
conservative values, and 
that is a good thing for most Americans. Reinstating the ban would be a gesture of utter
and sheer digustedness in our military. Having homosexuals in the military is a matter of
military effectiveness-not 
of the homosexuals' ability to perform military duties, but of the morale of the military
as a whole. And, in the military, it is always the good of the whole which must be
considered before the good of the 
individual. The ending of the Cold War and the re-definition of the military's mission
does not mean that we should make the military less effective. If a policy in regards to
the military does not improve its 
effectiveness, then it should not be implemented. But when the implementation means
giving a chance to few who would like to serve out great nation, than it should be
considered legal.