I'll keep this to just a few points, because both you and I have agreed that most of this is something that we just can't agree upon.
I'll humor you.
I said that sexual proclivities are not an indicator of one's intelligence or reasoning. You said they were. That is pretty plainly stated in your post. If you're honestly going to deny typing that, then...well, I guess we're stuck in a situation where I've quoted the text multiple times and your response is to merely stick out your tongue and say, "Nuh uh!" As I've mentioned to Garman, if I misquote someone or incorrectly infer something, feel free to correct me. However, simply saying "I didn't say that!" and then not clarifying what you did say only brings the discussion to a halt, because I'm forced to go back, find your quotes, post them, and then wait for you to tell me yet again that you didn't say it even though it's sitting there in a post.
If I say that lawnmowers and helicopters both have engines will you infer that I need to file a flightplan for my Husqavarna lawn tractor?
Apparently you would.
Whether the current restrictions make any sense or not is, yet again, another completely different debate. My point was not that the current restrictions were correct or incorrect. My point was that there is no restriction on speech simply because it's a minority view.
They don't currently have a restricted speech policy on any other group of individuals. Thus, there is a right that all other groups have that homosexuals do not. Regardless of whether you'd be fine with it or not, the current status quo still denies them a right that others have, yet there is no actual justification for this or distinction of the group that warrants the restriction.
You're wrong here, but I'll get back to it at the end.
Having open Christians in the military won't affect all, but it will affect some. Especially if there are Christians who attempt to convert others. Afterall, spreading the word and converting the lost is a major goal of many believers. I know that you have stated that a restriction on religious speech in the military would be fine with you, but again, that's not what is currently being restricted. Thus, there is only one group being restricted. The basis for this restriction that you've put forward is that it's because their lifestyle has the potential to affect others. If that's the case, then we either need to ban all opinionated, belief based speech from the military or none. You can't suppress one group when there is no apparent distinction as to why they are being singled out.
Other things are restricted as has been illustrated countless times. Rules and all.
The quote was from Garman's post; nothing was mixed. And even if you refuse to admit that anyone's stance on this board is that homosexuals should not be in the military, there are those outside of this board and in the real world who actively advocate that stance.
Should have been specific. By "nobody" I mean I'm not.
I never said that anyone can say anything at any time. Rather, what I've stated is that gay people can publicly state that they are gay. The fact that you don't like them having gay protests, gay parades or national coming out days doesn't mean that you can restrict their speech. Speech is restricted at different times for different reasons, but it is not restricted because of it being a minority view.
Okay. Whatever you say. That has nothing to do with the military issue.
I think it's telling that you completely skirted the concept of speech vs. consequences. But I know why. The fact is that as much as you'd like to portray it as such, this is
not a free speech issue Simply put, gays are not being denied the right to claim their public sexuality. They are free to express it in any way they like. They are not free, however, from the consequences of that action.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ... The right to speak is not being abridged in any way. All the military does is make clear what the expression of those ideas will entail.
Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. No one is guaranteed the right to serve. Now if there were a draft and gays were being conscripted, maybe there would be a different argument. But they are not.
The military does not say "do not disclose" it merely says what the consequences of said disclosure would be.
All the impassioned arguments about what a great soldier Freddy Fancypants might be become extraneous and irrelevant at that point.
Not only does the military turn a blind eye, but it specifically says it will respect the rights of those who wish to keep their preference private and serve anyway. That's the don't ask part.
Suppose I walk in the living room and the lamp is lying shattered on the floor. I ask my daughter if she broke it and tell her that the consequence of her saying she did is that she will have to pay for the damage out of her allowance, have I restricted her free speech? No. I've merely told her what the consequence would be.
If I followed the current military policy, I would look at the lamp, look at her, and leave the room. If she doesn't tell me she broke the lamp, I have to assume there is no broken lamp at all because I'm not going to ask.
Whose rights are being trampled again?
There is no law restricting free speech in this case. There is only a policy that outlines the consequence of that speech.
I told you that pony was worn out. I told you that flag won't fly. But you can keep on looking for Husqvarnas and Craftsmans and John Deeres zooming through the sky if you wish.
338 Replies
65987 Views