I will accept that you intended definition two, however, usually one doesn't mention "ongoing rhetoric" as "[not] necessary" unless one feels that the statements being made are not significant to the conversation. You clearly felt I was belaboring the point. This is why I believed you thought I was operating under definition three, or possibly definition four.

I, however, felt, and still do feel, that we're not really in agreement as to what terms mean, even though we both use them. This makes discourse difficult at best. I think we have a fundamental disagreement, going back to some of your early posts, about Constitutional interpretation. You believe it recognises all religions. I believe it recognises none. This may appear to be a purely semantic disagreement, but I do not concur. Given that our justices disagree on matters such as these, it's not surprising we do as well.

One of the big issues is when the majority creates an atmosphere where individuals fear negative attention or retaliation for not participating in expressions of public religion. The Service Academies have recently had a lot of attention for this, but the issue is not only at the academies. We must be vigilant not to allow our majority views of public religion (and remember, as a Roman Catholic, I am Christian, and I agree, in a spiritual capacity with much that is expressed in public religion events) to prevent us from recognising that certain members of our command or unit may find pressure to attend such events to be a violation of their own freedom of religion.

I will never refuse to correct an error of known fact. Differences in opinions or historical speculation is something else entirely, of course. And I also get the feeling that if the discussion continues in regards to the religious views of the founding fathers, we will probably resemble historical academic journals: point, counter point, source, counter source, and not likely to have either of us budge either way.

I also enjoy a good discourse, and I try to maintain an academic, measured tone. I'd advise anyone debating controversial issues to do the same. It can be very tempting to attack the person, or the person's background in the subject, instead of countering the points one disagrees with. At no time do I feel, looking over my posts, that I implied you needed to study history. I find American Gospel to be well researched, well written, and highly engaging, and I really do suggest you read it. It is certainly not the only secondary source I've read on the religious views of the founders, and there was no implication that you were in need of it as some sort of textbook. I merely believed you'd find it interesting since you profess an interest in what role religion played in the founding of this country. Perhaps you will not agree with its conclusions or historical conjectures, but if you truly enjoy a good exchange, you should read texts that may, and probably will, challenge your views.

You're very much welcome.

Where'd the discussion go? This was getting seriously interesting...

Elizabeth - I don't know why you bring this up... there are rules about what is appropriate in the work place. If it's already an issue in the community then it needs to be addressed... Gays and Queers aren't going to make it worse. So why are you bringing this up again?

The reason I brought that up was because it is a serious problem in the workforce. There are junior sailors that I talk with that complain about this. One poor sailor even to the point where he's spoken to supervisors about it and things haven't changed. He's even getting harrasment from the other guys at work because they all "know" it's him who's complaining. I quickly assumed that having homosexuals open to talk about their sex life (because humans do) would just add to this problem. And there are still people who are bigoted and will cause them added stress.

Oh and this is gonna sound dumb, but oh well...I watched Glee yesterday. And there was a scene where the straight football player, Finn, has to live with the gay cheerleader, Kurt. Finn gets mad and starts yelling at Kurt. Starts using degragatory terms, talks about how he doesn't feel comfortable showering and undressing in his room and was getting "violent". Now, you and I both know there are people on the ship who is going to act like that when stress gets to high. I'm not saying Finn's behavior is right, it's totally wrong. I agree with Kurt's Dad who was like "under this roof you will not use language like that."

Also I think to add fuel to the fire is that Finn doesn't see Kurt that way. I don't think it would matter if Kurt was a boy or a girl. When you're not attracted to someone and they are to you, you don't want to be in a situation where they make you feel as if you have no boundaries. I would be upset if a girl or a boy that I didn't like flirted with me.

I'm worried that in a high tense situation a person like Finn could be worse and someone could get hurt. Who is gonna stop these situations from getting out of hand? What do we do if something is taken wrong and someone gets offended but it wasn't meant a certain way? I don't even work in that environment but I've been around it. I can only imagine what it would be like to be around sexual harassment all the time. Not saying homosexuals are sexual harrassers. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm saying it could add to the problem that already exists.

I think the military officials really need to seriously revamp how they handle sexual harrasement now between women and men before they add a whole nother level to it. Don't you think?

Oh and TAMMY - I think the conversation got lost when people had to explain stuff in a "lawyer" type fashion. Sometimes when intellectuals get together the conversation gets about vocabulary and proving points with tons of references but not exactly clear points. That if you're anything like me, it just flies over our head

This is such a sensitive topic. It's hard to talk about politics, religion, life beyond Earth, race or sex and not have people be passionate about it. But that's a good thing! Passion is great. It makes life interesting. Problems arise when people don't show manners when you show your passion. But I think so far everyone has been very polite

Although initially even I thought this was ridiculous, and am surprised at what I am about to say: Lady Gaga made perfect sense.

If homosexual discussions of the same type as currently allowed heterosexual discussions leads to heterosexual service members responding with harassment or violence, then those heterosexual service members are the threat to unit cohesion. Remember, we already counsel, punish, and eventually separate service members who show a pattern of racist, sexist, or otherwise clearly bigoted behavior.

I am reminded of a case in 2006 on USS Ronald Reagan where a junior sailor routinely made fun of his African-American fellows, especially when they were engaged in cultural discussions about being African-American. He was counseled. Then he was placed on restriction. Then he was called before the skipper- who threw him off the carrier with instructions that he be separated as a threat to morale.

I don't see how if you replace African-American with homosexual that the junior sailor's pattern of behavior is suddenly permissible, or even more understandable. And we're not talking inappropriate conversations by either the African-American sailors or by the homosexual sailors. Obviously certain topics are not appropriate regardless of the sexuality involved. I'd rather not listen to my stateroom fellows talk about that "smokin b*** I totally bagged last night" any more than I'd wish to hear about the exploits of a gay sailor's relationships.

We already have rules in place. We simply need to enforce them. Will there be issues? Yes. Are there issues now? Yes. Will there be less stupidity if we don't repeal DADT? I don't think so. Given the number of Navy leaders we've fired for "inappropriate personal behavior" this year... This really is a non-issue. If it's not homosexuality, it's racism, if it's not racism, it's sexism, if it's not sexism, it's COs and CMCs that can't keep it in (or in some cases out of) their pants. Stupid is as stupid does, and that's something every human being is capable of.

As for intellectualism, I spend a large part of my day debating The Big Picture and doing so as an academic. I find that what you call "lawyer" is the best way to counter conclusions you disagree with but still avoid attacking those that disagree with you. Passion is one thing, but letting passion consume you means that you are as likely to lose your manners as your opponent is.

The first rule of debate is, he (or she) who attacks first has already lost.

One again, Seafort, I couldn't say it better.

I understand that with allowing homosexuals in the Navy you're afraid that such language and actions may take place. Which really is something we need to be worried about and take action against. Just like the ongoing sexist, racist and crude behavior. But the thing is, it's already happening right now because they're already serving. And it's not that potential (and already serving) Gay or Queer Sailor's fault. Why should we have to punish them further by not allowing them in because some straight Sailor can't control themselves? If we waited around for racists to change their feelings we could still possibly have a segregated Military today. But no, we pushed for change when an overwhelming population didn't want it. Because it was the right thing to do. (And women on ships and now submarines, I'm sure you've heard the whining about that)

The point is we need to make things fair. The Military is discriminating by not letting this group join. They're not handicapped, they're not different from anyone else except in who they love. Why are we not allowing this group of people serve our country openly? Well, to put it bluntly, our nation thinks a group of hateful homophobes is more important than our LGBT community and people who support them (even the people who simply don't care). Our Nation and the DoD shouldn't run like that.

this antigay thing is just the latest attempt to keep someone down because they are different from the majority. its ridiculous that grown people in the 21st century still cant accept the fact that eveyone isnt exactly the same as they are. in this day and age there is no excuse for someone feeling the need to hide who they are so they can keep a job. its a sad reflection on society.

I this is a documentary everyone should watch if you're at all concerned/interested about the topics that have been discussed in here.



And before anyone complains that it's lumping all Religious people together as hateful... then they haven't watched the documentary. It's quite the opposite. I thought it handled the topic very maturely instead of flinging mud.

Watch online.

Look you all are forgetting one very important thing. Before you join you signed a contract that states you are not homosexual. End of story. I personnely have no issues with gays/lesbians. However you signed a contract. Hence you should not be aloud to serve if you are. Now once DADT goes away there shouldnt be any issues. Because just like most people have already stated you know who is straight and who is gay/lesbian. If you feel you were born the wrong sex then change it. But it should not come from the tax payer dollar. Until you change it you are a man or a women end of story. Look if you like both you like both just like if your straight you like the oposite sex just as if your gay/lesbian you like the same. No issues with that. However no group is actually going to win any of these topics because everyone will have something to say about whatever gets put out. There are just to many different types of people out there for everyone to be happy. We do the best we can with what we have. I can fully understand people wanting to be comfortable. However i dont believe your comfort is more important than the majority. I mean its pretty much the same lines as we serve to protect our nation right. The few for the many. Well this is the same thing.