英语论文网

secondary impact for those who currently serve or those wishing to serve because:

1. There is a belief that the DADT policy may disrupt unit cohesion,

2. That some parents, those on the conservative end of the argument, may no longer allow their children to serve in the military where homosexuals or bisexuals are serving,

3. 'Straight' service members may feel uncomfortable showering with service members because it is unknown who may be homosexual or bisexual, and

4. A poll conducted by the Military Times, in 2008, revealed that the repeal of the DADT policy would decrease re-enlistment rate by 10% and an additional 14% would consider not re-enlisting, further causing a reduction in available forces (McGarry, 2008).

Due to these 'secondary' impacts, there can be a reduction in forces ready and willing to serve the United States. Further, this would cause more strain on a current forces with the possibility of more frequent and longer deployment cycles. As an example the United States Navy, who deploys even during peace time, may be required to extend a standard six month deployment to a twelve month deployment. This would not only put added strain on the service members but could possibly disrupt and cause additional strain on their loved ones.

Another group to consider on the impact of this policy would be the senior enlisted members who enforce the policy. Their beliefs, values and ethics, by enforcing the policy, may be compromised. On the other hand, what if they are 'secretly' homosexual/bisexual and have to enforce the discharge or a service member under this policy. This could cause undue hardship on these senior enlisted service members and may further cause more of a disruption in unit cohesion than actually having homosexuals in the unit.

The families of the service members, whom are homosexual/bisexual, are also greatly impacted. Family support groups set up programs for families within the military, whom have children or spouses deployed. The significant others of a homosexual or bisexual service member would not get to participate, openly, with the programs offered to families by the military; which in essence means that they have to adhere to this policy, even though they are not serving. If the service member has children, the child would also have to adhere to the policy even though they are not serving. In order to keep this 'secret', if at all possible, the service member would have to teach the child to lie or not talk about it. The service members' parents would also have to lie, or not talk about it either. So in actuality, this policy must be followed by those that have not chosen to serve.

When the DADT policy is compared and contrasted to the NASW Code of Ethics, Section 6.04, the policy is inconsistent in that it does not encourage respect of diversity for service member who are homosexual or bisexual. The policy also does not safeguard the rights of a service member whose sexual orientation does not conform to the military's thinking. The first amendment of the United States Constitution allows for the right to free speech (US Constitution). By not allowing a service member to talk about their sexual orientation, if they are homosexual or bisexual, this policy takes away the First Amendment right of the service member.

Another part of the policy that is inconsistent with the NAS