Sociology

Introduction
The way to reform the military and general public is to make it obvious from top down. Homosexuals are equally able, encompass equal rights and must equally be free from unjust abuse and discrimination. The way to achieve this is to permit them to serve in the armed forces. Denying homosexuals a chance to serve in the military is a gross violation of human rights, discrimination and contempt of sexual identity. In addition, maintaining this archaic, uncouth, and outdated ban will merely maintain the invidious homophobic chauvinism in the military.

Its an opportune time that everyone utilizes the God given capability to reason logically when discussing issues that have to do with equality. The rights for gay individuals to serve in the military openly devoid of having to pretend to be something else is an example of God given right (Sather, 2004). Over the years societies have expected gay individuals to be something they are not in their entire life. One ought to look at the statistics of a number of countries that have permitted gays in the military for a long period of time. Countries, such as Canada, Israel and United Kingdom are greatest allies of United States and have allowed gays in their military forces (Silver, 2009). Gay soldiers serving these countries have been considered invaluable in all aspects of military and there remains no single evidence which shows their breach of morals in the forces. Besides, comparing adultery and homosexuality, one can say that both are equal, but why soldiers who commit adultery in military are sometimes just punished but still permitted to serve. Whereas gay individuals are discharged devoid of committing any ignominious behaviors despite of years of honorable service that frequently comes to an unexpected end when they are discovered to be gays (Newton, 2009).

That aside, no one can realistically doubt the capability of a gay woman or man to be as a coordinated, hard working, patriotic and intelligent as one of their heterosexual counterparts. It is thus, sheer intolerance to deny those who desire to join military the chance to do so (Jones, 2000). Moreover, much of debate against the admission of gay individuals in military is mainly based on the problems resulting from homophobia amongst heterosexuals. The homophobia is encouraged and maintained by continued segregation. Therefore, permitting straight soldiers to observe how effective gay soldiers can be will lessen the prejudice. Additionally, if gays were allowed in the military, they would not need to remain in the clandestine (Jones, 2000). This therefore, would diminish the danger of blackmail that is fast decreasing as homosexuality is more and more accepted. Furthermore, individual sexual identity can be reached at dissimilar times. Lesbians and gays often come to terms with their sexuality either in their late teens or early twenties, which could be long after being enlisted in the armed forces. Therefore, a ban would entail the dismissal, firing, or sacking of serving staff that had joined armed force in good faith. This is unfairness, bigotry as well as discrimination at its worst and contravenes the constitution of this country (Newton, 2009).

The military department is stunningly sluggish in making policy changes, though statistics are crystalline clear from other nations that permit gays in the military. It has been established that gays have done completely no harm to the morale of heterosexual soldiers. The whole disgusting discourse about compromising or destroying the morale of straight soldiers is so blatantly prejudiced and is contempt of sexual identity based on the experience of several other countries (Chapman, 2010).  While United States is supposed to be a global leader in respecting peoples identity, but has fall short in addressing the issue of gays in the military. If an individual cannot serve in the military because of his or her sexual identity, then this is seen as an infringement on personal identity and subsequent violation of human rights. Undoubtedly, ones sexual identity or orientation ought not to make him or her less patriotic or incapable of serving the country. Thus gays contain as much right to serve in military, just like anyone else provided they keep their homosexual identity to themselves.

Conclusion
The culture of military breeds a certain type of homogeny that leaves little or no room for the screaming queen behavior, which conservative fundamentalists appear to envision (Silver, 2009). Whist any human activity will inexorably, inevitably and relentlessly have sexual undertone, individuals who join armed forces normally do so for specified banal reasons to uphold principles of democracy, to protect the nation and to develop personal career. Besides, the present global terrorism dictates an urgent need for a sturdy, invigorated military force. We therefore need to engage in a public discourse concerning the more pertinent issues, which affect almost all enlisted troops. These include the quality of military training, the combat readiness of military fleet, the state of veterans administration and the care and support for wounded soldiers returning from the front. Hand wringing regarding sexual dominance or peccadilloes appears like a petty archaic issue in the face of the greater moral and administrative issues facing disciplined forces.