Gay armed forces

Even the Red Cross does not allow homosexuals to donate blood. Dubbed "don't ask, don't tell," it is unclear if the policy has the support of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn, who is holding hearings to determine whether the current ban should be upheld, altered, or abolished.

Sound Reasons There are three detrimental effects of homosexuals in the armed services that form the basis for the ban. This is a politically expedient solution that will almost certainly subject future presidential candidates to pressure for further compromise from activists who are unhappy with "don't ask, don't tell.

Unit cohesion is the social bond that gives rise to that intangible feeling which causes a man to dive on a grenade to save his buddies, or to risk his life simply because his leader tells him to. [10] The several branches of the U.S. armed forces lacked a unified policy on service by homosexuals for most of their history.

It requires the soldier to place the needs of the unit ahead of his self-interest and individual identity. In , Aaron Belkin, writing in Armed Forces & Society, makes the case that the policy harmed the public standing of the military by being out-of-touch with public opinion, with polls showing overwhelming support repealing the policy and allowing gay and lesbian servicemembers to be “out.” Helen Godvin with her daughter Morgan, This timeline notes significant events and policies in chronological order that had a significant im-pact on Department of Defense (DoD) policies, instructions, or orders as they relate to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ+) community.

Last week, following an exhaustive study, the Pentagon once again concluded that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Military men and women willingly accept risks not found anywhere else in society, but should they be needlessly exposed to a disease that is percent fatal and has no known cure?

Indeed, most Americans hold the sensible view that the purpose of the military is to win wars, not to conduct liberal social experiments. In a recent Gallup poll, Americans supported the ban by 53 percent, compared to 35 percent opposed. They can be distracting and even disruptive, and often lie beneath the surface, not indicated by any overt action or statement.

Independent Review into the impact of Armed Forces “gay ban” In January an LGBT Veterans Independent Review was launched into the impact of the decades-long ‘gay ban’ in the military. The change went into effect on February 4, [9] It was the first express prohibition of homosexuality or homosexual conduct in the armed forces of the United States.

Congress should resolve this issue by passing a law affirming that homosexuality is incompatible with military service, and giving military commanders authority to screen and discharge homosexuals under any circumstances. The armed forces exist to wage war. A policy based on contradictions is bound to fail.

It is clear that the campaign to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces is failing. Testing is imperfect, and may not reveal the presence of HIV for months. These sound reasons against allowing homosexuals in the armed services are easily understood by the American people.

On 22 June , the government announced that The Rt Hon Lord Etherton would chair the review. During combat, individuals are exposed routinely to the blood of others, and frequently require battlefield transfusions from their fellow soldiers. In the months of controversy since President Bill Clinton pledged to end the military's ban against homosexuals, this ill-considered idea has been widely rejected.

Political activism elsewhere in society suggests that weakening the ban would be followed by quotas and lawsuits if homosexuals were not promoted in representative numbers. Sexual attraction encourages special relationships without regard to rank and increases the risk of favoritism.

The same study nevertheless proposes a policy that allows homosexuals to serve if they keep their lifestyle private. While cohesion requires a strong degree of mutual affection, sexual emotions are rooted strongly in self-interest. He will do this, however, only if he trusts that his comrades and commanders are doing likewise.

Either way, the armed services would be disrupted as commanders scrambled to deal with a fundamental contradiction: a policy that claims that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," yet tacitly allows homosexuals to serve so long as their sexual activity is private.

Homosexuals contract HIV, the human immuno-deficiency virus, at thousands of times the rate of heterosexuals and, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control, two-thirds of U. AIDS cases are found among homosexual men. If the "don't ask, don't tell" compromise allows off-base, off-duty homosexual sex, will a soldier hesitate to help a wounded homosexual soldier who may have contracted HIV since his last test?

As most Americans understand, the issue is not one of fairness, but of military effectiveness. The presence of homosexuals in the armed services threatens the military's highly regarded merit-based system. This would destroy the cohesion of a military unit, and erode the military's successful merit-based promotion system.

Should battlefield medical personnel proceed directly to a heterosexual soldier after treating a homosexual's open wound? They are:.