Following a 3-yr tradition, my biology class debated 13 March 2008 whether homosexuals should be banned from serving in this country's military.
The government panel that defended the ban consisted of Johann Diaz, Dan Miranda, and Michael Bato. The opposition panel had Angelica Angeles, Kristina Castellano, and Jonas Gonzalez. (In the photo: LR, Kristina, Michael, Dan, Johann, Angelica, Jonas).
Government argued that homosexuals should be banned from serving in the military because of security risks. These risks are divided into two. First, the risk of loss of morale resulting from homosexual behavior among soldiers in the combat units (Government did not include staff and other administrative services, except for the medics, in the ban). Second, was the risk of spreading HIV through homosexual behavior and contact with open wounds.
As evidence, they presented a document on the military code of conduct from the US that expressly forbids immoral behavior. They also presented recent findings showing a physiological and neurological basis for saying that homosexuals were different. They also presented data on HIV prevalence in the military. Having thus suggested that the risky behavior of homosexuals was rooted in biology and were, therefore, givens, they argued that homosexuals should be banned from serving in military combat units as a prudential measure.
Attacking the biological argument, the Opposition pointed out that women--who also differ from men--are NOT banned from serving in combat units (Government failed to show similar biological studies that would suggest that homosexuals and women were similar in brain structure and other aspects of physiology.). Attacking the psychological argument, they pointed out that homosexuality is not considered a mental disease nor as something that prevents correct functioning in battle. They cited evidence of high ranking and highly respected military officials who eventually admitted to having been homosexuals all along. They also pointed out that there is no evidence that an army has ever lost a war BECAUSE some of its soldiers were homosexuals. As to phobias, including homophobia, these potential causes of loss of morale are controllable matters and can be cured.
As to the HIV argument, this was not attacked by the Opposition.
Opposition also argued that all persons who wished to serve should be given that opportunity and not be discriminated against.
Finally, Opposition argued that if we banned homosexuals from the military, such a ban would be a good excuse for anyone who for any reason refused to be drafted; large scale refusal in times of war would be bad for any army. Basing themselves on the government's definition of homosexuality as a "preference" for the same sex, they pointed out that the test for preference was to simply ask the person concerned. Thus, anyone who wanted an excuse just had to say he was homosexual, and he will be banned.
The audience found cause in favor of the Opposition, mainly because they found the physiological basis for homosexuality to be immaterial in functioning. They also thought that the definition of homosexuality as a "preference" does provide a good excuse to refuse service in the armed forces.
Technically, all the debaters were very good speakers. They were aggressive and knew how to sustain a controversy. The audience had a lively exchange with the debaters as well. In fact, the head adjudicator had to step in several times to control the exchanges. The Government appeared to have done more research, but the Opposition was not far behind. Furthermore, at the start of the debate, it appeared that the Opposition actually prepared for the contrary position, and had to switch right after the first speech of the Government.
The government panel that defended the ban consisted of Johann Diaz, Dan Miranda, and Michael Bato. The opposition panel had Angelica Angeles, Kristina Castellano, and Jonas Gonzalez. (In the photo: LR, Kristina, Michael, Dan, Johann, Angelica, Jonas).
Government argued that homosexuals should be banned from serving in the military because of security risks. These risks are divided into two. First, the risk of loss of morale resulting from homosexual behavior among soldiers in the combat units (Government did not include staff and other administrative services, except for the medics, in the ban). Second, was the risk of spreading HIV through homosexual behavior and contact with open wounds.
As evidence, they presented a document on the military code of conduct from the US that expressly forbids immoral behavior. They also presented recent findings showing a physiological and neurological basis for saying that homosexuals were different. They also presented data on HIV prevalence in the military. Having thus suggested that the risky behavior of homosexuals was rooted in biology and were, therefore, givens, they argued that homosexuals should be banned from serving in military combat units as a prudential measure.
Attacking the biological argument, the Opposition pointed out that women--who also differ from men--are NOT banned from serving in combat units (Government failed to show similar biological studies that would suggest that homosexuals and women were similar in brain structure and other aspects of physiology.). Attacking the psychological argument, they pointed out that homosexuality is not considered a mental disease nor as something that prevents correct functioning in battle. They cited evidence of high ranking and highly respected military officials who eventually admitted to having been homosexuals all along. They also pointed out that there is no evidence that an army has ever lost a war BECAUSE some of its soldiers were homosexuals. As to phobias, including homophobia, these potential causes of loss of morale are controllable matters and can be cured.
As to the HIV argument, this was not attacked by the Opposition.
Opposition also argued that all persons who wished to serve should be given that opportunity and not be discriminated against.
Finally, Opposition argued that if we banned homosexuals from the military, such a ban would be a good excuse for anyone who for any reason refused to be drafted; large scale refusal in times of war would be bad for any army. Basing themselves on the government's definition of homosexuality as a "preference" for the same sex, they pointed out that the test for preference was to simply ask the person concerned. Thus, anyone who wanted an excuse just had to say he was homosexual, and he will be banned.
The audience found cause in favor of the Opposition, mainly because they found the physiological basis for homosexuality to be immaterial in functioning. They also thought that the definition of homosexuality as a "preference" does provide a good excuse to refuse service in the armed forces.
Technically, all the debaters were very good speakers. They were aggressive and knew how to sustain a controversy. The audience had a lively exchange with the debaters as well. In fact, the head adjudicator had to step in several times to control the exchanges. The Government appeared to have done more research, but the Opposition was not far behind. Furthermore, at the start of the debate, it appeared that the Opposition actually prepared for the contrary position, and had to switch right after the first speech of the Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment