Then there's not really much to discuss. If it's none of the government's business, then it has no business discriminating against it once it is known.
Never said it did. You were so anxious to paint me with your broad brush that you just assumed that I would have some problem with gays in the military, the supermarket, or the governor's office. I could not possibly care less. What is offensive is that liberals are often the one's to introduce sexual preference and race into the discussions.
Don't ask, don't tell was insufficient because the government shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.
Then take it up with Clinton and the democrats. It's their policy.
If there's no significant difference between behavior and in-born qualities for the case of sexual preference, then by your distinction of behavior as differentiating discriminating through racism (towards Rosa Parks) vs homosexuality (the gay soldier) was a red herring.
I don't know what you're writing here.
The political agenda of having a gay soldier condemn that rule then becomes understandable--perhaps even laudable--as it was for Rosa Parks.
No it doesn't. He's inciting others to label them as intolerant. He's the one that calls attention to his behavior, he's making the grandstand play, he's the one that introduced sexual preference into the discussion. Granted, it was at a candidate's forum, so that's fair play. However, dadt was just rescinded, what more does he want?
Indeed. But I find that how I discriminate depends on what I'm discriminating against.
of course. so the catch-all word doesn't really apply - "discrimination".
Actually I should be more careful here. There is a danger in equivocating on the word "discriminate". Usually in the context of racism it means something stronger than simply treating people differently based on certain characteristics.
Yes it does. Which is why when liberals toss it into the discussion so easily, it loses its meaning.
It has a strong negative meaning associated with it because of the history of things like racism including violence or unfairly and unjustly denying opportunities and services to others.
And a further complication is that there is no finish line. How long will history influence policy decisions for today? Exactly what needs to be done in your opinion? I don't know how to label myself (i'm sure our humanist/atheist/agnostic liberal friends on this board will come up with something), but, frankly, on a societal scale i couldn't care less who is gay, what race one's parents are, what socio-economic background one comes from, or anything else that is irrelevant. I'm sure in liberalville not caring means I actually care a great deal and am ready to bludgeon gays with my Bible, and slam the doors on blacks if they ever try to enter my protestant church. Words tend to have very little meaning.