gay soilder died a hero

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/gay.so ... ?hpt=hp_c2

its a remarkable story and one that may turn the tables of gay rights

I hope his voice is heard from the grave all the way to capital hill

He sounds like he was a soldier who happened to be gay rather than a gay soldier, I have worked with a large number of gay men in some of my places of work. The ones I had dealings with were professional practitioners of my art who happen to be gay, they did not seek special treatment or an easy ride.

A dead soldier is a dead soldier, so send the corpse home and bury it already!

DADT has already been repealed. It just hasn't been implemented yet.

And, yes, he was just a soldier who happened to be gay. "Gay soldier" is a friggen insult.

It is no insult.

Here are some insults:



It is an insult that the repeal of DADT is held up as the be-all and end-all of heterosexist discrimination in the US Armed Forces, when there continue to be disgusting institutional policies such as this.



It is an insult that gay people in the United States continue to face bullying and harassment, and see a new generation of young people whose experiences do not seem to reflect the progress that should have been made.



It is an insult when the father of a serviceman killed in action needs to satisfy himself that his son's death was not due to gay-bashing.



Putting the adjective first does not imply seeking special treatment or an easy ride.

I am a gay professional. I neither sought nor got special privileges to get into or through university.

I was a gay member of the Canadian Forces. I neither sought nor got special privileges in the CF.

I was a gay foreign service officer. I neither sought nor got special privileges in the Foreign Service. In fact, the only time my partner did not get the same treatment as any other diplomatic spouse in the missions to which I was posted was when we were posted to New York and the State Department would not accredit him (and so disentitled him to permission to work, which the same sex partner of an American diplomat would be entitled in Canada).

I am fed up to the teeth of self-righteous straights who see ever argument over equal treatment as some sort of claim for, "special rights." As far as I am concerned, "special rights" is just white-straight-male code for ongoing repression of minorities.

Sure it is.

It takes a beautiful, complex human being and reduces him down to a sexual orientation.

Do me a favor: if I die in the line of duty, don't EVER regard me as an "asexual Airmen," please. I like to think there's a little bit more to me than who I don't screw. Thank you.



And yet he will be remembered as "gay soldier died a hero." *sigh* Sorry, Andrew. Buddy, you've earned a place at Valhalla.......and not the one designated for "gay soldiers," either.

The only reason that I posted the adjetive first is because I did not know if the title length max would hold the politically correct version, but that is becides the point of the reason I posted it. I posted it because I really think his death and his parents activism will be a turning point in the fight FOR gay marraige. In the big scheme of things where you put the friggin adjetive is not near as important as getting rid of laws that treat LGBT folks as the american untouchables.
I am a bisexual aspie...I dont feel insulted by that phrase, in fact Visagrunt mentioned that he was not insulted by the adjetive order and he himself said he is a "gay soilder"
Sometimes people need to ease up on the surface political correctness and address the real issues.

According to your logic, "The Gay Pride Parade" is an insult to its participants because it should be "The Pride Parade that Happens to be Gay"

And your formulation reduces him down to his occupation. All labels are generalizations, "soldier," no less than, "gay."

So if your arrangement of labels is less "insulting" than the other, the implication in your statement is that, "gay," is a less worthy label than, "soldier." Can you not see the insult inherent in that implication?



By all means. But in return, do me a favour. Don't EVER denigrate my culture by dismissing my being gay as a subordinate characteristic. I like to think that there is more to being gay than who I screw. Thank you.



Of course he did. But being gay is not incidental to him--even if it was only part of him, it was still central to his identity and does not deserve to be dismissed as secondary or irrelevant.

Being gay is not the only thing I am. But being gay is never a secondary characteristic. It is as intrinsic to my identity as my AS, my face, my education, my intellect, my tastes, my nationality, my ethnicity, my social network and all the other myriad factors that go into making me the unique individual that I am.

I read that and it had me tearing up, very touching.

RIP Andrew Wilfahrt, your living proof that courage knows no boundaries.

I thought it was an amazing story, and I hope his parrents can be a turning voice in the battle for gay rights

Should the headline have been "male soldier died a hero"? Or "intelligent soldier died a hero"? Or "well-liked soldier died a hero"?

None of these are secondary characteristics, all of them are true of this guy, and yet none of them are any more appropriate for a headline than "gay soldier died a hero".

Pointing it out so vigorously seems to me to indicate surprise that a *gay* soldier might die a hero, as opposed to any other kind of soldier.

The article itself, by the way, makes clear that he didn't consider it the most important thing about himself.

OK maybe I should have been more politically correct for you oversensitive straights, but my reason for posting this is because I wanted to point out that which the article says about how the government thinks "he is good enough to die for his country but not good enough to marry the person he loves" and how his death and his parrents activism may be a turning point in this battle, so yes the fact he died a gay military hero is very relevant.
I find it ironic and rather anoying that I offended straight folks in how I phrased my title, yet LGBT folks on this thread understand my reasons for posting this and back me up. I am bisexual and I am not ashamed to be called a bisexual aspie, so I didnt think it would be offensive to him to refer him as a gay soilder when the topic is on gay rights, however I didnt expect straight folks to get ya'lls panties in a wad over the word "gay". I have no shame in being a member of the LGBT comunity, therefor do not consider gay to be a "bad" word.

Please, whatever you do, don't be more politically correct.


I find the fact that you're using my sexuality as an insult very ironic.


Your title wan't about his parents. If it had been 'straight parents of gay soldier blah blah blah', then it would have made perfect sense to mention that he was gay in the headline.


Nobody objected to the word itself, just the overemphasis.


So far, at least, nobody has said that it was.

I wept when I read the story, not because he was a gay man, but for all the precious sons and daughters and brothers and uncles and fathers who die thousands of miles from the love of their families, and for what??????? For f*ucking what????? To satisfy the pissing contests of self-righteous politicians?

Just like it was 40 years ago across the other ocean, this lovely young man was blown to pieces for reasons that, while they may have been justifiable in the beginning, have long since faded into rhetoric and nebulous posturing. When will we ever learn?

As far as the gay thing is concerned ... slowly, bit-by-bit, moving one step at time, we are progressing toward the day when all human beings can simply be what they are without having to endure hatred and persecution for it. Hopefully, we are moving toward a world where no one will be ostracized or cast out because of who they love.

I think you will find that the insult was embedded in "oversensitive," rather than in, "straights." I have no objection to you being straight--but I have a great deal of objection to oversenstivity that motivates people to relegate a person's sexuality to a secondary characteristic.



But he is the central figure in the story. And the crux of the story is the disconnect between his country's willingness to allow people who share the same sexuality with him to serve and to sacrifice, but his country's ongoing unwillingness to treat those same people with the equality to which they are entitled.

This isn't about female soldiers being treated differently from male soliders (though there is a significant story to be told there, too). This isn't about atheist soldiers being treated differently from Christian solidiers. This is about LGBT soliders, and you can't diminish the political impact by making them soldiers "who happen to be" GLBT.



Weasel words. By objecting to what you perceive to be overemphasis, you seek to diminish its impact.



Actually, that is precisely what is being implied when the label, "soldier" is held to be more important than the label, "gay."

His exact words were "OK maybe I should have been more politically correct for you oversensitive straights". If I had said "OK maybe I should have been more politically correct for you oversensitive gays" would you not have been offended?

If the insult was meant to be limited to the word "oversensetive", why add the word "straights" at all?


I never relegated anything to be a secondary characteristic, or even bought into your idea about separating characteristics into primary and secondary categories.

The way the title was written highlighted that he was gay without explaining why it was being highlighted. That left it feeling extraneous. There are ways that it could have been written that would not have made it seem extraneous.


The title could have mentioned the potential LGBT political impact and avoided making the word gay seem extraneous.


I don't believe that anyone implied this, or that anyone but yourself has said that any particular label should be more important.

In any case, I'm not going to keep arguing about the details of the wording of the headline, as I think we aren't going to get anywhere.