Gay military guys

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual military personnel had been serving our country for decades without receiving equal protection, while transgender troops are still prohibited from serving openly. In this blog post on the gayest branch of the military, we will further explore LGBTQ+ representation in each branch of the military, assess the level of inclusion and acceptance of LGBTQ+ military members.

1. Army. 2. Navy. 3. Air Force. 4. Marine Corps.

5. Coast Guard. LGBT military members have been a crucial part of shaping American history. Here's 8 that helped shape American history. THANK YOU for your service!. These are the voices explaining what it has been like to be a gay man 1 in the American military over the previous seventy or so years, from World War II veterans in their late eighties to.

Admittedly, it’s not the most romantic of settings, but Love In Country still makes time to explore the relationship of two gay soldiers, Sgt. Ian Alexander (David Garber) and Sgt. John Reese. In the months of controversy since Bill Clinton pledged to end the military's ban against homosexuals, this ill-considered idea has been widely rejected.

It is clear that the campaign to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces is failing. Last week, following an exhaustive study, the Pentagon once again concluded that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The same study nevertheless proposes a policy that allows homosexuals to serve if they keep their lifestyle private.

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. 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.

This is a politically expedient solution that will almost certainly subject future ial candidates to pressure for further compromise from activists who are unhappy with "don't ask, don't tell. A policy based on contradictions is bound to fail.

Friends and extended family are

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. Sound Reasons There are three detrimental effects of homosexuals in the armed services that form the basis for the ban.

They are:. 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. It requires the soldier to place the needs of the unit ahead of his self-interest and individual identity. He will do this, however, only if he trusts that his comrades and commanders are doing likewise.

While cohesion requires a strong degree of mutual affection, sexual emotions are rooted strongly in self-interest. They can be distracting and even disruptive, and often lie beneath the surface, not indicated by any overt action or statement. The presence of homosexuals in the armed services threatens the military's highly regarded merit-based system.

Sexual attraction encourages special relationships without regard to rank and increases the risk of favoritism. 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. This would destroy the cohesion of a military unit, and erode the military's successful merit-based promotion system.

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. Testing is imperfect, and may not reveal the presence of HIV for months. During combat, individuals are exposed routinely to the blood of others, and frequently require battlefield transfusions from their fellow soldiers.

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

Even the Red Cross does not allow homosexuals to donate blood. These sound reasons against allowing homosexuals in the armed services are easily understood by the American people. 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.

As most Americans understand, the issue is not one of fairness, but of military effectiveness.