HETERO/HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS IN OUR ARMED FORCES | Quick Homework Help

Abstract
Homosexuality is a debatable subject is almost all aspects of human life, and open service of the gays and lesbians in the military is not an exception. This paper aims at identifying whether open service of homosexuals in the military has a significant influence on the efficiency of the military basing on unit cohesion and task performance. The paper first discusses homosexuality in the social context with a specific consideration on the armed forces. The paper identified the efficiency of the military is significantly determined by task cohesion, rather than social cohesion, which has no relationship with task performance. It was also established that negative perceptions towards homosexuality in the armed forces in based on the construct of social cohesion rather than task cohesion. In order to further deduce a conclusion, the analysis was broken down to the deleterious effects of cohesion on task performance, and the ways in which openly serving homosexuals influence unit task performance. In aIDition, the paper discussed the influences of openly serving gay and lesbian soldiers on attitudes and the ways in which negative perceptions towards homosexuality are expressed in behavior. It was found out that task cohesion is a significant driving factor for group performance. Research studies have indicated that in cases whereby social cohesion is too high, there is probability of negative consequences on task performance due to excessive socialization, insubordination and groupthink. With respect to the issue of homosexuals serving in the military, it is important to note that policies concerning sexual orientation are ultimately based on the aspect of social cohesion and not task cohesion that is core requirement for effectiveness of the military

Introduction
The aspect of homosexuals and lesbians serving openly in the military is a subject of contention, with the opposing sides citing their implications on their implications and efficiency on the task performance of military operations (Sinclair, 2008). The concept of homosexuality in the context of military serves as a reflection of the perceptions of the larger societal understandings. The opposing viewpoints have various reasons regarding the aspect of sexual orientation in the military, with the proponents arguing that homosexual soldiers have served in the military bravely as expected, while the opponents are against the argument that the heterosexual individuals can serve in the military service effectively if homosexuals are amidst them (Sinclair, 2008). The principal concern according to the opponents is that the presence of homosexuals in the military will impose a discomfort, which will in turn affect the moral and discipline of the soldiers, which is an impediment to unit cohesion that is a core requirement for effective military service. The effectiveness of the of the military service faces a significant bottleneck associated with the discrimination of the homosexuals in the military service. The perception that homosexual individual on the military serve to undermine the morale and unit cohesion is mainly dependent on a specific viewpoint that cohesion is a social issue that is dependent on interpersonal emotions that exists between the members of a military unit. Therefore, the basic argument is that gay soldiers who serve openly do not undermine the morale and unit cohesion of the military (Harris, 2005). This research paper discusses the implications of the homosexuals serving openly on the military with respect to the aspect of unit cohesion and task performance, which are core in determining the effectiveness of the military. The conclusion of the topic is reached after an empirical analysis of the arguments for and against the open service of the homosexuals in the military.
Heterosexuals and homosexuals in the armed forces
Homosexuality refers to a sexual attraction involving individuals of the same biological sex. Homosexual behavior influences a person’s social identity. This implies that different social groups have different perceptions towards homosexuality. A significant number of behavioral and health experts consent that homosexual is a normal disparity in the biological sexual orientation. Mental and health organizations have consented to support homosexuality as a normal sexual behavior. On the contrary, religious organizations such as the Catholics and Muslims have maintained their stance against homosexuality as sinful. These conflicting views make homosexuality a contentious subject in the society. The principal reason for negative perceptions towards homosexuals is that their sexual orientation is a deviation from the normal biological sexual orientation expected from people; this in turn implies that homosexuals have a significant effect on the social units and various aspects that affect the relationships between individuals in a social unit (Belkin & Bateman, 2003).
The issue of homosexuals openly serving in the armed forces has been a subject of contention since the introduction of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the United States. Mostly, liberals are for open service of the homosexuals in the military while the conservatives are arguing that the “don’t tell, don’t ask” policy should be maintained, or rather homosexuals should be banned from the armed service altogether (Halley, 1999). Under the “don’t, ask don’t tell” policy, the military does not inquire a person’s sexual orientation or preference during the time of enlistment. In aIDition, the military does not conduct aIDitional investigations upon an individual claiming that he/she is homosexual; however, the military can investigate allegations involving homosexual conduct, which still a basis for discharge. Homosexual conduct does not only incorporate homosexual acts while undertaking active duty, but also informing other military personnel that you are a homosexual, which is outlined in the “don’t tell” part. In order to effectively analyze the impacts of homosexuals openly serving in the military, it is vital to have an understanding of the effects of homosexuality on unit cohesion and morale, which is directly related to task performance of the armed forces, which serves to analyze the impacts that homosexuality imposes on group dynamics (Harris, 2005).
According to scientific research, the aspect of cohesion cannot be perceived as a unitary construct. As a result, there are more dimensions concerning the literature of military cohesion, which mostly entails social and task cohesion. Social cohesion can be used to mean the type and strength of emotional bonds among members of the military unit. Task cohesion on the other hand mainly involves a common commitment towards the realization of a certain goal, and is mainly dependent on the collective effort of the members of the unit. It is vital to ascertain which dimension of cohesion has a significant effect on the performance and effectiveness of the military (Burelli & Jody, 2009).
Homosexuality on unit cohesion and military task performance
There are increasingly new concerns regarding the implications of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on the military unit cohesion. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of Defense during the President Clinton administration under which the policy was adopted cited that the policy will bring an end discrimination against the homosexuals in the armed forces in a manner that is reflects consistency in terms of high standards of unit cohesion and effectiveness of the US military, which are a significant expectation of the armed forces (Belkin & Bateman, 2003).
There are two main dimensions of cohesion that are relevant in the context of military units, they are social and task cohesion. It is vital to distinguish which perspective of unit cohesion has significant effects on task performance. In aIDition, it is vital to determine which dimension is significantly related to the aspect of homosexuality openly serving on the United States armed forces. Social cohesion can be defined as type and extent of emotional bonds relating to friendship, care, closeness and concern among the members a group. Therefore, a group is considered social cohesive is its members like one another, prefer spending their social time together, the group members are comfortable in each other’s company and are usually close to one another in the emotional perspective (Belkin & Bateman, 2003). On the other hand, task cohesion can be defined as a shared commitment that exists among the members of a group with the main objective of the achievement of the outline goal, which in most cases needs joint efforts from the members of the group to be completed successfully. A group is considered to be task cohesive if its members share a universal goal and are driven by motivation aimed at coordinating and undertaking their activities as a team in order to achieve the stated goal (Burelli & Jody, 2009).
A meta-analysis regarding the relationship between cohesion and performance reveals that there is a positive correlation between cohesion and performance, and that the relationship increases with an increase in the need to communicate, coordinate and monitor performance. This implies that task cohesion is of ultimate significance compared to social cohesion when determining the morale and unit cohesion, which in turn influences the effectiveness of the military units (Burelli & Jody, 2009). In fact, task cohesion is a significant driving factor for group performance. Research studies have indicated that in cases whereby social cohesion is too high, there is probability of negative consequences on task performance due to excessive socialization, insubordination and groupthink. With respect to the issue of homosexuals serving in the military, it is important to note that policies concerning sexual orientation are ultimately based on the aspect of social cohesion and not task cohesion that is core requirement for effectiveness of the military (Belkin & Bateman, 2003).
Deleterious effects associated with cohesion
There are deleterious influences of cohesion regarding the aspect task performance. Intuition proposes that individuals that like each other are likely to work together effectively compared to people who do not like each other. This implies that the lack of independent effect if social cohesion on most of the experimental studies and the negative impact that social cohesion imposes on most of the co-relational studies is counterintuitive. As a matter of fact, the conventional wisdom is that social cohesion is complex and has deleterious impacts on the aspect of task performance. Harris (2005) argues that sometimes high levels of social cohesion serve to undermine the effectiveness of activities associated with group decision making because it fosters the creation of a state of groupthink, which is more likely to occur in cases whereby the cohesiveness is greatly influenced by a person gains prestige from the perception of being a member of an elite group rather than when cohesiveness is based on the looming opportunity to undertake tasks competently with other members of the group. Meta-analysis has supported the proposition that social cohesion facilitates the creation of groupthink, and most interesting is the observation that task cohesion helps in preventing groupthink from taking place (Halley, 1999).
High extents of social cohesion also results to high levels of socializing, which is a significant impediment to task performance, this is mainly because of the fact pleasure accrued from social interaction serves to precede group motivation and this results to most energy being used in enhancing interpersonal relations rather than undertaking the tasks. Prior to analyzing the issue of homosexuality in the context of armed forces, it is important to discuss how openly serving homosexuals influence cohesion and their task performance.
The influence of acknowledged homosexuals on cohesion and task performance
It is arguably evident there are negative perceptions towards homosexuals serving in the military and the larger concept of homosexuality in the context of the armed forces. This has in turn increased concerns regarding the presence of openly serving homosexuals in military unit cohesion and task performance (Belkin & Bateman, 2003). In order to speculate the implications that gays and lesbians impose on unit cohesion and task performance, it is vital to evaluate how the presence of an openly serving homosexual affects both task and social cohesion, and how contact with openly serving individuals will affect the attitudes of military personnel towards homosexuality. In aIDition, it is important to speculate whether negative perceptions towards homosexuality are likely to be manifested in behavior, and whether heterosexuals are likely to comply with commands issued by a homosexual leader (Belkin & Bateman, 2003).
How does the presence of openly serving gay or lesbian affect cohesion?
Despite the fact that there is no direct scientific evidence concerning the implications of openly serving homosexuals on the aspect of unit cohesion, the already established principles and conventional wisdom reveal that their presence is likely to impose an effect on social cohesion rather than task cohesion. This is mainly because resemblance in the social attitudes and beliefs have no direct association with task cohesion, and they are directly associated with social cohesion (Burelli & Jody, 2009). Task cohesion exhibits a different kind of similarity that is manifested in shared commitments and goals. This means that the presence of a homosexual individual is less likely directly affect group commitment. In aIDition, historical tales report that homosexuals who are openly serving in the military have shown commitment to the core values of the military, which involves fighting expertise, team work that is based on professional values, individual discipline, stamina, selfless service and loyalty. The inference that can be made from this is that the presence of openly serving gays and lesbians are more likely to affect social cohesion rather than task cohesion (Thomas, 1993). Therefore, it can be inferred that openly serving gays and lesbians have minimal influence on the effectiveness of the military, since their presence does not affect social performance. There are some instances whereby a reduction in social cohesion also affects the task performance; this is in the case of aIDitive tasks, whereby the effectiveness of task performance at the group level significantly depends on the cumulative individual task performances. It can be summed up that the effect of openly serving homosexuals is dependent on the nature of the task, and whether the unit members agree or disagree to work collaboratively in order to achieve the mission. This is discussed in the following section.
How does contact with openly serving gays and lesbians affect attitudes?
The attitudes after contact with the openly serving homosexuals are primarily dependent on the underlying perceptions regarding homosexuality in the larger society. Social cohesion is greatly affected is there are homosexual individuals among the military personnel since it leads to the establishment of an “us versus them” atmosphere within the military. Research studies have suggested that in cases whereby there are boundaries in social groups within a military unit, there are three effects that are likely to take place (Burelli & Jody, 2009). Firstly, there is the aspect of in-group bias, whereby by individuals evaluate other members of the group constructively because they are perceived to be in-group members. Secondly, there is the aspect of between-group contrast market, in such a manner that there is exaggeration in the manner in which group members evaluate their differences with the members from an out group (Thomas, 1993). Thirdly, there is an aspect of out-group homogeneity effect, whereby individuals in a group overstress the level to which the individuals belonging to an out-group are perceived to be alike. The effect associated with in-group bias effects serves to reflect a constructive relationship towards members of the in-group, although it does not exhibit hostility towards the members of an out-group. This implies that group boundaries are usually evident although they are not enough to impose hostility to individuals in an out-group (Belkin & Bateman, 2003). This is a typical explanation for the case of homosexuality in the armed forces. The behavioral attitudes directed at homosexuality are usually complex because they are based on different origins such as socialization, religious orientation, social conformance and influences by the media. This underlying complexity serves various psychological functions such as the assessment of an individual’s experiences and expectations towards homosexuality, conformist function used in assessing an individual’s unity with other people that are heterosexual and value-expressive function used in the revealing of a person’s values and identities towards homosexuality. In aIDition, the attitudes can be used as a defensive function for decreasing the anxiety associated with an individual’s sexual orientation. The question is whether being in contact with homosexuals enhances constructive attitudes towards homosexuality. Sometimes it enhances, but not always. Limited research has been conducted regarding this subject. Evidence exists that people who know gays and lesbians have less negative perceptions towards them and the aspect of homosexuality at large. This serves to indicate maintaining positive interactions with homosexuals can help in breaking down stereotypes. However, studies regarding intergroup contact reveal that contact alone is not adequate to enhance intergroup relations. Despite this approach, it has been determined that intergroup contact helps in the reduction of hostilities towards out-group individuals. The military as an institution has its own tools and methods that can be used to aIDress group boundaries imposed by homosexual individuals openly serving in the military (Belkin & Bateman, 2003). This implies that contact with homosexuals have minimal effect on imposing negative attitudes towards homosexuals and homosexuality, which means that it open serving homosexuals does not impose negative influences on unit cohesion and task performance.
How are negative perceptions directed at homosexuals and homosexuality expressed in behavior?
The increased expression of negative feelings directed at homosexuality by the heterosexual military personnel increases the concern of heterosexual military personnel will conduct themselves in the presence of openly serving military personnel. Therefore, there are speculations of heterosexual soldier’s refusal to cooperate with homosexual soldiers and an increase in discriminative violence imposed on homosexuals (Burelli & Jody, 2009). However, there is little evidence to imply that negative perceptions towards the homosexuals are transformed to destructive behaviors. This is because attitudes have indirect, complicated and weak influences on social groups, and it is presumed that behavior is not significantly determined by social attitudes. From this, an inference that can be made is that a negative attitude directed towards homosexuals and homosexuality is that it will influence human behavior through the influence it has on individual attitudes. For instance, the attitudes associated with working together with a homosexual, sleeping and showering in the same place with homosexuals and the attitudes associated with physical harassment of the homosexuals (Belkin & Bateman, 2003). In aIDition, social attitudes directed at homosexuality can be argued to be partial determinants of individual behavior directed at homosexual acts. The basic implication is that the military personnel are in a position that one cannot compromise the job done at the expense of intergroup relations. This means that a soldier is supposed to ensure that the task is performed first prior to assessing his behavioral attitudes towards individuals that he/she is working with. In aIDition, the social attitudes towards homosexuality have an indirect relationship with human behavior via the influence it imposes on the underlying motivation to be involved in the act.
With respect to whether military individuals will obey the commands issued by a homosexual leader, it is arguably evident that military leaders have to deploy different forms of social power and referent power in order to motivate their subordinates. Harris (2005) identifies various types of social power including reward power, legitimate power, expert power and referent power. Leaders in the armed forces require more than authoritative power to motivate their subordinates. In fact, military personnel should significantly rely on referent power as a source of motivation for their subordinates. In fact, the effectiveness of military leaders depends on the enjoyment and benefits accrued from being liked by their subordinates, although it is not a key requirement for getting the mission completed effectively. The underlying argument is that authoritative power supersedes the referent power in getting tasks completed in the armed forces context (Belkin & Bateman, 2003).
Conclusion
Despite the increasing concerns concerning the prospective effects of the homosexuals serving openly in the military are based on hard facts, the potential problems are not overwhelming and there is an adequate reasons to accept the perception that both the heterosexuals and homosexuals in the military can work together effectively. This is mainly because co-workers have the capability of effectively undertaking their tasks as a team without having to emotionally like one another; as such, it is unlikely that aspects of social cohesion will have an effect on the capability of the military to complete its missions successfully and effectively. The argument is that homosexuals can undermine the aspect of social cohesion, but they do not undermine task cohesion, which is the key towards effective military service. This is because task performance is not determined by social cohesion, rather a commitment to work together and share a common goal. Therefore, openly serving homosexuals do not serve to undermine the morale and cohesion of the unit.

References
Belkin, A., & Bateman, G. (2003). Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Debating the Gay Ban in the Military. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
Burelli, D. F., & Jody, F. (2009). Homosexuals and the US millitary: current issues. Washington: Congressional Research Service.
Halley, J. (1999). Don’t: A Reader’s Guide to the Military’s Anti-Gay Policy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Harris, R. (2005). Analyzing questions that cannot be asked of respondents who cannot respond. Forces and Society , 31 (5), 411-435.
Sinclair, G. (2008). Homosexuality and the U.S. military: A study of homosexual identity and choice of military service. Arlington: ProQuest.
Thomas, G. (1993). Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices of Foreign Countries. New York: Diane publishing.