Comments on: Uruguay to lift ban on gays in the military

By: Gene

Gene — Mon, 18 May 2009 05:48:56 +0000

@Chris
I see your point … sort of. I’m no great fan of the military and never really considered joining (though I was offered scholarships by DARPA and some other military research organizations), but I view it as hypocrisy that some people disparage the military while taking for granted that which a military provides. Let’s face it, in the world in which we live, sometimes you have to be willing to make war in order to secure peace.

It’s sort of like people who complain about cheap and/or dangerous goods from China and then go shop at Walmart. Well, Walmart itself is China’s 6th largest trading partner. That means Walmart does more business in China than 189 entire COUNTRIES!

Or like people who expect others to respect their choices in the way in which they live their lives, but refuse to respect other people’s choices.

Don’t complain about the problem if you’re not willing to be part of the solution.

By: Pablo

Pablo — Fri, 15 May 2009 04:51:27 +0000

um, they spelled the capital of Uruguay wrong in the news post above. Its “Montevideo” not “Montevido”.
And Sean brings up a good point, in that its not the most positive and celebratory thing that they lifted the ban of homosexuals to be in the military. I mean it is an institution designed to destroy enemies *((although, there are a lot of other beneficiary services that militaries can provide. But, unfortunately, the main purpose of militaries is killing))*. But, I think Sean is missing the point, that the main reason we celebrate this isn’t so the gay’s in Uruguay can carry guns now in service to their nation. We celebrate the fact that there is hope for more freedoms and rights for homosexuals, not just in the US or Europe, but all around the world.

By: shawn

shawn — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:04:00 +0000

Self defense YES. Outright aggressive behavior NO! I mean, c’mon folks, we’re sooo much better than the breeders. They are definitely NOT to be emulated.

By: Chris Sullivan

Chris Sullivan — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:52:36 +0000

The simple reality is that as long as there are people who are willing to resort to violence of any kind in order to secure money, power, influence etc. – there will always be a need to be protected from that violence. Since it appears that greed, power and ego are strong inate traits in some people, I don’t forsee a time when we won’t need laws and people to enforce those laws. As long as countries play the same game on a grander scale, there will be a need for a military. I think Shawn is actually alluding to a far deeper, perhaps even spiritual context – that regardless of the motivation involved (whether justifiable or not) – military’s do kill people (often innocent people – disturbingly referred to as “collateral damage”). Religious leaders like Jesus, by today’s standards would be considered “pacifists” (or worse, for even daring to suggest that one “turn the other cheek”).

It’s a very compromising position to be put in. On the one hand, you don’t want to have to kill anyone, but you also must protect yourself from those who would seek to harm you.

Ultimately, our most primal of instincts – “survival of the fittest” prevails – regardless of what any belief system might suggest.

Sadly though, often another truth comes into play as well. Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred…

I can feel for Shawn’s anger at the violence and suffering occurring in the world today – but there are difficult realities to be taken into account.

Hypothetically, if someone were about to shoot you, would you not attempt to shoot them first?

Personally, I believe self-defense if a justifibale reason. The life of anyone, seeking to harm me, does not become more important than my own. I believe to suggest otherwise is either misguided, disingenuous or an attempt to “play martyr” (See: Fundamentalist Muslim).

By: The Menstruator

The Menstruator — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:16:35 +0000

Very progressive, but sad that any homosexual male or female would choose to be murdered or murder others or aid others in murdering others.

By: R&R

R&R — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:22:08 +0000

Shawn – you are a very sick person who should seriously consider finding a good mental hospital and commit yourself for an extended period of time in which you may regain some degree of sanity – hopefully. “Have a nice day.”

By: shawn(the deviant)

shawn(the deviant) — Thu, 14 May 2009 09:38:30 +0000

Ever notice the correlation between small penises and gun worshippers? LMAO! To all the fakes posting on here please go back in your closets, get married(to a female),have your 4.5 offspring,go join the mormons,attend your celebration of animal abusers(aka RODEO), stock up on your m-16’s,call your fellow gay activists “fags”,shave yer scalp and ABOVE ALL, hang out with LOTS of hetero homophobes who really, REALLY appreciate you bashing your fellow gay activists. Get the picture? Peace out. P.S. methinks I hear the Log Cabin phonies calling you. LMFAO!!!

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 14 May 2009 09:36:35 +0000

I want to move to South America now – they treat us gays better down there then they do here in Nazi hate-mongering America!!!!! Obama does jack shit to repeal DADT and DOMA. Obama sucks ass. “typical promise – but NO ACTION AS USUAL” and I am a Hillary supporter!!!!

If he really supported us gays he would of by now;

1) repealed DOMA
2) signed an order invalidating DADT (or making it null and void)
3) signed the Matthew Shepard Act.

What did he do for gays in 100 days

JACK SHIT THATS WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew deep down he will do jack shit – but then again – I am a Hillary supporter!!!!

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 14 May 2009 04:03:37 +0000

Once again, the so-called City on the Hill falls further behind MORE ADVANCED nations.

By: Gene

Gene — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:24:57 +0000

@Shawn
If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that I did answer your question in two ways:

First by somewhat obtusely challenging your notion of “my own kind.” What does that mean? Men? Blondes? People with green eyes? Gay people? Geminis? Left-handed people?

Second I answered by refuting the very thesis of your question by asking what commander-in-chief would be dumb enough to decide to attack a group of people, but first arm them and train them in military tactics?

If you want a more explicit answer: if I were ordered to shoot an enemy, I wouldn’t stop to ask anything about him or her, including his/her orientation. If I were ordered to shoot a non-enemy, I would be morally obliged to countermand an immoral or treasonous order as part of the code of honor of being a serviceman.

However, being in the military does not always mean carrying a weapon: I have an acquaintance who was about to be hired as a Marine Band trombone player. As a musician, he would have been exempted from basic training and just received a commission on his first day. Guess what? Military musicians aren’t allowed to be gay either. It’s stupid on so many levels.