I agree this is a issue, but second class citizens? It's hard to make that claim considering they're many prominent openly gay people in our society.
maybe it's about time we start republicans have no problem using hyperbole to make their points It’s high time we start fighting fire with fire.
Rights Denied to Gay People * Marriage: In all but four states, same sex partners cannot legally wed. * Protection from Discrimination: In many states, you do not have the right to protection from harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation. * Joint Taxes: GLBT couples cannot file taxes jointly; as a result, taxes for a GLBT couple can be significantly higher. * Hospital Visitation: GLBT couples have no legal right to visit a spouse in the hospital and can be barred from entering the room by medical personnel. * Estate Taxes: GLBT couples cannot pass their estate to a spouse tax-free, which creates a huge tax burden that can result in the loss of a spouse's home or business. * Job Security: In a majority of states, employees can be fired just for being gay. * Immigration: GLBT partners are denied special consideration for the immigration of a spouse, often resulting in a painful separation when a loved one is from a foreign country. * Property Taxes: GLBT partners must pay property tax when transferring property between spouses. * Social Security: GLBT partners are not eligible to receive a spouse's Social Security pension or many other government benefits. * Medical Decisions: During a medical crisis, GLBT couples cannot legally make treatment decisions for their partners. * Domestic Violence: GLBT people cannot get domestic violence protection orders against a partner or former partner.
Fair enough. Maybe I'm bias because I'm using my own personal view and see and work with openly gay people without anybody caring. You make some valid points though, even though I don't agree with the measures you used to prove it.
You take a highly complex issue and try to reduce it down to one emotionally charged photograph. Congratulations, I guess.
That's part of the reason I took the time to post-- to make it clear that the use of the image (especially given that an entirely new thread was devoted to it) seemed tasteless to somebody who strongly believes in allowing gays to openly serve in the military. Horrible logic. You're just as bad as "them" and proud of it. I'd remind you of Republican arguments against building the mosque that reference Saudi Arabia's lack of churches, but you'd probably just say, "republicans have no problem being hypocritical, it's high time we started being hypocritical, too."
I'm not attacking you as a person. We all have flaws and contradictions. But if we're going to complain about inappropriate arguments from people we disagree with, we really have to be able to do it with people who we agree with, too. That's why I piped up. There are enough logical arguments for repealing DADT that it shouldn't be necessary to be hyperbolic and inflammatory. Don't let others' tactics make you turn into them. And if it happens once in a while, so be it. You're right, we're all human.
"Haven't we all learned a little something here today, together?" "Dad, can I have $60 and a little mirror please."
I can support anyone that chooses to live the "good life." I don't care about your lifestyle choices, as long as you are a decent person. One Love like Nas.
op is trying to prove a point that everyone in the army is dieing for this country. Doesn't matter if your jew, black, gay, muslim, atheist.
Ugh. Seriously? You can't see that some of us would find the image of our dead soldiers to make a political point offensive? We can't just be pissed off about the use of the image itself? This is not a Left-Right issue. Using dead soldiers to make your point is offensive. Those Westboro nuts do the same thing. And I personally have no problem with gays serving openly. Both of you should be ashamed.
While I may have used exaggerated language, I stand by the point of the thread. I have nothing to be ashamed of.
