yes and those same rights are denied straight couples that don't marry, so I don't see that as anything special.
Well, when those rights are denied to a straight couple that WANTS to marry, but is told they can't, then maybe you'll see that as "special." And many of those rights/privilages are specific to couples, like the right to be claimed on your spouse's insurance, visit them in an ICU, etc, so they don't apply to single people in general. You're talking about people who DON'T marry, not people who CAN'T marry, and there is a difference.
Though I can't speak of individual states laws, I do no it is damn near impossible for most straight single people to adopt children anyways, so again nothing special.
First off, I meant to say Arkansas, not Alambama - my bad. :
Secondly, single-parent adoption is very common in this country. According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 33% of children adopted from Foster Care are adopted by a single parent (U.S. DHHS, 2000). In many states gay and lesbian people CAN adopt, but second-parent adoption is an issue in many parts of the country (the ability of, for instance, a lesbian to legally adopt her partner's bio child).
Don't ask don't tell; considering it was no gays at all prior to don't ask don't tell, I think you don't have any room to complain about that. As I have pointed out in another thread about the military's policy, in some ways it is more for the safety of the individual that is gay to not be open about it, and being straight I can honestly say I wouldn't want to be in boot camp with someone that was gay, call it what ever you want, but women seem to have a problem running naked around men they don't want to share their beds with, and I dont want to run around naked with some guy checking out my butt.
I absolutely have room to complain about it when members of my community are being actively discriminated against. And gays still aren't allowed in the military. It's STILL no gays allowed. DADT is basically the military saying "well, we can't identify all of you, so as long as no one can tell you're gay, fine." But as soon as they can identify someone as LGBT, they get the boot. Gays were hiding their sexuality to serve in the military for a long time before DADT. Now there's just a term for the policy. But as far as rights go, nothing has changed. And you're right, it could be dangerous to be gay in the military, but it can also be dangerous to be a female soldier, or a minority, or a Muslim. So should they be kicked out too? And you might be surprised how okay a lot of soldiers are with serving with LGBT people. Take Lt. Dan Choi, for instance, who was a decorated soldier who admitted to being gay and was dishonorably discharged. It was general knowledge to those who served with him that he was gay, and all any of them can say about him is what a good soldier he was and how much they respect him.
And as for you not wanting a gay soldier checking you out, well, I think we've established that there ARE gays in the military, even if they can't serve openly, so you'd run the risk of being ogled regardless of rather or not DADT exists. And for the record, being gay does not make someone an insatiable slut that lusts after anyone of the same sex. Our brains aren't all sex all the time. A gay soldier is not by definition any less focused or dedicated or respectful in his or her duty than a straight soldier. Just because he's gay, and you're a man, does NOT mean he's trying to get in your pants. Also, your version of the military, where people run around buck naked in the barracks, sounds like a lot of fun. I hadn't realized there was so much streaking in our nation's military.
Well to be honest, if I was a company owner, or a property owner and didn't want to hire or rent to someone because of their sexual orientation, I don't think the state has the right to tell me any different, so I don't see that as an issue either.
So, if you were a company or property owner and didn't want to hire someone or rent to them because they were Asian, or black, or a woman, then that'd be fine, too?