Having homosexuals in the army has become a subject of debate. Those for and against it have come up with their own arguments for the side they’ve chosen. We’ll look into some of those arguments about this controversy here.

The reasons why some people are not eager to welcome homosexuals in the army are mostly based on opinions and interpretations that may or may not be accurate. Those on the negative would argue that the solidarity among soldiers will decline as soldiers’ knowledge of their comrades’ sexual preference increases. Some would feel comfortable with the idea and some won’t be. It is the latter that poses potential problems, the argument goes. Additionally, the naysayers believe that common knowledge of each soldier’s sexual orientation might kindle a romantic involvement within the troop, consequently causing impartiality during judgment calls.

The only pragmatic point raised by the con side is that of the foundation for the Army’s existence. The military, they contend, was established to protect the country, first and foremost and above all. Thus it (the military) is exempted from providing equal opportunities to all, as mandated by the constitution.

Supporters of having gays in the military assert that their movement stems from a historical standpoint; thus holds water. Some of those who are for the cause also counters that gays have naturally creative minds that will prove to be invaluable in the army in terms of tactical planning and weapons logistics, to name a few. They maintain that the skills and qualifications required of a soldier are not exclusively possessed by a certain gender; therefore, recruitment for the service should never be based on gender. If gender preference becomes a non-criterion in enlistment, the service will be able to address the low number of applicants it has been experiencing.

As mentioned before, the important qualities required of a soldier like loyalty and patriotism can be found across genders. Therefore, excluding non-males in the military prove to be very impractical. The Army should then focus instead on enhancing its recruitment or selection process. The methods they employ should precisely determine which individuals are wholly and unwaveringly committed to serving their country and their countrymen from those who are not. Moreover, superiors who are gender-biased and who use their power to put their subordinates in a disadvantageous position should never be tolerated.

The military should be a breeding ground for resilient individuals who are exceptional physically, emotionally and mentally. Anyone from any gender that fits the bill deserves the opportunity to serve their country. The question is: Should their sexual preference be a basis on whether these individual get to serve?