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?
There was no analogy. I plainly stated that sexual proclivities do not indicate one's intelligence or ability to reason. You said they did. There is no, "I compared them to this and thus really meant this." It was a very straightforward statement which showed that you view homosexuals as being less intelligent because of their sexual proclivities. If you'd like to clarify what you meant, then go right ahead. Otherwise, as I've already mentioned, we've come to a screeching halt because you'd rather insinuate that I've stooped to a level at which I'm attacking you personally when all I've done is point out what you plainly stated. You can either clarify what you meant by that statement and we can move on, or we can listen to you repeatedly deny that you said anything of the sort without clarifying what you did actually say.
Other things are restricted as has been illustrated countless times. Rules and all.
Those restrictions must have an objective, legitimate reason behind them. You don't restrict a person's rights and privileges without some sort of justification. The legislature is not going to exclaim, "Ah hell! You know what? I don't particularly like Rastafarians. They have a minority view, so let's prevent them from doing X while allowing others to do X."
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
Free speech means that you get to freely say it. Hence the adjective "free" that's attached to the noun "speech." There are no legal consequences to legitimate free speech. Maybe the football team is going to smear the queer, or the military men are going to beat him with a bar of soap in a sock. But those "consequences" aren't legal. I skipped over it because, yet again, you didn't define what you mean by consequences, so there's no point in me attempting to address it. If I did, you'd merely come back five posts later and attempt to redirect the conversation by claiming that you never stated what I was arguing against, and that I am merely attacking you personally by trying to put words into your mouth.
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.
If the military is attempting to tell you what the expression of your ideas will entail, then they are not allowing free speech; they are giving you "allowed speech." Telling you that you can express X idea but not Y idea without a legitimate reason is not allowing free speech. Regardless of whether being in the military is a privilege, they are still United States citizens and have been given specific rights under the Constitution. There are only a few limitations on soldiers' speech, and those limitations deal with speech which urges violence or encourages violation of military regulations, as well as communications with the enemy. You might want to familiarize yourself with Articles 82, 88, 117, 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice if you're going to start arguing what the military does and does not suppress as far as speech.
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.
Homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it an action that is legally punished in any way. Owning up to a crime or action that is punishable will, of course, result in punishment. The analogy is flawed.
There is no law restricting free speech in this case. There is only a policy that outlines the consequence of that speech.
We create a law that states you will be kicked out of the military for announcing that you are Christian. No other speech is limited in the military. Not homosexuals, not Muslims, not Satanists, no one. But that's just a consequence of your speech, right? It makes no difference that you are being singled out as the only group that is punished for their speech. So it's acceptable, correct?