Week 1 - Dave vs. Razor

Discussion in 'Cigar Lounge Debator's League' started by FromTheSouth, Mar 28, 2010.

  1. FromTheSouth

    FromTheSouth You don't want it with me.

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    843
    This thread is to be judged by Nephew Disarray.

    Razor is the affirmative and Dave is the Negative.

    The thread closes next Sunday at 6 PM CST.

    Resolved: The rights of gays and lesbians to access equal rights outweighs the right of the military to set their own policies.
     
    #1
  2. Razor

    Razor crafts entire Worlds out of Words

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    465

    The military is there to protect our nation. Either on the state or national level, the military is there to protect. What is it to protect our nation, though?

    Well, some would say to protect the lives of our citizens.

    Others would say to protect the money of our citizens.

    Others would say that the military fights to protect the way of American life.

    That last point is what we have to look at. What is our life if it is without our fundamental human rights? What is our life as an American citizen or British citizen or Chinese citizen if that life is not full of the rights guaranteed to us by their respective constitutions?

    It's heard everyday. "Inalienable rights." The United States, Britain, any nation in the world has been built as a response to the need of people to observe their rights. Sure, each nation has a different idea as far as what "rights" are, but each nation is there to protect those rights their people believe they deserve.

    In America, "inalienable rights" applies to everyone in the nation. It applies to anyone under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it applies to anyone under the Constitution. No one can be prejudiced against based upon their gender, creed, skin color, or sexual orientation.

    That is law. There is no variable on that. Hate crimes are tried against people every day because they committed a crime against a person specifically because they are a skin color, a certain gender, a certain creed, or a certain sexual orientation.

    Since there is a law prohibiting such behavior, I'm assuming that means it's our right to be accepted based upon those criteria, no matter what?

    If it is our right, then it is necessary to our way of life.

    If it is necessary to our way of life, then without that premise we are not Americans. We are no longer under the same ideals that are promised any American.

    If it is necessary for the American way of life, then the military much protect that right. They must preserve the rights of all Americans. They must preserve the equality of our citizens.

    For that purpose, the military should be barred from making policy that directly infringes on anyone's inherent right to equality, no matter their creed, color, age, gender, or sexual orientation.
     
    #2
    gd and Dave like this.
  3. Dave

    Dave Administrator
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,576
    Likes Received:
    2,613
    The issue of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military is one that has plagued the armed forces for over a decade. In this debate, I will set out to prove that having gay and lesbian soldiers is neither a good thing for the armed forces in general, or the soldiers who serve within them.

    The “war” over equal rights for gays and lesbians is an argument that will never cease to exist. Not until gay and lesbian people are publicly accepted as being that way. In a world that is ruled by discrimination, this seems like an awful lot to ask. Take for example, every homosexual’s struggle to admit to being gay. Telling their parents, the people who gave them life, that they are that way inclined, becomes so much more than spitting out a few words. Rather, it is a source of embarrassment, dread and fear. They are worried about how their parents may take it and would rather not say. I have openly gay friends, who tell me that being openly gay is the most wonderful feeling. However, “coming clean” to their loved ones was the hardest thing they have ever done. Afraid of how society would look down on them, they kept it bottled up inside for years.

    My point being, if you can’t tell the people who brought you into this world, the people that love you and the people that have been close to you for your entire life, how are homosexuals expected to tell a room full of strangers in a military situation. For that reason, it is unfair to everyone involved to have homosexuals serve in the military. However, it goes much deeper than that.

    The armed forces are some of the most respected and idolised people in the United States. The US is proud of it’s armed forces and gives extensive special treatment to those who do. They are seen as heroes defending the free world from those who attack it. You would expect, that given the rights they are trying to uphold, they would adopt them themselves. We know this to be untrue though. The armed forces of the United States have been discriminatory since it’s inception and holds the right to reject any applicant based on numerous details. Discrimination is common place throughout all of the armed forces and for good reason.

    Some of the most trusted politicians and armed force leaders have stated their cases against homosexuals being allowed into the military. One such man is General Schwarzkopf who said:

    With Colin Powell lending his opinion to the matter also:

    You see, cohesion with armed forces is the reason that armed forced are victorious. They allow soldiers to be bonded by brotherhood that is unseen anywhere else in society. However, cohesion is easily broken and with that, the success rate of the armed forces would plummet. If soldiers are not fighting for each other and the one thing that bonds them together is taken away, the heart of the armed forces is ripped out. Allowing homosexuals into the armed forces would perpetuate this further. It is unfortunate that homosexuality is not accepted globally. However, as it is, we must ensure that nothing gets in the way of soldiers forming strong bonds without the tension of hate circulating within a given unit.

    The reason that soldiers have such a bond with each other is the unquestioned trust of another person. Over long periods of time, they garner close associations with another person. They are fighting for each other and this is void of favouritism and can only be sustained in complete fairness. With the inclusion of sexual desire, all of this is nullified completely. It is the reason why women and men are kept completely separate in the armed forces too. With the inclusion of sexual tension and favouritism, the glue that binds the military comes unstuck and cohesion is no longer in effect.

    Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a procedure put in place to allow soldiers to serve in the military if they are gay. They are not allowed to state their sexual tendencies in return for service. However, DADT is becoming more lenient and many have speculated that soldiers are not happy with that decision. A great illustration of this is the death of Houston Provost, a navy serviceman who was murdered in Camp Pendleton. Provost was murdered because of his sexuality and just happened to coincide with Robert Gates announcement that DADT would be more lenient towards those who were outed unwillingly. Some have sprung to the conclusion that this was pre-emptive damage control.

    With cohesion and morale being so key in the armed forces, why do anything to upset that brotherhood. Given that the US is fighting wars on two different fronts, why must the morale of troops be lowered to allow homosexuals into the armed forces when there is a good chance that they will be slated for it? It makes no sense.
     
    #3
    gd and Razor like this.
  4. Razor

    Razor crafts entire Worlds out of Words

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    465
    I am going to take the liberty of paraphrasing your response into basic points that I can respond to. If I at any time get the paraphrase wrong, feel free to yell at me or whatever it is you do.

    Point: Being Gay is hard to admit.

    Alright. I can dig. However, as you said yourself, "coming clean" was the best thing your openly gay friends did. Living a lie was hard, and "coming clean" was even harder, but they felt incredibly well afterward.

    I hold that "coming clean" in the Armed Forces, and thereby no longer living the lie of being heterosexual, would more than make up for any apprehensions. Being afraid of what people will think is a daily occurrence for the LBGT community. If they are going to let that keep them from coming "out of the closet," then this argument isn't about them. This debate is about those who want to serve openly and welcome the idea that people may not like their sexual orientation.

    The military can not regulate the thoughts their servicemen have. However, the military can regulate who they serve with. And when a basic right of the United States is to announce and live freely as a LBGT individual, the military should respect that same basic right.

    Point: Cohesion of the unit is in Jeopardy.

    Hmmm. Interesting point. However, I point you to these quotes:

    George Washington himself didn't believe that blacks should serve in the military. Basically, even though we were fighting a military power five hundred times our size and power, they were unfit to fight for their nation.

    Abraham Lincoln. Yes, that Abraham Lincoln. He did not see African Americans as fit for military service until he realized that this would be a long and drawn out Civil War. Then it was only because he needed bodies to fill out suits.

    This is the Army response to desegregation of the Armed Forces during World War II. "Should not be used as a social experiment" sounds remarkably familiar.

    "To change would destroy morale and impair preparations for national defense." In other words, letting blacks into more positions in the military would hinder our ability to defend the nation from the Nazis and the Japanese.

    Every argument being brought forth by you, Dave, and the opponents of LBGT openly serving in the military was already brought up once before. In the fight against allowing blacks to serve in the military. Segregation was eventually enforced, and many racists in the Army (both soldiers and enlisted officers) were against the idea. According to Mighty Norcal, a successful soldier in his own right, there are still racists that he directly works with when stationed on his "tea parties."

    Nowadays being black is widely accepted. Walking down the street, you would be hard pressed to find someone still prejudiced enough to say that black people should not serve alongside their white brethren in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces were forced to accept segregation, despite their wild claims of "unit cohesion" and "national defense (read: security)."

    The Armed Forces will survive openly LBGT people in their ranks that serve alongside heterosexual men. They will fight just as well as before, and will have many more soldiers amongst their ranks once LBGT can serve openly and proudly.

    And for that reason, and that reason alone, the military should not use policy to infringe on the rights of LBGT people to be open about their sexuality.
     
    #4
  5. Dave

    Dave Administrator
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,576
    Likes Received:
    2,613
    This is not an argument over whether Black people should be allowed to serve in the military and I would remind you that being a different colour of skin and a different sexual orientation are completely different things. You say that Black people are “widely accepted” and that White people would argue that black people should be allowed to serve and I would say that that is a fair point. However, if we went back 100 years or further, I would expect that we would receive a different consensus altogether. Again, this is not a debate about whether in 100 years, being gay will hinder you being allowed to serve in the military. The debate is about the present and how the military have the right to choose who they do and do not want to serve.

    You must remember, Razor, that the armed forces are not the boy scouts. They have the right to refuse anyone the right to serve and that does not only include gay and lesbian people. If someone who is an expert in military admission and service decided that gay people should not serve in a force because they are romantically involved with another soldier, who are we to question that? You must remember that the military does not serve within the confines of society and by volunteering; you are putting yourself up for scrutiny.

    People argue that being gay is not a choice but neither is being mentally unstable. However, the army have the right to refuse any mentally unbalanced person the right to serve. I am not saying that they are the same, not by a long way but the point remains. Those who select whether someone is allowed to serve or not are experts and know if someone (or an aspect of someone’s personality) is going to cause a problem and if it turns out that it will, then they must not allow them to serve.

    Please also remember that the rights of the individual as a citizen are foregone after they volunteer. The military endeavours out with the realms of the general public. They do not have to meet any laws or obligations when it comes to admittance and they can reject and select people as they like. We must remember that the military are building a force that is capable of fighting and winning wars and the psychology of a soldier is unlike anything that can be viewed in the general public. If one thing sets off the soldier and makes it harder for them to serve, tell me what the point is in appeasing a group of people. Once you sign up, you are a tool that the military uses to wage and win wars. You are not a human being anymore and your rights as a citizen are null and void. Gay and lesbian couples may be accepted in society more and more but at the moment, I fear that they are not accepted globally within the armed forced and thus it would make no sense to upset that delicate balance.

    It is easy for us to sit here and debate whether gay and lesbian people should be allowed to serve in the military but I would urge you to think about who is running the armed forces. The government preside over the military and are able to govern internally. We have nothing to do with the military and it is easy for us to say how you would run it or what is and isn’t right. However, at the end of the day, we know very little about the military and must trust that if gay and lesbian people were allowed into the military, they already would be.
     
    #5
  6. gd

    gd Plump, Juicy User

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,711
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    Hmmm, solid job by both of you. Really tough one to judge. However, after thinking it over, I'm going to have to go with Razor. He used an example of a group that was completely phased out of the military less than a century ago and connected it to the current argument. I think the gays/blacks comparison is more convincing than the gays/crazies comparison.

    Scores

    Razor 44
    Dave 41
     
    #6
    Razor likes this.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"