From the writer's perspective, U.S. leaders have problems accepting that homosexuality is not actually an impediment in the well-being of the American public and of the armed forces. "As was the case in Australia, Canada, Israel, and Britain, American military leaders can preserve military effectiveness after they lift the ban by holding all soldiers to the same professional standards and by insisting that regardless of personal beliefs about homosexuality, they expect professional conduct from all service members" (Belkin). Belkin's article supports the belief that "Don't ask, don't tell" is ineffective, thus assisting me in supporting my point-of-view regarding how it is wrong to support an ideology that is based on tales rather than being backed by actual facts.

Conditions in the U.S. military are critical, especially given the fact that the public is somewhat unable to distinguish between reality and falseness. People across the country are presented with limited information concerning the genuine effectiveness of "Don't ask, don't tell."

Upholding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Warren L. Ratliff's view concerning the military strategy meant to limit homosexuals in the armed forces is supportive toward the policy. Ratliff considers that the approach is particularly efficient and that it should in point of fact be upgraded to be less permissive. From the writer's perspective, the policy is one of the main reasons for which the military managed to survive for this long without being seriously affected as a result of homosexual interferences. By analyzing several court cases dealing with gay individuals in the military criticizing "Don't ask, don't tell," Ratliff apparently wants to underline that the authorities need to strengthen their take on the matter and bring back conventional views concerning sexual preferences in the armed forces.

This article is important because it brings an anti-homosexual account into discussion, presenting...

military's position in regard to homosexual individuals serving in the armed forces. Whereas matters might appear calm, conditions are critical, considering the numerous cases of people being discriminated on account of their sexual preferences and with no regard about their ability and their dedication to serve their country. Some of the most influential individuals in the country are apparently unwilling to intervene in favor of gay individuals, most probably as a result of knowing that parts of the general public (large numbers of supporters) are not yet prepared to adopt unconventional concepts. Thus, the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy continues to harm individuals that are only guilty of expressing themselves freely.
Works cited

Belkin, Aaron "Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?," Parameters 33.2 (2003)

Belkin, Aaron and Bateman, Geoffrey eds., Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Debating the Gay Ban in the Military (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2003)

Halley, Janet E. Don't: A Reader's Guide to the Military's Anti-Gay Policy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999)

Ratliff, Warren L. "Upholding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Yale Law Journal 106.2 (1996)

Riggle, Ellen D.B. And Tadlock, Barry L. eds., Gays and Lesbians in the Democratic Process: Public Policy, Public Opinion, and Political Representation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999)

"Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces." Retrieved March 6, 2011, from the Cornell University Law School Website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html#b