Homosexuals in the Military - Research Paper Example

America’s past record regarding its handling of the issue of gays serving in the military has been riddled with inconsistencies in policy implementation. In the early twentieth century, for instance, there were no formal laws barring gays from serving. However, sodomy was an offense, tracing from the very beginning of the American nationhood. According to Bowman and Finley (2011), the country’s history has been marked by shifting goal posts, from a lack of policies to provide the guidelines for handing the issue, to strict laws barring gays from being servicemen, to ambiguities such as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (DADT), and finally, the enactment of laws opening way for homosexuals to openly serve in the military.

Homosexuals ‘fail’ the test It is arguable that both supporters and detractors of having gays serve in the military seem to take the professional code of ethics for granted (Eitelberg, 2004). Bowman and Finley (2011), concur to the POV findings that gays serving in the military have been discriminated against, despite them showing steadfastness in the service to the country. Most of gay soldiers show loyalty, responsibility, respect, altruistic behavior, honesty and personal courage in as much the same way as heterosexuals.

According to Bowman and Finley (2011), by failing to rein in the open discrimination against gay servicepersons, the ensuing environment seems to support the disparagement of homosexuals. During service, disparaging remarks are common, especially in reference to homosexuals (Kier, 1998). Bowman and Finley (2011) refer to the basic laws of the US, arguing that the use of offensive language against military personnel is in itself a violation of each the United States constitutions that each one of them has sworn to safeguard and defend.

In contrast, although, no clear military ethics are violated when some soldiers make offensive remarks against their gay counterparts, the ensuing situation may compromise the unit cohesion (Kier, 1998). The underlying principle behind the stringent policies that borders on the discrimination of homosexuals in the military is that having ‘discordant’ servicemen with regard to sexuality may lower the unit consistency and determination to achieve set objectives (Bowman & Finley, 2011). Both findings draw several parallels that when a military officer shows extreme dislike for a fellow soldier for their sexual orientation, a lack of impetus and cohesion within the unit ensues.

Discrimination impedes the attempts to develop teams that have the capacity to achieve a mission, which is expected of them (Kier, 1998). Victims of disparagement are often effectively isolated, thus their ability to make successful contributions to the team are impacted. Bowman and Finley (2011) indicated that one kind of prejudice triggers the likelihood of more discrimination, as the former situation seems to legitimize such acts. Proper judgment of soldiers according to their ability to contribute toward the realization of the defense goals and objectives would consider homosexuality as a trivial issue.

In light of these challenges, DADT was arguably the launch-pad for discrimination ag