Sunday, January 31, 2010

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

While watching the State of the Union address I was reminded of President Obama's pledge for change, policy change to be more exact. The Don't ask don't tell policy has been the topic of conversation in the gay community ever since it was brought into legislation in 1994. President Obama, during his speech at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner, claims that he will put an end to the don't ask, don't tell policy. For those of you who don't know what the don't ask don't tell policy is, it's a policy that bans all openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from joining the U.S. Armed Forces. Since recent advancements in science and technology we have been able to better understand the way people think, and thus, the way people behave. Because of these reasons, and President Obama's recent vow to end the Don't ask don't tell policy, I am looking to re-evaluate what it means to be a homosexual, and give my opinion on a seemingly outdated policy.
Is being a homosexual biological or not? This is the question that causes all of the strife between politics, religion, and sometimes everyday conversation. With recent innovations in the fields of psychology and genetics, we are better equipped to answer this difficult question. From what i have read, recent research has shown some promise that homosexuality is linked to genetics.
The American Academy of Pediactrics states that, "The current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation." However, for easily over 100 years the view about homosexuality is that sexual orientation is purely based on the choice of the individual. And it seems that this view will be held until science disproves it. I personally believe that being gay is genetic, and ultimately not the individuals choice. Perhaps this is why I believe that science will disprove the long held belief.
Now, the Don't ask don't tell policy was created because of the belief that having an openly gay indivdual in the military would create "an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." To me, this seems that any strong difference in opinions between individuals could effect the "morale and unit cohesion" of the military. Studies on the effects of homosexual behavior on performance of tasks shows no cause for concern. The American Psychological Association states that, "Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention." When serving in the military, everyone shares a common goal. Protect your country, and survive. This goal does not change based on an individuals sexual orientation. If I need someone to save my life or my country, i would not care who they were. They could be an alien for all I know. I think that the Don't ask don't tell policy is bogus, and I think that it should end.
I have only touch the surface of the debate of homosexuality in the military and whether it's biological or the individuals choice. There are many more topics of gay rights, discrimination, and science to be considered here, but I will leave that to be discussed.

2 comments:

  1. I think that the two best points for the argument of abolishing the don't ask don't tell policy are 1. It doesn't effect performance in the military.
    2. In a time of need who cares who is saving the country, as long as someone does it.
    I see a lot of the the Steven Pinker theory in your argument, being that you think that being gay is not a choice, it is genetics. It is hard to tie in the other theorists to the idea of gay being a choice. With the blank slate theory, it seems doubtful that people are telling children that they should be gay and then those children turning out to be gay. When getting into topics of equality like this it can be brought back to using genetic determinism to legitimize oppression. But in this case it seems that it's the other way around, using genetic determinism to fight oppression.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm with Jack here, and keep coming back to 'individual ownership' of our bodies and lives (even though I know where and how that was invented).

    This really goes to the whole biopolitical mess around 'gay genes.' If it's 'genetic' then 'one can't help it.' But with a lot of queer activists, I really fear some effort to 'cure' it. OR worse: Hitler's genetic program.

    We'll have a lot to do here with Anne Fausto Sterling's book.

    ReplyDelete