1. No, DADT didn't permit gays to serve. If it did, then gays wouldn't have been discharged for being gay. What it meant was that gays could serve if they pretended to not be gay,which was possible even before DADT even existed. It was a sham law that through it's existence was meant to create the illusion that it was helping gays, but anyone with a braid could see it did nothing but institutionalize persecution. It was essentially one grand euphenism.

2. No, you're not worth my time. Appearently you can't even read.

This!

Yes, and it's clearly meant to benefit one group, while exclude another.

@ Sapphi-snake, osamanobama, and FinalEvangelion

can you guys take this somewhere else? you're clearly getting off topic here...

this is just silly now..

it doesnt exlude anyone. i can marry the exact same gender of person as any pther person. i dont have any "right" that others do not.

and what about people that want to marry the cousin or sister, or people that want to marry 2 girls and 2 guys.

also, you are completely wrong about DADT. before that law gays werent allowed to serve, then Clinton signed into law DADT to allow gays to serve, which they did, and continue to do.

I have friends in the national guard who attested to tremendous pressure to out themselves (though none of them are gay to my knowledge). It was indeed a sham law because the first half of the name was rarely enforced. One of those ideas that sounded halfway decent on paper, but in practice just, as Sapphi said, institutionalized persecution that was previously less of an issue

reguardless, like is said, now as in the present, the law is not in place. So i would still like to know what "rights" i have that gays dont.

1. It excludes homosexuals, because it's a law that only takes into consideration and benefit heterosexuals. Homosexuals are attracted sexually/emotionally to people of the same sex, so it's pretty obvious that they'd want to marry someone of the same sex. But they can't do theat, because marriage laws exclude them, as they are made (by heterosexuals) to meet the necessities of heterosexuals (thus excluding homosexuals and being discriminatory).

2. No, you're completely wrong about DADT. It did not allow gays to serve, hence why gays were discharged if it was found out they were gay. The law essentially said that gays couold serve if they pretended to not be gay, but if the fact that they were gay was found out by someone, then they'd be discharged (because gays couldn't serve in the military). And there were no punishments for the people who did the 'ask' part either. This was no different then how things were before it (as a gay person could always serve if he/she pretended to be straight and no one found out the truth). DADT didn't change anything (it probably made things worse), hence why I called it a sham law, and essentially an euphanism for institutionalized discrimination. I hope I don't have to repeat myself again regarding this point.

1) i cant marry a man either. the law applies to me as well, so try harder.

also way to ignore, the persucuted people that cant marry cousins or sisters, or 2 wives.

2) now your just showing that you know nothing about DADT. or the history of it, (which at at the time of its passage was praised by gay community, because it allowed them to serve).

so i ask again, what "right" do I have that gays dont. please just tell me.

1. I already explained why it's discriminatory. Just read it over and over and over and over. Maybe you'll get it. I won't be writing the same thing again, worded differently, so maybe you can figure it out. Not my problem if you can't get things.

And stop bringing up irrelevant factors.

2. Considering that gays have been campaigning for years to get DADT repelled, I honestly doubt they ever found it positive. And as I said, anyone with a brain can see that the policy essentially didn't help gays at all, and was just one big euphanism.

I already mentioned 1 right you have that gays don't, and that's whatyou asked.