Should LGBT Teens be able to openly serve in the military?

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Rylan

buddy, trust me, there are lotts of current military soldiers who ARENT SCARY AT ALL!

Difference is, most male soldiers are, but I'd be willing to bet most wouldn't be intimidated by a woman.

[noise94]

Please, stop with the stereotyping. I know very few gay men who are camp. Sexuality has nothing to do with ability to fight. Gay men are also not horny all the time and aren't going to jump on you just because you're male. In fact, a lot of them would probably already be in a loving relationships with people outside the military.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Difference is, most male soldiers are, but I'd be willing to bet most wouldn't be intimidated by a woman.

I'd recommend watching the reimagined Battlestar Galactica's portrayals of Starbuck and Admiral Cain if you believe that to be the case. You will find that women are just as capable of being intimidating as men, and I can think of a number of other examples I could bring to bear.

A lot of the objections raised do seem to be based on stereotypes, and I find that quite frustrating. I would ask those objecting to provide evidence that the armed forces of the other NATO countries (including the UK), Russia or Australia and New Zealand have been detrimentally affected by allowing LGBT servicemen and servicewomen. I certainly cannot find any.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I'd recommend watching the reimagined Battlestar Galactica's portrayals of Starbuck and Admiral Cain if you believe that to be the case. You will find that women are just as capable of being intimidating as men, and I can think of a number of other examples I could bring to bear.

A lot of the objections raised do seem to be based on stereotypes, and I find that quite frustrating. I would ask those objecting to provide evidence that the armed forces of the other NATO countries (including the UK), Russia or Australia and New Zealand have been detrimentally affected by allowing LGBT servicemen and servicewomen. I certainly cannot find any.

I disagree, and I have several wars of evidence to back me up.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Matthew

I disagree, and I have several wars of evidence to back me up.

If you indeed have such evidence of detriment directly linked to the presence of LGBT servicemen and servicewomen, I would be quite keen to hear it. Merely saying "several wars" is not really sufficient.

[dancinfool]

To suggest that someone is any less physically intimidating because they are gay is ridiculous- there's lots of things that affect how 'scary' someone can be but I'm pretty sure sexuality isn't one of them...

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by dr2005

If you indeed have such evidence of detriment directly linked to the presence of LGBT servicemen and servicewomen, I would be quite keen to hear it. Merely saying "several wars" is not really sufficient.

I don't have actual links, as I don't remember every URL I've ever seen but I remember at least one story where a group of female US soldiers stormed a building in Iraq (I believe) and they shouted for the terrorists inside to give up, and they just said no. Of course having a gun helps but put this way, same equipment, who's going to be more intimidating, a man or a woman?

Anyway, this is inconsequential, and for another topic. I think some people are misunderstanding my views however. I am totally for gay people to be in the military, I was simply asking people to consider both sides of the argument in that it does add a reputation, whether for good or for bad is up for other people to decide.

[Spicy_]

Originally Posted by Lil'TeppyLala

Please, stop with the stereotyping. I know very few gay men who are camp. Sexuality has nothing to do with ability to fight. Gay men are also not horny all the time and aren't going to jump on you just because you're male. In fact, a lot of them would probably already be in a loving relationships with people outside the military.

EXACTLY!! See why can't our leader see this? Everyone bases this law with typical streotypes. People need to see past this, people dont even know how much LGBT are in the military but in hiding. We have yet to witness a recent problem with them? People can't even tell them apart, we fight just as good, maybe even better

[Kyeto-X]

Originally Posted by Matthew

I don't have actual links, as I don't remember every URL I've ever seen but I remember at least one story where a group of female US soldiers stormed a building in Iraq (I believe) and they shouted for the terrorists inside to give up, and they just said no. Of course having a gun helps but put this way, same equipment, who's going to be more intimidating, a man or a woman?

Anyway, this is inconsequential, and for another topic. I think some people are misunderstanding my views however. I am totally for gay people to be in the military, I was simply asking people to consider both sides of the argument in that it does add a reputation, whether for good or for bad is up for other people to decide.

So if someone storms your building, points a M16 at you and your buddies and happens to have a lisp saying "Get down on the ground, peoplesssss. We mean busssssinessss..." You would NOT obey them??

I have seen men in full combat attire and look silly. I have also seen women armed with wooden sppons that scared the shit out of me (namely my mother). Having ovaries, long hair, or a an affection for romantic comedies (all of which are stereotypes) Deos not in ANY way ruin combat effectiveness. It has to do with strength of character, not the depth of your voice. If you need to have a deep voice to be imtimiating, we have technology for that availiable in toy stores everywhere. It's call ed a voice changer :P


Or we could just put Goa'uld in their heads :P

First of all, having a lisp or dancing around in fairy costumes does not make you gay any more then wearing a football jeresey and crushing a beercan on your head makes you straight. Second, It really doesn't matter HOW your voice sounds when you have a rifle in your hand, people will generally respond in the same way (fight, flight, or freeze) whether or not you roll your r's. and Thirdly, Again, as stated above, The militray have STRICT unifomr requirments that allows NO room for pink fairy tutu's over active camo.

I do not think that allow LGBTs into our military is going to effect our "fearsome" factor at all.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I'd recommend watching the reimagined Battlestar Galactica's portrayals of Starbuck and Admiral Cain if you believe that to be the case. You will find that women are just as capable of being intimidating as men, and I can think of a number of other examples I could bring to bear.

A lot of the objections raised do seem to be based on stereotypes, and I find that quite frustrating. I would ask those objecting to provide evidence that the armed forces of the other NATO countries (including the UK), Russia or Australia and New Zealand have been detrimentally affected by allowing LGBT servicemen and servicewomen. I certainly cannot find any.

Ahh yes, the fearsome fighting forces of New Zealand, I cower in fear at the thought. They're about as scary as the SS, riding around in tanks with the death's head on their hats and destroying anything in their way with their fearsome gay battalions. Yes, after fighting the British, and winning, the Germans, and winning, the Germans again and wining, the Koreans, and winning, the Communists and winning, and... ohh wait I am talking about the USA, thecountry that doesn't let gays in. If some man ran up to me and started demanding my surrender in a lisp, sure, scary, but I'd die from laughing first, "Uhhhm excuse me, sir, I'm going to have to ask you to put fown your scary guns, it's not right to shoot people, mmmkay, so let's put them down and all be friends, mmmmkay doll?" Hahahaha..... But seriosuly, simply for bunking reasons it's not okay.

[Spicy_]

Guile,

In general, may I ask how you know that LGBT wont be a good idea in the military? Never did you back up your statements, you just replyed back with a quick statement, and when people prove you wrong, you just change the subject?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Guile

Ahh yes, the fearsome fighting forces of New Zealand, I cower in fear at the thought. They're about as scary as the SS, riding around in tanks with the death's head on their hats and destroying anything in their way with their fearsome gay battalions. Yes, after fighting the British, and winning, the Germans, and winning, the Germans again and wining, the Koreans, and winning, the Communists and winning, and... ohh wait I am talking about the USA, thecountry that doesn't let gays in. If some man ran up to me and started demanding my surrender in a lisp, sure, scary, but I'd die from laughing first, "Uhhhm excuse me, sir, I'm going to have to ask you to put fown your scary guns, it's not right to shoot people, mmmkay, so let's put them down and all be friends, mmmmkay doll?" Hahahaha..... But seriosuly, simply for bunking reasons it's not okay.

Leaving aside the woefully scant outlook of world military history you just gave there (War of 1812, Korean War being a stalemate, Vietnam War and Somalia), not to mention a distinct lack of awareness of the participation of the New Zealand Army in a number of conflicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zeland_Army), the US Armed Forces do allow LGBT servicemen and servicewomen contrary to your assertion, even if they are not permitted to reveal their sexuality ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell" anyone?). The rest of your post is merely baseless stereotyping which warrants no comment whatsoever. In any event, nothing you have stated above demonstrates detriment to the armed forces I mentioned based solely on their decision to permit LGBT servicemen and servicewomen. So if you have evidence, now is the time.

[Fictional]

Originally Posted by Rylan

You have this all wrong. Our army (America in general) is not made for killing, we defend our freedom. We only kill if need be. With out a millitary we wouldn't be free like how we are now. We been in chaos and with no right going on.

Our army (The one in the UK where I live) keeps going to fight America's wars and is killing innocent civilians on the other side of the world when they did nothing to provoke us into doing it.


Cba to read the other posts.

[her_beautiful_mistake]

Repealed!
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-ask-dont-tell

[Acheron]

Mostly repealed. The policy only comes to an end after a sixty-day review period by the Department of Defence. And after President Obama has signed it, of course, but that shouldn't be much of an obstacle. But yeah, it's past time that DADT died.