Don't ask - Don't tell - RIP - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-02-2008, 01:05 AM   #46
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Show us where Dr King supported homosexual relations and abortion on demand.

dbs


You are so out of your league of logic, it's not even funny...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 01:05 AM   #47
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 10:14 PM
I don't understand why some people are just so damn hostile to the idea of gay rights.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 02:01 AM   #48
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Yeah. You only get arguments erupting like this when someone is clearly not a keen supporter of gay rights. If everyone in this thread truly supported equal opportunity in the services/in general, there'd be no segueing into colour and religious issues.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 05:04 AM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Dr. King never did, altho some have tried to claim he did, he did not, had he I'm sure most African Americans would be in favor of your views, and most African Americans aren't in favor of gay rights.
Hold up:

Are you suggesting that most African Americans would support gay rights if MLK had? That has to be the most absurd thing I've ever heard in my life.

Believe it or not, we black folk don't take our marching orders for every aspect of life from Dr. King. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 06:39 AM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:14 PM
I'm glad we got one thing established, MLK is not on record supporting gay rights, notwithstanding the gay lobby has tried to use him for that.

With your question maycocksean, I'm saying it couldn't have hurt if MLK had made definitive public statements favoring homosexuality, my point is he didn't and it shows already that all people are people and all people think for themselves this is why in their totality African Americans do not support gay rights even though the leaders in their polictical party today do (based on the sheer numbers they align themselves with). People here have called those independent minded African Americans (the majority of them) homophobes-that I think maybe could offend most African Americans, but I could be all wet.

Back to the thread:

The problem with this thread is how it was served up. A soilder died inadvertently because he stepped on an IED-which is tragic-from what I can tell, and I have asked for clarification if I'm wrong.

It was presented that he saved 2 soilders lives because he saw a bomb and knowlingly sacraficed his life and jumped on an IED, why was it presented this way?

Oh and lest we forget did you know happen to know that the soldier who gave his life that day happened to be gay?

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 07:47 AM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
I'm glad we got one thing established, MLK is not on record supporting gay rights, notwithstanding the gay lobby has tried to use him for that.
MLK is not on record supporting Mormon rights either. That doesn't mean that, by default, MLK hated Mormons. In fact, silence does not equate hostility.

The purpose of bringing up Bayard Rustin was simple. By the time he was involved with MLK, he was a controversial figure and a known homosexual in a time when homophobia was heavily rampant both in America and the African American community at-large. If MLK was anti-gay in any capacity, he would not have associated himself with someone like Rustin. And yet, history is pretty clear on Rustin's contributions to MLK, and MLK's support of him, in spite of many of MLK's contemporaries voicing their hatred of him.

MLK, in his lifetime, was focused on black civil rights and--what probably killed him--an end to global poverty, even if it meant changing the face of capitalism forever. A new article on CNN.com, actually, depicts this side of MLK:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/01/mlk.final.crusade/

But considering MLK's character, his association with Rustin, in spite of being a hated man and a known homosexual, and the comments by his now deceased wife, I do not doubt that he could have pursued gay rights in the end.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 08:53 AM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


It was presented that he saved 2 soilders lives because he saw a bomb and knowlingly sacraficed his life and jumped on an IED, why was it presented this way?

Oh and lest we forget did you know happen to know that the soldier who gave his life that day happened to be gay?
Are you saying it was presented that way BECAUSE he's gay?

Anyone who even inadvertently steps on an IED deserves every bit of credit and praise because they are THERE in the first place-period, end of story. Unless and until your butt is on the line over there maybe you should withhold that type of judgment.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 09:02 AM   #53
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
If MLK was anti-gay in any capacity, he would not have associated himself with someone like Rustin.

Unlike Obama and that "ex-gay" dude he hangs with.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 10:33 AM   #54
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 01:14 AM
MLK was murdered in 1968.

given his record on human rights, given his friendships at the time, and given his current wife's position, it is quite reasonable to presume that, had he lived, he would be for the equality of gay citizens.

but you know what? we don't know this. but there's ample evidence that he would have gone in that direction. and pointing out that many African-American churches are homophobic doesn't mean that King would approve.

unless you think that all african-americans think exactly alike and take their marching orders from MLK.

ah, the subtlety of passive racism. you think you're not a racist when you praise MLK, but then, really, you kind of are, in that, "but my best friends are white and i once read a book of Dr. King's writings in college and thought it was so cool."
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-02-2008, 10:47 AM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 01:14 AM
as for Allan Rogers, here's what Chris Crain, editor of the Washington Blade, had to say:

[q]WaPo 'ins' gay soldier killed in Iraq

The Washington Post ombudsman has gently criticized the paper's editorial judgment for "inning" a gay soldier killed in Iraq, omitting his sexual orientation from a story about his life.

Deborah Howell tackled the issue after a Washington Blade story quoted friends of Army Maj. Alan G. Rogers who were upset the Post ignored that Rogers was effectively the first openly gay soldier killed in the Iraq war. Rogers was out to many friends and was active in AVER, a gay veterans group.

Howell's look behind the scenes in the Post newsroom was quite telling:

For The Post, Rogers's death raised an unanswerable question: Would he have wanted to be identified as gay? Friends also struggled with that question but decided to tell The Post that he was because, they said, he wanted the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule repealed. …

[The reporter] first wrote a story that included his friends talking about his orientation; some at the paper felt that was the right thing to do. But the material was omitted when the story was published. Many editors discussed the issue, and it was "an agonizing decision," one said. The decision ultimately was made by Executive Editor Len Downie, who said that there was no proof Rogers was gay and no clear indication that, if he was, he wanted the information made public.

It's fascinating to see journalists aggressive as those at the Post deferring to (some) friends and family rather than applying the same standards of newsworthiness they would to any other story. The Post stylebook even incorporates the views of the story subject into the editorial decision:

[q]"A person's sexual orientation should not be mentioned unless relevant to the story . . . . Not everyone espousing gay rights causes is homosexual. When identifying an individual as gay or homosexual, be cautious about invading the privacy of someone who may not wish his or her sexual orientation known."[/q]

I'm not sure what "evidence" Downie needed to to prove Rogers' sexual orientation. Ex-boyfriends? Love letters? Did the reporter search for them? Yes it's true that heterosexuals can join gay rights groups and have gay friends, and that is true. But still why wasn't Rogers' participation in the group, which was confirmed, in and of itself newsworthy, along with what his gay friends had to say about him?

Howell eventually concludes in the last paragraph of her column that the story should have included Rogers' sexual orientation, but she cushions her criticism:

[q]The Post was right to be cautious, but there was enough evidence -- particularly of Rogers's feelings about "don't ask, don't tell" -- to warrant quoting his friends and adding that dimension to the story of his life. The story would have been richer for it.[/q]

Cautious OK but the way the story was handled suggests a real double standard, however well-intentioned, is at work here. My own belief is that real reason for the omission -- which has been an ongoing issue with obituaries at the Post that I've written about a number of times over the years -- was signaled in the opening line of Howell's column:

[q]What should a newspaper print about a person's most private life in a story after his death?[/q]

Rogers' being gay was his "most private life"? Why is the sexual orientation a gay person his "most private" secret when it is a routine fact treated with no privacy expectation whatsoever with heterosexuals? Howell acknowledges that Rogers kept his romantic life -- not sex life, which is private, but romantic life -- only as private as he needed to in order to comply with "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

I'm not of the school that the press "owes us" our heroes and thus should report sexual orientation more frequently. But I do believe the same editorial standards ought to apply to gay and straight alike.[/q]



here is Army Major Alan Rogers:

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-02-2008, 10:48 AM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:14 PM
There's a lot of literary extrapolation, assumptions and licsence being taking in the last 4 posts.

Those posts speak to character; I know I have many friends and don't ask them if their part of the rainbow coalition, nor keep a score card of their sexual persuassion.

What one needs to ask one self to keep this on an objective level is-would this have been made into a thread if Army Maj. Alan G. Rogers were an A Sexual Tongan Ameriacan and inadvertently stumbled onto an IED?


Ponder that thought.

<>

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 10:51 AM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

What one needs to ask one self to keep this on an objective level is-would this have been made into a thread if Army Maj. Alan G. Rogers were an A Sexual Tongan Ameriacan and inadvertently stumbled onto an IED?


are Sexual Tongan Americans banned from the US Armed forces, and did this hypothetical soldier actively work to change this policy?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-02-2008, 01:09 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Is that the *best* you could do boo-boo?
It's an "A-Sexual" silly.

Melon I will deal with your post later, busy with work.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 01:34 PM   #59
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 10:14 PM
Diamond, why are you so obsessed with this?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-02-2008, 02:01 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Martha dear you know that as a person in real life I have a zest for love, understanding and clarity.

I'm here to offer those 3 items.

dbs
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com