Within the speech titled “Gay, the Military and My Son,” by Roscoe Thorne, a father discusses his upset with the Pentagon’s recent decision that gays cannot serve in the armed forces, (Thorne, Roscoe, 1993). Having read Thorne’s powerful arguments, I take the viewpoint that he has highlighted a major flaw in the United States Navy that should be addressed. Regardless of an individual’s sexual preference, an individual should agree to allow homosexuals in the armed forces because regardless of an individual’s sexual preference, they still have the power to be effective leaders and contribute to the armed forces of this country. Some excellent examples of leaders in the gay movement are Rosie O’Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres in that they inspire those who are in the closet to be proud of what they are while still being a positive role model for community outreach within the United States. That being said, the gay rights movement has a long way to go in the United States due to homosexuals being an underrepresented class that challenges societal norms, homosexuals are viewed to have a diminished ability to perform their job equal to heterosexuals, and that homosexuals are being judged based on their beliefs as a groups as African-Americans were during the civil rights era.
Historically, the United States has tended to discriminate against underrepresented classes that are challenging societal norms. The case discussed here by Thorne is no different with homosexuals. By allowing homosexuals to be treated in the military, it challenges the conservative values that the military possesses. For this reason, it is no surprise that the military did not recognize that homosexuals could be admitted to serve as leaders or serve in general. I greatly disagree with the limitations that the military has placed on homosexuals because their sexual preference does not dictate their performance potential in a job within the military or any industry for that matter.
The reason that I take the viewpoint that an individual’s sexual preference has no bearing on their job performance is that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Homosexuals have been great leaders in the world, although many of them never officially came out of the closet. Homosexuality was seen as forbidden due to how the Bible describes marriage between a man and a woman. In modern times, this definition has been greatly challenged because scholars have tried to debate why homosexuality makes someone less adequate for a job.
I agree with Thorne’s comparison of the homosexual rights debate to the civil rights era. Even though the civil rights era was based on race rather than sexual preference, the thought process was the same in that the United States was trying to exclude an underrepresented group based on a factor that did not determine their capability of possessing employment, education, and the like. The argument was the same at the beginning for African-Americans in the military as well. They were excluded based on the thought process that the color of their skin made them less capable to complete service. Relating to the homosexuals, an individual’s sexual preference has no bearing on their potential job performance and leadership potential. In fact, the hurdles they have faced relating to their sexual preference would likely make them better leaders in the future.
All in all, I greatly agree with the contents of this speech because it illuminates a very pertinent issue in American society. Even though we are discriminating against homosexuals today, we will be choosing another underrepresented group to discriminate against tomorrow. This is precisely why we have to evolve our practices that we conducted against African-Americans in the civil rights era and now homosexuals in the military. Having homosexuals in the military is something that should not dictate the decision process for a job application or potential of a promotion. When deciding the merit of an application for a potential job, the only qualities that should be assessed are their attributes that are relevant to the position that they are applying for such as: education, linguistic skills, and work experience rather than their sexual preference or race.
References
Thorne, Roscoe. “Gays, the Military and My Son.” 1993. Web. 8 May 2016.
