Gay and Lesbian Adoption Essay
Homosexuality has been a part of civilization since the early years of recorded history. Erotic attraction and sexual endeavors between males were deep-rooted and acquiesced part of the cultural standrds of Ancient Greece. Historically, homosexuals (gays, lesbians. bi-sexuals and transvestites) were subjects to social injustice such as violence, prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping (Rupp 287).
In certain circunstances, topics concerning homosexuality have been used by administtrations as a means to divert public attention to more serious social, political and economic problems. Nations across the planet have various acts with regard to same-sex relations. The variations range from same-sex matrimonies to death penalty for homosexual behavior. Decriminalization of homosexual acts in western nations were already accomplished throughout the 19th century, however, homosexuals only achieved civil rights in the 1970s and were confined.
Homosexuality and homosexual acts were once diagnosed as mental ailments and pathology which needs treatment. Now it is deemed as a fraction of a larger force in the understanding of history, genetics, psychology, politics, biology, deviations of norms in mulit-cultural sexual identities and practices (Rupp 288). Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy The United States Military have always had various responses to other sexual minorities, due to its threats to discipline, morale and good order that contribute to military strength and capability.
In a particular note, the medical and popular perspective of homosexuals changed in line with the changes in equipment technology. Though the U. S military policies surrounding homosexuality drifted away from its penalizing and discriminating tendencies in accordance to the changing diagnosis of the origins of Homosexuality, the Military restricts any practice of homosexual conduct and vocal staement regarding gender preference including matrimonial unions and familial matters (Evans 4).
The policy was, originally, a compromisory act approved by then president Bill Clinton who gave the word prior to his presidency that all citizens will be allowed military service regardless of sexual orientation. A complete contradiction of the current policy at the time which was all homosexuals are banned from service. The previous policy was drafted by former United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and is currently being upholded by President George W. Bush (Evans 13).
Shiltis (1994) indicated that since the time of the American Revolutionary war, oral and anal sexual acts otherwise called as sodomy were treated as gounds for dishonorable discharge from service (Evans 8). The American Articles of War stood firm in its position on sodomy until 1942 when the army screening for recruitment and training deemed homosexuality as a valid reason for seclusion from the military, thus bringing them back to civilian status stripping benefits and experiencing difficulty in employment due to the discharge (Evans 9).
For more than 40 years, the armed forces’ screening of homosexuals in the service was the center of debate. In 1957, the Crittenden Report of the United States Navy came upon a conclusion that the security hazards of homosexuals were no different from those of the heterosexuals and found no rational basis for excluding homosexuals from service, however, the implications of change were halted because of normative issues on the social aspect (Evans 12).
A notable development in the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was the proclamation of Don’t Persue, Don’t Harass amendment, this amendment clearly states the prohibition of physical assault against homosexual members of the United States Armed Forces, though there are still reports of continued abuse against the third sex in the military(Evans 13). In 1981 the armed forces of the United States decreed that all of its constituents should retain all suspected homosexuals at the branch’s discretion.
this in turn paved the way for “queen for a day” rule, this allowed a soldier to retain service with the condition of admitting that the homosexual act only happened once. An ordinance regarding homosexuality designed by the Defense Department was also released in 1981 suggested that such conduct are grounds for discharge from service (Evans 13). However, the regulation also included the treatment of homosexuality as a form of disability thereby granting recipients an honorable discharge.
Throughout the 80s, Randy Shilits (1994) recalled that Presidentiables from the democratic party expressed interests in the amendment of regulations regarding military homosexuality alongside increasing public synpathy. Shilits further noted that the Defense Force Management: DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality report of 1992 by the United States General Accounting Office outlined the Defense Department’s policy on homosexuality and the reasons for it.
A previously unpublished report by the Department of Defense in 1988 showing similar conclusion with the Crittenden report was included as well. The two reports were published in 1993 together with an argument by a general who was against the lifting of the ban against homosexuals in the army incorporating the idea of security risk plus suggestions that presence of people with such sexuality cause unit irregularities and morale with the statement that such people practice destructive and immoral life-styles (Evans 13).
Congressional debates took place on the lifting of the ban throughout the 80s and the early 90s (Evans 15). The pro side called for a compromise and complete amendment of the ban while the anti side totally opposed for the admission of the gay and bisexual people to the army. Numerous relentless calls that called for the retaining of the ban overwhelmed the congressional phonelines causing then the United States Congress to formulate a win-win solution via the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy (Evans 14).
The congressional compromise primarily stated that the military should not question the sexual act and orientation of the new recruits, secondly, the military willnot investigate on a serveiceman’s or woman’s sexual orientaion without concrete evidence, and lastly self-professed homosexua;s will not venture into public statements and acts concerning their gender and will not embark on sny activity insinuating their homosexuality (14).
In 2000, the principal author of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, David Moskos contended that the policy will be gone in 5-10 years time (Frank 71). He also trashed the argument on unit deterioration, and focused on the idea that gay men and women should be banned because of modesty rights (Frank 72). Since president George W. Bush’s succesion of the presidency, the ban was again enforced. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy has been raised to the Supreme Court five times.
In a recent case, the Supreme Court ruled over the disregard for sexual orientaion in military service recruitment. According to Tom Shanker and Patrick Healy, the current electoral candidates, particularly the Democrats, are in support of repealing the policy, conversely, the republicans are in favor of the retention of ban. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and the gay treayment of the military for that matter varied in recent years. Military leaders have always rejected the presence of homosexuals in the force.
Despite the fact that there are regulations favoring the homosexual people, the question of their acknowledgement to the force being the center of argumentation and debate is already damaging their morale, not as soldiers, but as people. The political personalities of America have been divided by the matters concerning honosexuals in the military, however, the only victims of the long running debate are the people in question themselves. The only non-offensive solution to this matter is to admit people in the military in spite of the sexual orientation.
After all, they are also American citizens and the only thing that really matters is their ability and not their preferences. Society on Homosexuality Cultures across the world including the United States usually place gays and lesbians in the center of discrimination, sterotyping and prejudice. The conventional generalizations, images and opinion are seen on various presentations such as theatre, television and film. Most gay men are typecasted as effeminate, inspite of the distinction between identity and social orientation. On Broadway musicals, gay men are depicted as show tune fanatics and involved in the performing arts.
Moreover, gay men are typecasted to have “speech oddities” such as careful pronunciations, wide pitch range, breathy tone and a feminine tone. Visually, Gay men are typically dubbed to have a relationship with fashion, meaning gay men are more fashionable and enjoy shopping. Meanwhile, Lesbians are usually depicted as women interested in conventional manly labor such as construction, uniformed service and truck driving. Feminists are often portrayed as lesbians due to their perceived misandry, thus judging all lesbians as man haters (Eaton 1).
Bisexual sterotypes often are presented to be deceitful and perverted. In another sense, Lynsen Joshua explains that bisexuality is exemplified as a temporary gender orientation when a person is under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, while Cindi Creager contends that bisexuals are closet homosexuals. Transgenders, in the context of stereotyping are mainly seen as cross dressing homosexuals. There are also misconceptions of transgenders as prostitues and comic representaions of men and women, however, this is not considered to be stereotyping in any sense.
Discriminations on homosexuals escalated the issue to the political level. In this regard, politicians have commented on Homosexual issues, particularly on the rising controversy of same sex marriage. Hillary Clinton, for instance, mentioned that she disbelieves the fact that being homosexual is immoral. But she is still not in favor of having a bill for same-sex marriage. John Edwards is also questionable because when he was on his run for presidency, he supported civil unions for homosexual couples and for each state there are certain policy regarding this.
Rudolph Giuliani also opposed gay marriage but he is on the midst as to whether support it or not since he is seen marching along gay parades and even lived with a gay couple when he had his divorce. The real definition of marriage is the basis of Mike Huckabee as he opposes gay marriage. he believes that : That’s their business [but I] don’t agree with it. ” He believes in a traditional definition of marriage where “the rules are one man, one woman for life. ” While he says that “people have a right to decide how they live their lives,” he also believes that “they have to respect not changing the definition of marriage. “
Duncan Hunter also said things in line with Huckabee in defining marriage he supported this by saying that a child should be raised by a set of parents composed by one man and one woman who will stand up as father and mother. Conversely, there are also politicians who beg to differ in terms of opinion. A principal supporter of gay rights is Joe Biden, he is one of the proponents of the Defence Marriage Act of 1996 which allows same-sex marriage under the United States federal government law. Seven years after he mentioned that gay marriage makes gay couple’s relationship more stabilized. “I don’t know why we should be frightened of that.
” Biden voted against a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and also voted in favor of expanding the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation. Dennis Kucinich is also 50-50 on the issue since he first ran for Congress in 1996 he mentioned that “marriage equality is for all” and has said that “those who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans gendered, these are God’s children. They should have the same rights. “(Candidates, 2008) but later on opposed a law in 2003 and mentioned that it is still the federal law that will allow marriage of gay couples.
Though most politicians and their parties only support gay causes for popularity, active minor political parties are also expressed support over homosexual rights and the Socialist party even nominated prominent homosexual David Mcreynolds as their bet on the 1980 presidential elections. Political Participation on homosexual issues only made matters worst. Fortunately the long argument also was a vital contributor to the catapulting of gay movements in America and in the World. The controversy over homosexual matters led various groups to advocate equality of rights, regardless of sexuality or gender preference.
The unchanging norms and views on homosexuals motivated young gay and lesbian people to fight for their liberation due to their struggle against racism and sexism. Various Gay Liberation movements were demonstrated throughout the 1960s. According to Jeffrey Weeks, since the 1980s, homosexuals more homosexual equality movements have been precise in their advocacies. Individual rights were given more emphasis rather than conservatism in society. Neither were these demonstrations of homosexual groups incorporated with left wing politics. The business community of America also adopted the anti-discrimination acts that cover gender preference.
The Gay rights movement has spread into several countries around the world. Many of these movements influenced homosexual activists. However, even the homosexual community, similar to other parties giving opinion on the homosexual matters have clashes in opinion. The Human Rights Campaign organization conform to a more mainstream, reformist tradition. while the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force prefer grass-roots activism and peaceful demonstrations.
Works Cited “Candidates on Homosexual Marriage” 14, January 2008. Catholic Online/Politics. 14, January 2008
Study Acers provides students with tutoring and help them save time, and excel in their courses. Students LOVE us!No matter what kind of essay paper you need, it is simple and secure to hire an essay writer for a price you can afford at StudyAcers. Save more time for yourself. Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more