The Military of the United States, Speech Example

It is unfortunate that individuals serving in the military of the United States cannot disclose their sexual orientation, if it does not follow along “accepted” guidelines.  Since 1993 Defense Directive 1304.26 has been in effect from the administration of Bill Clinton, which “allows” gays, lesbians, and bisexuals of different sexual orientation to serve in the military.  This however is not good enough, which has caused the perpetuated discrimination of individuals of such sexual orientation.

The policy has been nicknamed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  Basically superiors are not allowed to investigate an individual’s sexual orientation, as long as his or her behaviors do not suggest what is essentially not allowed.  The latter part refers to the point in which any type of same-sex relationship is not prohibited to be disclosed to others.

In this confused logic, it is essential to uncover what is truly being said.  In essence individuals who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual are not allowed to serve in the military.  The only way around this is to lie about one’s situation, by withholding information, and by not expressing aspects relative to one’s sexual orientation.

The oppression of rights of individuals has continued for much too long.  The undermining of the rights of Africans and African-Americans, for instance, is just one disgrace that has existed in this country.  The fight for freedom and civil rights has led to an enriching history in these lights, in the most unfortunate way possible.

Although racism and unfortunate standards continue to exist in this country presently, we would like to think that these gross and overt injustices are a thing of this nation’s past.  However, here it is not the case.  As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

The words from the influential leader apply to this unfortunate situation.  The clause of secrecy of individuals who would like to join the military, but can’t openly do so, is irrelevant to the essence of the situation.  It is not reasonable to suggest that one is more than able to join the military, if he or she does not reveal something at the heart of his or her personal life.  After all, it also seems unreasonable to suggest that one may join the military, only if he or she withholds one’s religious affiliations and views.

The silence that is required is in itself a form of oppression.  Individuals cannot be accepted to join the military to face this kind of treatment.  In the best case, an individual must suppress one important part regarding oneself.  In the worst cases, one may make a simple statement to anyone, which could lead to their discharge of service – something that has happened to more than 13,000 troops.  Of course, in the truly worst cases, individual may be victims of more over forms of discrimination, such as types of harassment and abuse.

As Professor Nan Hunter has written, “expression is the crucible in which [gay] identity is formed.”  It is therefore quite evident that this policy is not accepting of such individuals.  Individuals who practice same-sex relationships cannot be asked to withhold what is at the core of their personality, in the expression of such sexual orientation.

According to the Law Center at Georgetown University, this policy is the only law that authorizes the firing of an American simply for coming out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, in the country.  It becomes quite appalling that this policy remains the clearest indicator, perhaps, of the expression of an individual in some capacity, in regards to sexual orientation, race, or some other dynamic.

The crucial point to the debate lies in the oppression of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.  This has clearly been established, as such individuals are clearly oppressed against, in the acceptance without expression.  With expression, individuals are not allowed in the military.

The debate doesn’t lie in some irrelevant conversation regarding why gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, should be allowed into the military.  In other words, we do not need to present a list of reasons why such individuals should be allowed in the military, based on the “correct” nature of their beliefs and orientation.  You do not have to agree with these sexual orientations in order to fight for the rights of an individual in America.

Unfortunately that is what it often comes down to for many.  Some individuals maintain a rationality where they disagree with the sexual orientation of such individuals of alternative orientations.  Yet even this does not reach the essential stance needed.

Realistically, most people do not agree with these sexual orientations.  A majority of people of course, even by definition, are not engaged in such sexual orientations, as they represent a minority in their being alternative.

Yet you do not have to agree with this way of life, or even be gay, lesbian, or bisexual to see the essence of this situation.  You do not have to practice or accept the presence of another religion to support individuals with these beliefs in the military as well.

What remains in the opposition to such individuals openly serving in the military is that of cohesion.  However, as it has been revealed, that according to the research conducted since 1957 by the U.S. military, research has demonstrated that an “openly gay service works.”

A 1993 Government Accountability Office study found that “the presence of homosexuals in the military is not an issue and has not created problems in the functioning of military units.”  A 1994 U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences found that the predicted negative consequences in gay inclusion never materialized.  A 2000 assessment of the British Ministry of Defense called its new policy of equal treatment “a solid achievement” with “no discernible impact” on variables such as recruitment and others.  Recruitment and retention on the lifting of bans in Britain, Israel, Australia, and Canada had no negative impact in four academic studies conducted by the Palm Center.

24 of our closest allies let gays, lesbians, and homosexuals serve openly in the military, including Britain.  Military inclusion of individuals with these sexual orientations works, as it has been demonstrated across the world.  When we combine this with the scientific support, even conducted by our own military, it becomes apparent that lifting this ban would not sacrifice the cohesion of the military.

According to an article by CNN, three-quarters of troops today are “personally comfortable with gays and lesbians, and the policy is considered “a joke.”  Even since the policy began in 1994, the personal discrimination against gays and lesbians has been reduced.

Now is the right time to lift this unfortunate ban.  It has always been immoral and unjust – that is something that is true and focal to this situation.  This injustice is one of the last official strands in the nation’s history of discrimination and further unfortunate events and rationalities.

However, moving away from the past, the supports suggest that this ban should be lifted.  The scientific support is demonstrates, both inside and outside of research conducted by the military, that it will work, just as it has outside the United States in many other countries.  Also, personal opinion has made long strides since 1994 when this unjust policy was devised.