Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[Timminz]

Context is very relevant. Seeing a man at a swimming pool or at the beach in a speedo is different than seeing them with wigs and licking their lips at each other.

Ah yes, the old "southern fatigues".

[Woodruff]

No. The inferiority of one race to another cannot be debated.

Why is that? What is it about that topic that brings it outside the realm of discussion? Genuine question...

Because it's quite simply that there is nothing inferior (nor superior) about any entire race. It simply does not make sense.

Say what you will about the don't ask don't tell debate, but the comparison between the civil rights movement regarding African Americans and the debate regarding homosexuals today is invalid.
One thing regards racial characteristics and the other a behavior. Unless you would assert that race is defined by behavior the comparison does not stand.

No sir, I disagree entirely...not only is the comparison VERY valid...frankly, the situations are almost IDENTICAL.

They would be, accept that race and behavior are two different things. Race is inherited while homosexuality, like all sexuality, is largely psychological. It's more akin to PST than race.
We have come to the point as a society where we don't consider homosexuality to be dehabilitative or even a disorder, but to claim that a behavior or lifestyle is the same as inherited genetics makes little sense.

I'm not making the claim that lifestyle is the same as genetics. Stop building that strawman right now. I'm making the claim that the methods and statements used to discriminate against homosexuals are almost IDENTICAL to the methods and statements used to discriminate against blacks.

Honestly homosexuality doesn't bother me. I think that they should be allowed to serve in the military and even have relationships (so long as they are not with others in the military).

Why not? Hetersexuals can be married to someone else in the military (though it's very hard on the marriage, because they won't guarantee common assignments).

Just for my own clarification, they can be married, but they have to be under different chain of command..correct?

Close, but not quite - they can't have supervisory responsibilities over one another. In other words, they can work in the same section IF they're at the same supervisory level OR if they're in different "chains of command" within that section. Basically, they can't be put into a position where they'd have the opportunity to show favoritism to their own spouse.

A person should not be kicked out if they are "found out". Rather they should only be kicked out if they flaunt their sexuality openly.

I don't even mind them "flaunting", so long as they're not disrespecting my right not to be pressured by them. Hold hands...kiss...(not in uniform though, as that's against the regs)...even come on to me but respect my right to refuse. I may look away because it makes me uncomfortable, but it doesn't in any way make you "unable to serve as a professional".

There is some merit to the argument of unit cohesion. Why separate genders in shower and changing rooms if they're going to allow people who are openly gay into them?

A reasonable point and one that would have to be addressed if the policy were to change, obviously. To answer your question, it hasn't been addressed to this point because the policy forbid that possibility. By the same token, homosexuals are ALREADY showering and changing with heterosexuals in the military.

Also, if a person were to come on to you, wouldn't this be frowned upon as fraternization of something like that?

Potentially, but not necessarily. Fraternization sort of ties into what you asked above about married couples. Basically, you cannot date or have "unprofessional relationships" with someone who may have the opportunity to act with favoritism toward you (or act against you, if things should sour). So if that's not an issue, then it isn't fraternization. Oh, I forgot one other time...officers and enlisted are not allowed to date - that is always fraternization (by regulation).

With that said, if people see this sort of thing in a public setting it is offensive as they (and potentially their children) are being subjected to an extreme form of homosexual perversion.

That isn't homosexual perversion...it's just the same thing as it is when a heterosexual wears a speedo (outside of a swim competition)...it's just plain ugly as hell.

Context is very relevant. Seeing a man at a swimming pool or at the beach in a speedo is different than seeing them with wigs and licking their lips at each other.
The attire is in one case specific to the situation while in the other it is a public display of wanting lust...

I disagree...if a man is wearing a speedo when he is NOT COMPETING IN A SWIM COMPETITION, he's intentionally "displaying" just as much as those in the picture are. There's no other reason for the guy to be wearing a speedo...they ain't comfortable, that's for sure.

No. The inferiority of one race to another cannot be debated.

Why is that? What is it about that topic that brings it outside the realm of discussion? Genuine question...

The implications of such a discussion are too upsetting to too many people.

Nope, that's irrelevant to the point.

Say something demeaning about the members of a race in the context of race, and you offend everyone of that race.

Of course you do - why WOULDN'T you offend everyone of that race if you say something demeaning about the members of the race in the context of race? How is that a difficult concept to grasp?

The hurtfulness is not limited to the number of people that it actually applies to.

This is what you're missing - by applying something to a RACE, it's NOT limited...it applies to everyone of that race.

Positive or negative, racial trends are not absolute.

This is the only thing you said that is accurate and it is also precisely why this cannot be debated...because there IS NO DEBATE when the subject is viewed with logic and experience.