Disadvantages of Homosexuals Identifing Themselves in the US Military - Research Paper Example

Disadvantages of Having Homosexuals Identify themselves in the Military Introduction With the recent repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy comes additional concerns about the potential disadvantages of having homosexuals identify their sexual orientation, thus serving openly during active duty. Concerns over these disadvantages stem from U.S. political leadership, from within the ranks of all military branches, and from general society about the integrity of homosexual lifestyle. Support for the repeal of DADT continues to grow, however the divergent viewpoints related to potential burdens to full homosexual disclosure show how truly divided the country is about this issue related to military serviceship. This paper describes the potential disadvantages of military personnel identifying their sexual orientation from a financial perspective, political viewpoint, and under the lens of peer debate within the ranks of the U.S. military divisions. What are the Disadvantages? A synopsis conducted by the Family Research Council (FRC) in regards to 1,643 reports of sexual assault in all four branches of the military identified that 8.2 percent were homosexual in origin (Sprigg, 2011). Based on the data, it was determined that homosexual military personnel were three times likely to commit sexual assaults against their peers as opposed to heterosexual-based assaults of a similar nature (Sprigg). In most branches of the military, servicepersons share showers, bathrooms and other living quarters (Sprigg), thus theoretically providing ample opportunity for sexual assaults by homosexuals who are attracted to their peers. Of course, this would be based largely on the ethical programming of the homosexual individual, however the design of shared quarters would seem to facilitate the desire to engage in homosexual behavior. The same study conducted by the FRC indicated that the most prevalent sexual assault occurring with homosexuals was fondling and performing oral sex on a sleeping peer (Sprigg). Because the use of alcohol is widespread in the military, this only further increases the potential risk for this type of behavior. In similar regard to the issue of close, shared living quarters, Sgt. Brian Jones, a retired Army Ranger, testified at the House Armed Services Committee to express his brute dissatisfaction with disclosed homosexuality in the military. Sgt. Jones expressed the problems associated with all-male military units when serving in special operations and the close quarters that such operations provide. Offered Jones: “The only way to keep from freezing at night is to get as close as possible for body heat, which means skin to skin. The presence of openly gay men in these situations would elevate tensions and disrupt unit cohesion and morale” (Wiltrout, 2009, p.1). Jones attempts to offer the realities of special operations service, offering that all-male units operating under these conditions simply cannot tolerate the presence of a gay soldier due to the psychological impact that homosexual soldiers would manifest. Military leadership relies on combat readiness, unit self-confidence, and motivation in order to conduct any special operations activities. Unless the military were to segregate homosexuals in this type of environment that relied on close male-to-male contact, which would impede certain Constitutional rights, there appears to be tremendous risk to incentive and enthusiasm for heterosexual peers in this scenario. If having an openly homosexual soldier in this environment could disrupt harmonious combat or special ops readiness, the risks to successful mission accomplishment are significant and could jeopardize (potentially) national security. Related directly to national security are the politically-motivated disadvantages to having a homosexual serviceperson identify himself. Senator John McCain, a stout opponent of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, argued that such disclosure was an intolerable risk to national security. Offered McCain, “I believe polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for…misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual service members above those of their units. Most importantly, the national security of the United States” (PR Newswire, 2007, p.2). McCain compares open disclosure of homosexuality in the military to a risky venture that puts the lives of others in uniform at risk as such disclosures, in McCain’s view, breaks down the disciplinary structure required for distinguished combat services. McCain’s political view was included in discussion of potential disadvantages as it reflects the division that exists in multiple ranks of political leadership related to repealing DADT. Political leaders are responsible for establishing future laws and regulations associated with military service, thus when an issue as paramount as open homosexual disclosure becomes a political struggle, securing the Constitutional interests of homosexual military personnel can be impeded. While issues of national security should be considered a non-partisan issue, personal prejudices and biases associated with homosexual military duty can degrade quality, future lawmaking. By repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, these biases and stereotypes are driven to the surface and could, potentially, create an atmosphere of social mistrust for political decision-making. If DADT were allowed to continue, these biases would not be publicized and thus confidence in political leadership is more solidified for multiple social demographics. An even greater disadvantage to allowing full disclosure of homosexual lifestyle in the military is reflected by the statistics associated with HIV/AIDS for military personnel. Sprigg (2010) identifies that homosexuals have a 50 times higher rate of HIV infection than that of heterosexuals. Thus, with these statistics in mind, sexual conduct between homosexual men in the military puts them at significantly higher health risks. This creates a health risk to heterosexual peers as well who may find themselves in a situation where a blood transfusion on the battlefield is necessary as a lifesaving effort (Sprigg). Such transfusions are a reality of combat operations in a hostile, enemy environment and without immediate access to appropriate testing, an individual who is unknowingly infected with HIV/AIDS could be selected for donorship. Potential Arguments in Favor However, those who argue in favor of open disclosure might argue that “the military is an environment where diverse populations can succeed, a social laboratory” (Moskos, 1993, p.29). Proponents of open disclosure would cite issues of homosexuality as a diversity issue that deserve to be addressed and quite possibly resolved due to the structure of diversity associated with active military service. Preventing homosexuals from disclosing their sexual orientation, under this argument, might be viewed as eroding the tradition of multiplicity that the military provides to all of its recruits and the benefits such diversity holds for society. Proponents of full disclosure of sexual orientation might also cite obvious cost advantages to the military. In 2008, Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach was discharged from service because a peer notified his commanding officer that he was engaged with a male partner. Fehrenbach was a decorated F-15 fighter pilot with 18 years of active service. The military had spent approximately $25 million training this single Air Force pilot during his career only to discharge him for his sexual orientation (Korb, Duggan & Conley, 2009). Furthermore, the costs of investigating homosexual activity have cost millions of taxpayer dollars including the costs of training replacements after discharge (McGann, 2010). Discharging individuals such as Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, with a highly decorated career history in the military, short-changes talent management efforts within all four branches of service and thus has potential impact on national security and the security of citizens across the world. Fehrenbach’s dismissal occurred “despite a record of documented heroism and an unblemished career” (Korb, et al, p.2), thus further adding question as to whether forcing non-disclosure is a quality management decision for decision-makers in multiple branches of service. Much like any business organization, military units require talented and well-trained individuals and those who would argue against non-disclosure policies would likely believe discharge for homosexual lifestyle only creates gaps in military aptitude and capacity to protect the public interest. Conclusion Despite the aforementioned arguments in favor of full disclosure of sexual orientation, the many disadvantages identified pose serious risks to military effectiveness, peer morale, and the potential health and well-being of active servicepersons. The close proximity of all-male living quarters would appear to invite homosexual behavior while also putting military peers at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. In relation to motivation and unit morale, if military personnel who are confronted with an openly homosexual peer experience problems with maintaining a dedicated and encouraging attitude toward service, a breakdown of unit discipline and integrity could occur. Whether the issue is politicized, stems from general public opinion, or comes directly from within the ranks of active military service, it is clear that there are more disadvantages than reward for promoting full and open disclosure of sexual preferences by military servicepersons. Overturning DADT does not appeal to the heterosexual viewpoint of serving in close quarters with homosexual servicemen and only time will dictate whether or not opponents of full disclosure will stand justified in their rationale for preventing confession of homosexual lifestyle in all branches of the U.S. military. Disadvantages to this new policy far outweigh the potential advantages, according to supporting literature on the subject. References Korb, L., Duggan, S. & Conley, L. (2009). Ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Practical Steps to Repeal the Ban on Openly Gay Men and Women in the U.S. Military, Center for American Progress. Retrieved October 15, 2011 at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/dadt.pdf McGann, Thomas. (2010). Gays in the Military – Pros and Cons Examined. Retrieved October 15, 2011 at http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-long-island/gays-the-military-pros-and-cons-examined Moskos, Charles. (1993). From Citizens’ Army to Social Laboratory, The Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 17, p.90. PR Newswire. (2007). Senator John McCain Defends “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, Calls Gay Troops an Intolerable Risk; Presidential Hopeful Suggests Troops will be Put at Grave Risk by Repealing Law, May 3. Sprigg, Peter. (2011). Allowing Gays in the Military will Increase Sexual Assaults, Family Research Council. Retrieved October 14, 2011 from http://www.frc.org/insight/homosexual-assault-in-the-military Sprigg, Peter. (2010). Do Senators Understand Truth behind Homosexuals’ Military Service?. Retrieved October 14, 2011 at http://townhall.com/columnists/petersprigg/2010/09/20/do_senators_understand_truth_behind_homosexuals_military_service/page/full/ PR Newswire. (2010). Family Research Council Criticizes Senate for Putting Social Agenda ahead of Military Mission, Family Research Council, December 18. Wiltrout, Kate. (2009). Gays in Military Subject to Contradiction, McClatchy – Tribune Business News, Washington, September 27. Read More