Why does Fox News have problems with Flower?

[sapphi_snake]

Player1x3 said:

sapphi_snake said:

Player1x3 said:

Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well

Not only are you stereotyping and being offensive (I'm quite curious how many gay people you even know), but your entire post doesn't even make sense. The underlined part is in no way a logical solution to the part in italics.

Wow, if you really think what i am saying is offensive, than, with all due respect, you need to grow a pair of you know what. I mean, i heard you make literally 1000 worse statements about people you dislike. And DADN is helping gays out a lot. I am not sure how many straight people would feel ok to be in a squad with a gay person, its better if they dont know the person 's sexuality just to be sure

It's called DADT (couldn't help myself, it was annoying me that you were writting it wrong), and there were actually studies conducted regarding this issue, which showed that there would be no negative effects to gays serving (not to mention the proof provided by countries where they are already able to serve).

 It's also quite irrelvant if the straight soldiers would feel 'uncomfortable'. If white racist soldiers are uncomfortable with balcks serving, should blacks be banned? If christian soldiers are uncomfortable with non-christian soldiers, should non-christians be banned from serving? It's the army, there isn't really room for such fits.