House Armed Services Hearing | INFJ Forum

House Armed Services Hearing

Discussion in 'Psychology and MBTI' started by Satya, Jul 30, 2008.

Share This Page

More threads by Satya
  1. Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    I doubt that anyone on this forum really cares about this, but I think it is a major sociological issue that we are currently facing.

    On July 23, 2008, on the anniversary of when Truman made the order to desegregate the United States armed forces many decades ago, there was the first hearing in 15 years on the issue of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that was initiated by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The policy has come under fire from both sides. Liberals are obviously arguing that it should be appealed and a "nondiscrimination" policy put into place and Conservatives arguing that the military should once again be allowed to deny gays and lesbians the right to serve under what is the current law.

    Clips
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvN_-ES4udk&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7JieekkebU&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2koTWQJCIY&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQFvcEU7rvA&feature=related

    Full Hearing
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua3ZncXyDqI&feature=related
     
  2. Shai Gar

    Shai Gar Guest

    I agree with the conservatives. There shouldn't be gay people in the US army. The less people in that the better.
     
  3. Lurker

    Lurker Has nothing to destroy
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Threads:
    78
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    Enneagram:
    Hmm, I care about this issue Satya.

    Wanna debate here?


    Um, Shai... less people in the military? or specifically gays in the military?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  4. Shai Gar

    Shai Gar Guest

    People. I've already given my stance on male homosexuality. I think that it's the second most awesome thing on the planet, the first being males who try to convince other males that they should be 100% gay.
     
  5. Lurker

    Lurker Has nothing to destroy
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Threads:
    78
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    Enneagram:
    :D

    I have a short memory but anyway I’m not questioning your stance on homosexuality, there are people who have no problems with homosexuals yet do not think they should serve in the military.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. Shai Gar

    Shai Gar Guest

    I don't think anyone should serve in the US Military. My gay thing is pragmatic, I just want less competitors.
     
  7. OP
    Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    Absolutely. Pick a side. :mrgreen:
     
  8. sriv

    sriv Community Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Threads:
    8
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    IxTJ
    This isn't exactly relevant, but the conservatives in general want to expand the armed forces.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. Shai Gar

    Shai Gar Guest

    then turn prisons into military training camps, you certainly have enough prisoners, and they tend to keep fit... if not outright, then make them a new gang with links to outside, there are enough of those too...
     
  10. Lurker

    Lurker Has nothing to destroy
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Threads:
    78
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    Enneagram:
    Hmm, so are you gonna pick one too?


    I doubt allowing people to be open about thier sexuality will make any noticable difference in the military or morale as homosexuality is already there.

    Patrick Murphy in the first video covers it for me, soldiers are professional enough to cope.

    Elaine Donnelly's argument sounds like; For the sake of those who have a problem with homosexuality the armed forces should make it illegal, that argument is seriously lame, someone should amend behaviour that doesn't hurt you because you have a problem with it? She also raises an example of sexual assault, that has nothing to do with being gay and I have no idea why anyone would think it would, I can’t even put a decent response into words as it’s such a bad combination of ignorance and stupidity. Sexual misconduct and/or assault does not equate to homosexuality, they are two very separate points. Anyone who joins the military must be prepared to accept the status quo but they should be able to do so without being forced to live a lie.

    I have witnessed some apprehension within the military but at the end of the day the attitude I see most is "who cares".

    I have to bring this over as well cause it’s just hilarious! I love Jon Stewarts comment: “Who will speak for the homophobes” :D
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. OP
    Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    Yes, I will pick the one opposite of yours.

    Rape, murder, and suicide are also present in the military, so should we openly allow those? Just because something already exists in the military does not mean we should allow it. It is also an opinion that it would not make any noticeable difference in morale, especially considering there are many soldiers who would be adamantly opposed to homosexuality and would no doubt be very dispirited to be forced to serve with those whom they perceive to be acting immorally. Do people who have religious beliefs and cultural values that are opposed to homosexuality not deserve the same respect?

    Ah, but Elaine makes a fine rebuttal with the argument that soldiers are only human and if the standards are opposed to their values and beliefs, then it will weaken their ability to serve effectively. If our soldiers are truly so professional, then why should we change the high standards that are already working so well?

    I will admit that Elaine's arguments are somewhat biased and shortsighted, but I would not be so quick to dismiss her main argument. If you truly value tolerance, then why would you so easily dismiss the beliefs and values of those soldiers who are opposed to homosexuality?

    Perhaps the attitude in the military is already oppressive to those who are opposed to homosexual behavior. As they may feel like they will be labeled a "bigot" if they demonstrate how they really feel, they choose instead to feign apathy. Of course, their true feelings will eventually be reflected in their service. Therefore it is advisable that we appeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and not allow homosexuals into the military at all.
     
  12. Lurker

    Lurker Has nothing to destroy
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Threads:
    78
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    Enneagram:
    I expected you would ;)

    Sadly I often don’t have strong opinions on things so I can’t usually put up a good fight I’m just do damn liberal in that ‘you do your thing and I’ll do mine’ kind of way... I’ll try with this though cause I do think it’s wrong.

    My argument for saying it should be allowed is not because it’s already there, rather that is a response to those who believe allowing gays to be open in the military would upset morale and cause a mass exodus.

    Offensive, immoral and most importantly illegal acts like rape and murder that by their very nature hurt others, is never acceptable, someone’s sexual preference can cause no physical harm to another. The government’s stance on being gay has been accepted as a legal right, rape and murder never will (more hazy with suicide, time will tell). If the government’s laws are reflective of the populations wants then why would the military have different standards when it's responsible for defending the entire country and the accepted rights of citizens?

    I disagree here although it is a difficult point to know with absolute certainty without seeing the law changed. My experience with the military has involved being around many gay soldiers, I will say that it is more acceptable for a lesbian then a gay man but I have not witnessed any problem with morale as a result of someone else’s sexuality, being able to be open would not change much in a social way, some soldiers are already obviouslly gay they just aren't supposed to talk about it. If problems arrose, no doubt mob rule would win and whoever was in the minority would be pushed aside, which ever point of view that was.

    Because of that, I do not believe changing the rules would result in a large amount of soldiers suddenly coming out of the closet, if it won't be accepted by their peers they would probably keep their mouths shut. What it would allow them to do though is have their partner listed as an emergency contact and have living arrangements that would take their partner into consideration. When your job involves a risk of death overseas, having your partner contacted if anything went wrong should be a fundamental right.

    They deserve the respect of being able to have their own religious and cultural values, if that includes being against homosexuality that is their right, but as it is they are not getting the 'same' respect, they are getting more, their considerations are treated more important than an individual’s right to express their sexual preference openly.

    What makes you think they are working so well? Obviously there are problems for this issue to even be raised. US military wants more recruits but there is a section of the population that are considered unworthy of fighting and possibly dying for their country, if I were a gay potential recruit why would I want to represent a military that considered me a second class citizen? What about the soldiers that already serve, knowing they are fighting for a government who does not show them respect? What about their morale?

    I don’t agree with their beliefs and values but I accept they are entitled to have them. Catering to those with homophobic beliefs is catering to the minority and out of step with the times, being gay and open about it is accepted in most other walks of life, why is the average soldier considered so precious that they cannot accept this?

    Sure, that’s one option, while we’re at it, what about those soldiers who have a problem with African Americans or those from Middle Eastern descent? Don’t all bigots deserve the same consideration?

    Btw, I love your ability to argue a point from any side.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #12 Lurker, Jul 31, 2008
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2009
  13. OP
    Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    It's the only way I have found to challenge confirmation bias. When you put yourself in the alternative point of view's shoes then you are able to challenge yourself, especially if you have a debate partner who takes up the position that you normally take. The desire to win supersedes the bias and you begin challenging yourself in ways that would be unachievable otherwise.

    However, at this point, I could only drag up points that I know are half truths and religious rhetoric to argue the point further. I understand the other side's point of view very well, but its argument is simply a desire to protect one group's beliefs and values over another group's, and as you have easily proven, that is not a substantial argument to make.
     
Loading...

Share This Page