Comments:Death of 4000th U.S. soldier in Iraq shines spotlight on gays in the military
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Thanks for bringing this to our attention on the front page. Not something you would see on cnn.com I'm afraid.
- "however, initial reports omitted Rogers' sexual orientation or anything related to the subject." when any other soldier dies, do they publicly state that he was NOT gay? The US did the right thing IMO... had to happen eventually didn't it. Shane.Bell - (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, heterosexual partnerships and resulting children are almost always published in obituaries. Sometimes even with minor quotes from the survivors about the impact to the partnership. --74.229.182.73 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
congratuations!the better the more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.4.40.3 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment[edit]
It seems more than a coincidence that 4000th US soldier dead was gay. Surely there were gay soldiers who died before him who simply didn't tell! - w:User:Ian Lee 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
who cares?[edit]
If he was gay or not. He did his job as a American and we should honer his sacrifice and a born again is saying that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous[edit]
Ok, so the 4000th person in Iraq to die was a homosexual... and that makes his death even MORE newsworthy? All this does is subtly suggest that homosexuals and heterosexuals are not equals. If you give special attention to a minority, while also claiming that the minority and another majority have equal rights and liberties, then you're being inconsistent. Seriously. All this politically correct crap of putting gays, blacks, mexicans, etc. on pedestals has to stop. If they're supposed to be our equals, then they should be treated as such, and not be given extra attention over the majorities. A prime example of this is the South Park episode Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000, where he throws a rock at a black classmate and it's treated by the government as a hate crime, because the boy was of a different color. I'm not going to recap the whole episode or the message, so you should watch it yourself. To sum it all up: this crap has to stop. 71.232.227.162 21:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, most people would probably call you a racist for this. Fephisto - (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- In many cases, the minority group has already suffered such unequal treatment that the first step towards equality is to push things further in the opposite direction - bring attention to the inequality, provide special treatment to bring things back in line, and then hopefully reach a point where everything's equal. Given that there are still complaints about unfair treatment of women, who aren't even a minority, it's likely to be some time before race and sexuality become non-factors. (Of course there's also the issue of working out what "equal" means without resorting to "identical" - if you're not going to discriminate on the basis of religion, how do you deal with Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc. holidays, customs and rituals, and then how do you make it so that that isn't being unfair on the non-religious?) Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 03:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)