She was on the flag ship of the Navy, USS Ronald Reagan, I guess you got the real consenus? What is your experience in the military,nothing, so you know nothing

If your daughter is uncomfortable around gays then YES SHE IS A HOMOPHOBE. this is in any facet of life.

ok so they should be allowed to serve but not openly? or what is your opinion? you are all over the map.

how nice of you to allow them to give up their life for that military you always brag about but no no no your daughter is "uncomfortable". im uncomfortable with your backwards ways and that you taught those ways to your spawn which will most likely pass it on their spawn.

why do i care if you have a lesbian friend? did you suggest to her your families feelings about gays in the military during that conversation?

no sorry i am not a moron. you are a laughing stock.

the 25% have problems because of backwards parents like yourself. teach your kids openness. i dont blame your daughter, i blame you. but im sure as this becomes law and it opens up she will forget it was even an issue in the first place.

unless of course her backwards father keeps reminding her of the "problem".

When did the military become a democracy?

Aside from your pointlessly naive rant, you DO realize that each generation has been getting dumber and dumber since the 60s? The next generation is going to be even dumber. You've lost your mind if you think you're part of the "enlightened".:1orglaugh


I find it hilarious that this is the insult stupid, ignorant liberals turn to when they believe change equates to progression.

ok cool post proof.

i should of known better than to quote you. now i am waiting for a rant with 0 backing. anyway not going to get off topic.

Hey moron, never said my daughter was uncomfortable, learn to read

I have no problems with gays serving, but you're too fucking stupid to read what I wrote, BTW, my lesbian friend was in the Navy, maybe you didn't read that either?

Have you always read things that weren't there? Have you got help for that?

Post proof of what? If you're asking for proof, perhaps you should abide by your own rules and prove that this is an "idiot generation". I'd like to think the generation of the 50s, who were responsible for unmatched economic prosperity, was the smartest we've had in this country. Technology happens to be a double edged sword. Now everybody sits texting each other or on their retarded social networks/forums rather than spending time outside or socializing with real life humans.


I-R-O-N-Y
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

It'll take metaman a few minutes to look those up :)

cool so you have no proof.


ok so what problems is the repeal going to cause? please enlighten me.

I rest my case.. That was too easy.. Moving on.. Vendzilla, Metaman isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer so you're going to have to slow down.

Not a democracy, it's a ship with 4000 people on it, not everyone is going to like it and there might be some problems. Gays have been serving in the military for decades, 3 at least because I knew several when I was in. So I see no reason why they shouldn't. My opinion is no shared by everyone. By the 25% number, thats about 1000 people on one air craft carrier. Shit happens.

But hey, like in the other thread, you won't go by what I said, just what your thinking

Do you know why they have court martials? Because shit happens, what a fucking moron.

Ok so what problems is the repeal going to cause?

o ok i re read. you are against it "because shit happens". ok you make sense now. my bad.

Thanx, but I'm not against it, I'm for gays serving, they have been for some time
You put 4000 servicemen that are just over 18 years old, give them alcohol for the first time and they don't have to listen to their parents, things are going to happen. Out of that 4000 on an aircraft carrier, 1000 have a problem with gays serving openly, your stats. 1000 on a bender , shit is going to happen

i support this.

like rape

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...71ac5826 c187

So maybe the 1000 who have problems with orders shouldnt be there in the first place?

or is it the gays fault people act out of line?

im just trying to see why you are against the repeal? the repeal has to do with gays being open while serving. not to do with serving.

so in summary, correct me if i am wrong you are against them openly serving because of what happen?

seems a little nuts to me. but each to their own opinion.

What I said was I'm for them serving openly, but that shit is going to happen.
And saying the 1000 that have a problem with that shouldn't be there is as bad as saying that gays shouldn't be.

Seriously? Troll on bro, you are on your own.

Much worse has happened in the military, like for religious reasons, an officer killed 13 people and injured 30 more. You might have heard about it, it happened at a place called Fort Hood.

and again, you're not reading what I wrote, just posting what you feel that I'm thinking, and you're wrong

small potatoes compared to the roughly 1,400 rapes reported every year.

that's a whole lotta rape.

It does happen alot, the military isn't sunday school by any means. That's why I think there will be problems with gays serving openly. It's something thats needed to happen for some time, but there will be problems, those that think it shouldn't have never been in the military. I remember stories about officers getting shot in the back of the head by there own troops, the movie Animal House even made fun of that at the end of the movie.

Maybe the military will start discharging "bigots" instead of "gays".

Black haters, women haters, now, gay haters........time for all haters to leave.

Were you in the navy at some stage of your life? I'm unclear on this as you haven't mentioned it before.

So you think that's not relevant here or are you just a moron?

how many of those 4000 are uncomfortable serving with black people?

I can see it now:

The Fabulous Fighting 59th -- Motto: Dressed to Kill.

I'm sure this is going to change things. :thumbsup

I will enlighten you...among other problems it will cause...is a reduction in re-enlistments of current...would be career military...especially in Combat Arms...as the largest percentage of those that were/are opposed to the repeal of DADT were/are serving in Combat Arms. It will also affect the enlistment rate.

What the percentage of loss will be remains to be seen. I suspect somewhere around the 10% mark at a minimum.

There will be other problems...specifically for those gays that choose to enlist...ranging from the minor to the severe.

QFT...

I enjoy reading left wing stupidity like this. If you don't support homosexuals, you MUST be a hater/bigot!

I referenced "haters" and hating someone because of their biological characteristics has nothing to do with whether or not you support gays, women or minorities in the military.

You'd first have to prove that homosexuality is a biological disorder to make this assertion.

In the United States, civilians control the military...say so in the US Constitution

He didn't claim homosexuality is a biological disorder. He claimed it is a biological characteristic.

Semantics and a poor attempt to draw away from the discussion. He claimed it was "biological", he would have to prove that..

You have doubts that it is "biological" when a human becomes physically aroused by another same-sex human?

Don't know, why does it matter?

That's a stupid response

when i was in cadets doing winter exercises, i don't recall ever even caring if anyone was gay as we piled on top of one another in the transport out, for the first chance at warmth in three days

i was happy i was warm

because you say with 1000 people not liking to serve along gay people something is bound to happen

so - do you think it's more or less than 25% who don't like to serve along black people? and how much does happen to black soldiers since we have like 60 or 70 years of experience on that?

or what about women? how high is the percentage of male soldiers who would prefer if women don't serve? or just be nurses like in the good old times?
in the german army women with arms are only allowed since maybe 8-10 years and still many male soldiers would prefer if they would not be allowed to.

so where do you draw the line? color? gender? sexual preferences? religion? IQ?

who's worthy to defend your country and worthy to have his human rights preserved?

Get your facts straight, Blacks served during the civil war, they did so openly.
http://sf.funcheap.com/wp-content/up...-Civil-war.jpg

Quit being an asshole and keep to the subject and stop looking so hard for a fight, thats why in it's self that there will be problems, people that don't like it will over think it

i'm the asshole? funny.

ok, i'm not the expert on american history and at which point black people in the army weren't only cannon fodder but also allowed to become general etc., but if you still fail to see the similarity i am trying to point out, then i am officially giving up on you.

Your right, your not an expert so shut the fuck up

I know a pilot that serves on the regan, i'll ask him about this concensus.

Ok so you have no proof. Congrats.

You would have to have your head in the sand for the past 30 years especially to not know there was gays in the military before enlisting. i mean common that is pretty much common knowledge.

so there is a difference between knowing and hearing? go to almost any high end store these days there will be a gay guy working. they are usually dressed in suites with dress shoes, you know business attire.

um and what do people expect gay guys prancing around in drag? i mean they have uniforms.

and soldiers arent allowed to have sexual contact with each other in the first place last time i read.

to "enlighten" me about something that has no factual backing is quite hilarious.

dammit - i have this problem that everytime someone tells me to shut up i start posting twice as much... :(

Gotta love metaman. Someone makes him look stupid yet again, and he comes back with "you have no proof".


Kinda takes out the purpose of saying "I'm gay and I'm proud" right? Also if it was conclusively biological, that's another reason not to support same sex marriage, but I digress.

Stupid or not, it's true and in the US Constitution...in the US, civilians control the military. So one does not need to have served in the military in order to pass judgment on certain military practices.

Great, now we will have more soldiers like Bradley Manning.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th...in-uniform.jpg