Homosexuality in the Military
Leondre L. Torrance
Instructor: Lisa Smoot
Sociology
17 February 2012

Introduction Modern controversy over the rights of gay people to serve in the military aside, the reality is that homosexuality as existing within the military is as old as the history of armed forces. Clearly, it cannot be otherwise, as homosexuality itself is an orientation within humanity, and consequently as old as mankind's origins. What changes is sociological perspective, and nowhere is this factor more keenly evident than in how the overt presence of homosexuality is acknowledged by the military and accepted by the societal base. Different cultures of different epochs have viewed this subject in varying ways, depending, not unexpectedly, on the belief systems in place in those cultures. No matter its direct purpose or size, the military of any nation must still be a representation of that nation's values. Consequently, the perceptions of each regarding homosexuality translate to how acceptable, or unacceptable, it is within the armed forces. It is therefore all the more interesting that the United States, arguably the most liberal and democratic of modern nations, has so long reflected an ambiguity, if not outright hostility, regarding gays in the military rarely seen in ancient, and supposedly less enlightened, eras. The U.S. consistently prides itself on a commitment to individual liberties, and most emphatically since the turbulence of the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s. That “gay liberation” also erupted nationally in the late 1960s, however, does not remove its distinction, for the reality is that homosexuality elicits reactions beyond reasonable, societal response. For many, it is a deeply ethical or religious issue, inherently “wrong” and apart from arenas of racial or gender equality, and the nation's lauded separation of church and state ideology is not sufficient to overcome these barriers. What has occurred, then, is a strange and hotly contested battle of perceptions and laws, some of which have notoriously sought to permit homosexuality in the military by blithely “ignoring” it. What remains is a struggle, certainly in the U.S. What must eventually be realized, when all rationales and sociological views are considered, is that an outright denial of homosexuality in the military, for whatever, reason, is unethical. Moreover, it is blatantly unrealistic, and a nation that fully accepts that gay people are a part of its citizenry must acknowledge that these same people will, covertly or otherwise, serve in its armed forces.
Historical Background It is not uncommon for the average American to consider that, if homosexuality was a common element in fighting forces of antiquity, this was due to a perceived laxness of the cultures of the time. It is known, for example, that homosexuality was an ordinary matter in the armies of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Persians; some popular culture media, in fact, have turned to this for dramatic content, as in films and novels that celebrate Alexander the Great's known homosexual relationships. Still, there is an inherent bias to these Western, and specifically American, views, for they are part of a larger, sociological structure that has fixed ideas on gender roles. In the American ethos, and possibly due as well to a lingering American unwillingness to maintain associations with “old world” cultures, an acceptance of homosexuality, in society or in the armed forces, must indicate a kind of weakness. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As so many ancient cultures uniformly accepted homosexuality in their military forces, the argument is then more forcefully made as to the actual efficacy of the arrangement. For example, the Grecian reputation in this regard is well-deserved, but not exactly understood. The fighting bands of Thebes actually relied on a combat mechanism wherein the younger men led the assaults, and their older lovers provided a phalanx of support. This alone indicates that these ancient armies understood the benefits to be had from an emotional component within the forces, issues of actual sexuality aside. More exactly, it is entirely possible that homosexual relationships developed in these armies because this kind of interdependent bonding was established. These ancient nations perceived and esteemed the immense advantage to be gained, in strictly military terms, from loving relationships formed between soldiers. In the first century A.D., Onasander, a Roman military historian, spoke for the empire when he asserted that soldiers fought best when “brother is in rank beside brother, friend beside friend, lover beside lover” (Haggerty, 2000, p. 941). This is blatantly not a sentiment likely to be espoused by a modern, U.S. military commander, its inherent logic notwithstanding. This also goes to the larger Western view. In the American perception, certainly in an historical sense, the military is an intrinsically masculine presence, and homosexuality must then weaken that core of masculinity. The problem with this thinking is that it places undue parameters around the concept of masculinity itself; that is to say, it associates it completely with heterosexuality, when masculinity in this sense refers to different elements of behavior and being. Plainly, a male soldier's inclination to have sex with many women may be no impediment to his skill on the battlefield, but it is equally not a means of enhancing it. By the same logic, an active, heterosexual sex drive by no means translates to an automatic and high level of courage. American ideologies continually confuse sexuality with traits and attributes perhaps linked to them, but not at all dependent upon them. Ancient cultures, sadly, knew better. Therein lies a great irony; those cultures understood that homosexuality, in fact, by creating and reinforcing powerful bonds between men, had a “masculinizing” effect on the armies (Scott, Stanley, 1994, p. 104). Most importantly, they comprehended that their armed forces would have emotional and physical needs to be met, and that an attempt to deny these would be dangerous to the strength of the military.
Modern Realities and Issues The question then arises: why is Western, and specifically American, thinking so adamantly opposed to either open admissions of homosexuals as serving in the military or a lack of restrictions regarding it? The answer, as noted earlier, must reside in perceptions regarding homosexuality itself, and as removed from the military. While it is a generalization, it is nonetheless reasonable to affirm that gay men and women have long been marginalized, at best, in the U.S. It is, in fact, too easy to forget that the Stonewall riots of 1969, which prompted what was then referred to as “gay liberation”, are only decades old. Prior to this point in time, and even following it, homosexuals faced a variety of actual, legal penalties if they asserted their orientation publicly. Just as perniciously and far more routinely, gays were fired from jobs and discarded by family when this aspect of their lives was disclosed. As the military is, again, an extension of the sociological framework of the nation it serves, this blatant bias was inevitably more focused and more damaging in military arenas. In the World War II years, psychiatric tests were routinely administered to weed out possible homosexuals in the army, with an unsurprising level of success; by 1943, the government chose to cease these interim measures, and it placed an outright ban on gay people serving, as those already in the military identified as homosexual were dishonorably discharged. Interestingly, the legal restrictions were relatively ineffective and frequently discarded, simply because manpower shortages could not tolerate such practices (Chambers, Anderson, 1999, p. 652). Realistically speaking, it was understood that homosexuals were serving in the armed forces but, as in the mainstream society at large, it was expected, if not tacitly required, that this be conducted in a completely covert manner. In simple terms, no one, inside or outside of the military, wanted to talk about it. In the perceptions of that generation, homosexuality was, if not an actual illness, a dangerous deviance, and the best that could be allowed was a silent pretense that it was not there. It is tempting to assert that, following the rebellious decades after World War II, American sensibilities shifted regarding gay men and women. They did, but marginally, and an odd uneasiness was, and very much still is, maintained. Nothing more illustrates American sociological ambiguity regarding homosexuality and the military more than President Clinton's notorious “Don't ask, don't tell” edict of the 1990s. The intent appears to have been legitimate, if misguided; if the military was no longer permitted to inquire as to sexual orientation, as it had been legally empowered to do, a concomitant silence on the part of homosexuals would neatly eliminate issues (Burrelli, 2010, p. 1). What is less known is that the famous policy was abbreviated. Originally, Clinton's directive was, “Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue”, and that last, omitted component was in place to prevent officials from harassing homosexual personnel who were, in some way, made known as such. At the time, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin allegedly assured the president that such knowledge would not be the cause for investigation and/or possible discharge, only to reverse his stance (Burrelli, 2010, p. 2). In no time at all, vigorous investigations were launched as to sexual orientations, and Clinton's well-meant effort was a shambles. That “Don't ask, don't tell” was a spectacular failure is common knowledge. Under the policy, more than 10,000 service men and women were discharged from the military since 1994, on the basis of homosexuality. In the early years of the 2000s, the firings occurred in the many hundreds annually, and frequently ended the military careers of specialists in high-level operations, such as chemical warfare and combat engineers (Zastrow, Kirst-Ashman, 2009, p. 558). This is in itself a fascinating evidence of the force of American bias toward homosexuality, if such vital personnel could be deemed as unfit to serve. What it accomplishes, in fact, is a significant weakening of military strength, ethical imperatives aside. The only justification for such actions is that homosexuality is deemed symptomatic of a degeneracy or inability to perform one's duties, or that it creates these failures. It is difficult to conceive of a more blatantly hateful, and wholly unsubstantiated, mode of reasoning, yet only such reasoning can account for the actions. Meanwhile, the tragic circumstance ironically underscoring this entire dilemma remained intact, in that homosexual men and women profoundly wished to serve their country, and were denied the opportunity to do so. Only in the last few years has substantive change occurred. “Don't ask, don't tell” has been repealed, as of September, 201, an occasion marked by gay celebrations nationally. Moreover, with the repeal, the military issued statements assuring an equal distribution of rights to all service personnel, and recruitment officers began accepting openly gay applications
(cbsnews.com). Gay servicemen and women, in fact, are now enabled to designate partners as beneficiaries of their benefits. It would appear that, after centuries of harassment and discrimination, the U.S. has finally accepted homosexuality in its military. It is interesting to speculate that this change, while clearly indicative of a national relaxation of concerns, may also go to easing gay discrimination outside of the military.
Conclusion
The history of homosexuality in the military as a whole is vastly removed from the history of homosexuality in the U.S. military. The former has been an accepted, if not encouraged, component in armies dating back to the first civilizations; the latter has been an ongoing and seemingly irrational scenario wherein policies blatantly in defiance of sociological norms and American ideologies have been permitted to flourish. Finally, the laws now begin to reflect an awareness of this gross disparity, at least in that discrimination is no longer legally sanctioned in the military. It remains to be seen if this change in military policy reflects an ideological commitment, as well as how far it may go to removing the stigma of homosexuality still present in mainstream society. Whatever that outcome, there has been progress. The U. S. has acknowledged an inescapable truth: a nation that accepts that gay people are a part of its citizenry must also acknowledge that these same people will, covertly or otherwise, serve in its armed forces.

References
Burrelli, D. (2010). Homosexuals and the U.S. Military: Current Issues. Washington: Congressional Research Service. cbsnews.com. (2011). “'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Consigned to History.” Retrieved 15, Feb., 2012, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/20/national/main20108690.shtml
Chambers, J. W., & Anderson, F. (1999). The Oxford Companion to American Military History. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haggerty, G. E. (2000). Gay Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Scott, W. J., & Stanley, S. C. (1994). Gays and Lesbians in the Military: Issues, Concerns, and Contrasts. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Zastrow, C., & Kirst-Ashman, K. K. (2009). Understanding Human Behavior and the Social Environment. Belmont: Cengage Learning.