H.R. 4752: Universal National Service Act of 2006
 

I found this legislation on GovTrack and thought for a moment about my own age and how I would feel about being drafted at this point in my life. I'm right on the edge of being ineligible under this proposed legislation but I would certainly serve in whatever capacity I was called.

The real key difference in this legislation is that the age range is being proposed to be changed from formerly 18 to 25 to newly 18 to 42.

Keeping in mind that we have an unfinished and almost forgotten war ongoing in Afghanistan, a $40B per month war in Iraq, and trigger happy KJI's missle testing that happened in North Korea just today (July 4th - coincidence?), and the Iranians enriching Uranium for "energy purposes only" (yeah right, and I'm the Pope) -- how do you feel about the selective service and the possibility that you may be drafted?

GovTrack Link

People have tabled such legislation many, many times. It has yet to build any real support, as far as I remember.

Eh, they wouldn't want me in the military anyway, as I'm gay and have a physical disability that would proscribe most military duties.

I don't support the war in Iraq, and so would not want to serve in any capacity that would support that effort.

I also find the idea of conscription to be anti-freedom. I do think that men and women should be treated equally in this regard, but I think that equal treatment should mean neither group is forced into unwanted service.

Gilda

Well with a college degree and a strong ability and background with foreign languages, I would enlist and get myself into the officer program before they could draft me.

But I don't see this as bill getting anywhere. Look at who introduced it, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). This isn't the first draft bill he has introduced. And if I remember correctly the last one he introduced recieved a grand total of 3 votes.

If they instate a draft, I will be happily serving jail time.

Nothing on this earth could make me fight the wars this administration has gotten us in to.

Which says nothing for what analog said.

I'l be gleefully posting from Peru if there is a draft. Anyone and everyone is welcome to join me. I'll bring a few extra futons, just in case. BYOB.

For those who would go to jail or move to Peru, I have a question - What if we're attacked by North Korea? Would you still skeedaddle?

If North Korea attacks us, we'd lose two-ish cities and then we'd turn the country into radioactive glass. It's pretty simple. There's no war to be fought.

Also, KJI is crazy, but he's not stupid. He knows we'd do that. I think the possibility of North Korea attacking the US proper is all but zero. This is posturing so we don't do to him what we did to Saddam. Same with Iran. Iraq didn' thave WMDs, so we invaded and took over the country. Iran and North Korea have every incentive to give us a reason (wanting to keep LA on the map, for example) to not do it to them.

Edit: I realized I posted all this and didn't answer your question. The answer to the question is I will never fight if I am conscripted. I can imagine outside chances where I would, as indicated above, use my knowledge of foreign languages and college degree to get an officer's commission. So yes, it is possible that I would serve if I felt it was appropriate. I would never fight if drafted.

If we were actually attacked by a real enemy, I would volunteer before being drafted. I will not be drafted for any reason, but I will fight to protect my country from a real foe.

This piece of legislation isn't about a draft at all. It's about obligatory national service--something plenty of other countries have. If you don't want to be in the military, you can opt into civil service instead.

As for a draft, I'm not in support of it, and it's sexist. If the government wants a draft, they should draft everyone, regardless of sex.

Rangel's just making a point: if the U.S. is going to war, every family should be prepared to sacrifice. If they're not... if they're only in favor of the war if somebody _else's_ son or husband or daugher or wife goes... maybe something like a universal draft would make help them to rethink their views.

Personally, I think universal national service is a good thing, as long as there are other avenues as well as the military for the conscripts to pursue.

This gets proposed every year... amazingly by a Democrat.

Meaning?

It's simply to scare people in not liking the war and hense Bush. No one ever votes for it.

This version specifies women also and alters the existing codes to include women. I agree that the draft should be sex neutral, but I don't think anyone should be drafted or forced to do any work against their will.

North Korea invading the US is about as likely as Bolivia invading, and no, I wouldn't fight, as I'd be worse than useless. It isn't always about the US--they may be saber rattling at South Korea, which I think makes much more sense.

Gilda

This is my answer as well. I can certainly see myself fighting an invasion to protect this country, and indeed killing if required (though I would never be the same person again, I am willing to accept this). I refuse however, to be compelled into a forced mental disorder because an old man in Washington thinks its a good Idea.
Having never been in a position to take the life of another person, I cannot say what it would do to me, but I do know it would change me in ways I do not care for. We can all look at this as some far off possibility, and play the bravado game for the sake of our collective Ego, but when it comes down to it.....Warfare means Killing. I for one, do not take even the slim chance of having to do so.....lightly.

I had a very good friend in the Special Forces. He ran many.. operations in the 4.5yrs since 9/11. I've never heard it put any clearer when talking about how killing affects you.

"However you think you'll feel, that's exactly what it feels like."

If you think you'll have no problem with it you wont. Chances are if you think it'll completely wreck you it probably will.

It's not to scare people. It's to make a point. It's real easy to be delightedly in favor of the fact that we're off to kill innocent Iraqis if there's no chance you or your kid will be forced to help out. It's not quite as much fun to think of playing Rambo if your kid is the one getting shot at.

Croatia. I hear their property rates are really low nowadays and you can get a sizeable chunk of land for next-to-nothing. And they've got very nice beaches.

Like the above have said, there's no way I'm going to fight for the ill-cocked idiocy our President got us into. In defense of an invasion, sure. But not a Bushwar.

National service is a great idea that doesn't work on a large scale. The Israelis can make it work given that they have a homogenous population that is much smaller than the US. The closest analogy to the US would most likely be Russia, and by all accounts their national service was a disaster under the Soviets and continues now. New recruits are habitually tortured, raped, assalted and robbed by "career" servicemen, with several dozen being outright murdered by their squadmates every year. There is a huge resentment between career and non-career personnel, and I don't see any reason for that kind of friction to be lacking here, given the current all-volunteer force. There's a big grassroots movement in Eastern Russia now to do away with madatory service.

From what I read, they already have.

This would be a good thing.

As it is now, there's no reason for citizens to gain much significant real world experience or maturity because mass media and post-modern culture discourage it and the contemporary workplace does not reward it.

It may even instill a sense of true individualism rather than phoney marketed "individualism." Perhaps it would reanimate a general spirit of patriotism - without which no country can survive.

I have a few scenarios that I'm curious as to what peopel think about whether they would be drafted/join depending on the case:

North Korea at tacks America. Not necessarily to invade, but they drop a nuclear bomb on San Francisco or LA to hurt the American infrastructure. If we responded by invading North Korea to overthrow the government in response to the attack, would you go? Same question but with Iran.

In that case, I would allow myself to be drafted. I wouldn't join I doubt since there's far better servicemen out there than I could ever be, but if I were called on I would go.

Iraq? If Congress instuted a draft today for more troops in Iraq, would you go?

Personally, no. I support the war, I think it's a means to an end and it could have some pretty great results in the Middle East, but ultimately I wouldn't fight that war. If I were drafted I'd probably head up to Canada for a little while.

Overall, I'm against a draft in the military sense. I feel that there should be a required duty to spend 2 years doing some kind of work for the government - Depending on education I guess depends on what you'd do - And you'd have the option of joining the military reserves for 2-4 years or working a civilian job for 2-4 years part time. I'm not 100% sure how that would work itself out, but general idea that I think there should be a required time of work done for the country, but not necessarily in a military fashion.

With the trying to make you think "Huh, what if it were my children instead of some one else's child out there?" That seems like a very poor way of going about things. Nobody in the military was forced into the military with a gun to their head, it was their choice, they joined, signed up knowing that they might end up going to war. It's not like people join the military just for kicks and not ever think that "Hey, I might end up going to war..." I can still support the decision to go to war, but I don't feel I need to be in the military to feel that way. To say that you do is absurd to me.

GF, I'd need proof. If there was proof, then I'd defend my country. The bottom line is that I have no reason to trust the word of the government or news media right now, so why would I want to kill people because of their word? *If* Iran made the mistake of launching nuclear weapons on the US, and there was actually proof, then I would defend my country. If there was a sudden nuclear attack, and then Bush came on saying words like "evildoers", "terror", "9/11", and such, then I'd be skeptical. The 9/11 paper trail still hasen't even ben released (the one that Condee promised would be made public in an announcement right after 9/11). It's an issue of trust, and if trust isn't there, then trust isn't there.

I think national service at 18 or 22 (post-college) would be great, if you could opt out of military service and instead perform civil service like working in poor and underserved communities. Build houses for the poor, teach or be a teacher's aide in poor schools, work with literacy programs, whatever. Like Americorps, only mandatory. I think it'd be a great idea to expose young people to the range of need in this country, and to introduce them to the rewards of service to others.

However, it sounds like this is not a "public service" bill but a draft. Good luck passing a draft for THIS war. Or any other, really.

No, and I'm the last person they'd want in such a situation.

No, for above stated reasons.

That said, I've been in public service by my own choice my whole life. I taught public school for seven years and work for a state university now. I wouldn't support a way in any way, but I think I've done my part to support my country.

It isn't that I object to service, it's mandatory service that I find objectionable.

Gilda

Why is it that there's an assumption that draft = fight? Draft can equal supply, or intelligence or accounting or HR or legal or nursing or any number of other things. You wouldn't become a state-side resident medic and help injured soldiers? You'd rather flee to another country? For shame! It's one thing to be against killing others, it's quite another to take your anti-violent beliefs out on injured soldiers who may have had no other option. Enlist with a contract clause to never be deployed overseas. In times of need, the appropriate general officers will sign off on just about damned anything if it means more warm bodies. Sounds way better than being drafted and FORCED into something you don't want to do.

As a side note, this bill wouldn't affect me as I'm already enlisted and have done more than two years as it is. As for my boys... I'd love to see them required to be in civil service of some nature for 2 years. In fact, if I have the means by which to do so, I will make their higher education contingent on it after they graduate, even if just for one year or for summers during college (if non-military).

Well, after they graduate college, they're eligible for the Peace Corps, and they receive an educational award after finishing their tour of service that can be applied to student loans or additional education. Americorps is much more flexible in that you do not sign up for a 2-year stint, but rather choose positions to apply for, all of which have different requirements (in education and length of time). They also have an education award after fulfillment of the contract.

Make them sign up for a program such as the Peace Corps or Americorps, and they'll get more out of it--and you'll have to do less work. :)

I'm all for Americorps if that's what they want to do, as I am with the Peace Corps or the Marine Corp. Civil service is civil service, and I'm a fan of it all! :)

Perfectly stated in my mind. I will not act in a war that I cannot support, but will readily defend my country in one that I must.

The US may be fucked up pretty badly and I may not like how it is being run in the least, but somewhere near its heart there are still, though twisted and roughed up, the values that we can back... And that makes it worth defending. We would have to defend it from destruction so that we could take the time afterward to fix everything that we fucked up in the past few decades.

If it comes to it, I'll fight with that thought close to my heart.

I feel that I can serve my country in better ways that fighting in the field. I don't feel any emotion toward the prospect of a draft, as it simply won't happen. If such legislation is passed, those who voted for it will quickly learn the extent to which the electorate will hold them accountable for their decisions.

Really? The electorate? As in their constituants? Those people that don't even bother to vote? Yeah, the politicans have a lot to fear from the public these days... the grand apathetic American public. :-/

One would think a draft would... well, beat... the apathy out real quick.

A lot of people don't vote for a plethora of reasons, most likely one of them being that either way they vote them themselves won't be effected much. I could have voted for Kerry or I could have voted for Bush, but either way wouldn't have mattered a bit to me in the long run. When I am personally affected, via a draft, yeah, I think I would vote be a lot more inclined to vote. I sincerely doubt I'm the only person who feels that way.

No personal offense intended Gator, but I wish that you were. I am not eligible for the draft, but I will vote to prevent it from happening to you. I would ask you to vote in what you believe is right, whether it directly affects you or not.

I'm not qualified for any of those things. Nor is anyone in my family.

How would I be doing this? Am I harming anybody by not treating injured soldiers right now?

Well, there's high praise. I'd be a "warm body", not a person with individual worth. Then again, that would be little different than how things are now.

And by the way, I have served the people of my country as a teacher.

Gilda

That's why the government and/or military provides training. Even if you have a degree in the MOS you choose, you still go through the same training as someone whose never done it before. How many people do you think are qualified to be infantry before enlisting?

Well, statistically it's possible. Most Army and VA hospitals are in desperate need of volunteers and medical professionals. The lack thereof could be hurting someone. I'm not trying to argue that you SHOULD do one of these things, but rather that dismissing them outright seems a bit cold.

Yes, well, the kid at McD's serves his country by feeding their fat asses. My company's owner serves his country by running a business that helps the economy. There's a difference between a job and civil service. Nearly ALL jobs are important to some degree or another. Teachers, lawyers, doctors... sometimes going above and beyond your comfort zone not only allows you to better serve your fellow countryfolk (even those that may not deserve it) but also give you new space for personal growth.

Before I enlisted, I served my country, too... as a good citizen. Something we tend to lack these days. Teachers are great! Sadly, we have too many that are not qualified to be teaching their subject or grade or anyone in some cases. Gilda, aside from your posts here, I don't know you. You might be the best teacher in the tri-county area. But just saying, "I'm a teacher, so I serve my country" is a bit trite. Sorry...

I have no idea what an MOS is, but it seems both foolish and inefficient to give everyone the same training regarless of background.

Well, given that that is a job that exists solely within the military, I'd say none.

That I'm cold is how most people see me, so you hit on the obvious there.

I don't, however, see how my putting my talents to use where I'm most useful is harming anybody, or possibly could.

You do realize that public school teachers are government employees, do you not? I've done my civil service.

Absolutely. I see no connection to being forced into unwanted labor by the goverment.

This is true. I'd venture that the same thing is true of every profession, including the military. It's part of why it would be exceedingly foolish to take me from a job that I'm qualified for and good at to do a job I would hate, for which I am not qualified, and which I would do poorly.

The same could be said of being in the military, which by the way, doesn't want me or anybody in my family, regardless of our ability to serve.

Gilda

MOS = Military Occupational Specialty. It's your job you'll specialize in while in the military.

It's not foolish, and the military rarely concerns itself with efficiency. It relies on teaching everyone the exact same things, and drilling them constantly so it's second nature.

Thank you.

I disagree, obviously, and I really doubt that that is actually the case. To use Grace as an example, it would be a huge waste of time and resources to treat her and someone who has no medical training the same in a hospital setting.

Gilda

Were there a war on my own HOME soil I would fight and take as many of them with me as I could. However, I feel the good old USofA spends way too much time sticking its nose into other peoples business. Think of everything we could have fixed with all that money put into this war.

Last I checked WE fought OUR civil war, if Iraq cant fight theirs, they dont need one. Let them be opressed.

It isnt even the United Nations anymore, it is the nations that want to be protected by the big bad USofA. (Note dripping sarcasm)

Have they ever helped us? Where were they? They didnt help us fight our civil war. They ever pay us back for all the boat loads of help weve sent them?

NO!

Wanna ship food over to some third world hole? Do it yourself, let them live on charity, we have starving people here at home that would kill for a pack of ramen noodles.

Thats all I have to say about that otherwise I will rant and ramble all day long and this is a prime example as to why I stay OUT of the politics forum.

I'll respond to the rest later, I'm just in ah urry and this stood out - Is this dripping with sarcasm?

Because the last time I checked the slaves weren't the ones who started the civil war and I'm pretty sure on the scale of oppression they were the ones at the bottom, not the men from the South.

It's the military, tailoring training to the individual would be way too complex. If you have to train 1k nurses you do not go individually to them with a checklist of what they do or do not know. This can lead to many problems, as you'd have to account for regional training differences, things they forgot, or things they simply skip or add in.

What they want is to bust out those 1k nurses knowing full and well they have the same skills and methods. So they have an assembly line approach, ensuring they all know the same thing, that if someone else treats a wounded soldier they know which method they used and can expect it. Because if you're not aware they dont have the medical records of past treatments on a hummer or airlift blackhawk.

I've discussed this with a few people, and the conclusion that we came to is that because of the same strong belief in national soverignty that leads me to oppose most international military action, if the US were ever invaded I would likely end up as an underground resistance leader much like the insurgents we deal with in Iraq (by my definition, an insurgent is a guerilla who fights an opposing army as opposed to a terrorist, who attacks any who disagree wtih him, whether civilian or military.)

a) That's not always true. Private school teachers are not government employees, for instance.

b) Not all government workers fit the bill of civil servants. A mayor is a civil servant. His secretary is a secretary. *shrug*

Well, I'll agree to disagree on the first part. As for the latter, I can't tell if you are glad or bitter, but it's a point you seem to feel strongly about. Besides, the times they are a changin'.

You need to reread what I wrote, which is true.

b) Not all government workers fit the bill of civil servants. A mayor is a civil servant. His secretary is a secretary. *shrug*

By the first definition, the military aren't civil service, and given that it has civil in the name, that's hardly surprising, but public school teachers are. By the second, both the military and public school teachers are.

In any case, I did work for the government for seven years, and am now an employee of a state institution.

Why would I be bitter about an organization defining me and my family as second class citizens, and fighting vigorously to defend and to retain that institutionalized bigotry?

Gilda

Hmmm... first of all, simply disallowing you to join isn't having the "define" you, at least not any differently than you "define" yourself. And second class citizens? Hmpf!

First of all, many gays and lesbians in the military right now are finding it much harder than they expected to get out by playing that particular card. Why? Because it's more important to keep troop strength high. The don't ask don't tell policy may be silly, but in all reality it's a GOOD idea. Not a GREAT idea, but better than other options at this particular point in our societal climate. Frankly, the government is representative of the citizens of the country. If you look around you, those representing us (those people are also citizens as well) are not ready and don't feel the populace is ready for mainstreaming gays and lesbians. Why do you think two more states have just recently changed or overturned previous changes and now again have constitutionally prohibted gay marriage? Just because you and I and a few forward thinkers here at the TFP don't have a problem with it doesn't mean that a large percentage of the country doesn't as well. By not allowing gays to talk about their sexuality in the military, it protects all involved. Those that would be uncomfortable with it need not have lowered morale. Those who might get their asses kicked becuase of it are safe to not worry about physical retribution. The military itself saves itself a lot of headache, hassle and lega issues by preventing both of the former events from occuring. My ONLY criticism of the military regarding their stance is that you must "swear and attest" to the fact that you are straight, even if you aren't. Frankly, a don't ask don't tell policy should mean that box and signature line should never exist to begin with.

However, I think the GLBT section of society overreacts to this type of issue. Much like I think virtually all minority groups do in our country. I grew up in a town that fostered the gay lifestyle and had several friends who realized early on that they were attracted to the same sex. I've known gay men (not so much on the LBT of GLBT, in all honesty) for most of my life. I think it's great to stand up for what you believe is right. However, if the majority of Americans don't believe you should be granted certain rights due to that, well... that's the downside of Democracy (or any assembly). Here, at least, majority rules. Even if the majority is against you, that can change. Be thankful this isn't a communist country. In fact, be thankful this isn't several other countries if mandatory national service does come into play. In some countries, you'd be forced to serve, would eventually be outed, and would be ostrocized or worse. Aside from a very few European countries, gays and lesbians have more rights here than anywhere else in the world. Why be bitter about that? You want it changed? Great... slavery didn't get fixed overnight. It took a goddamned WAR to end slavery. Why do you think ending bigotry about sexuality will be any less difficult?

At any rate, that was my long winded rant. I apologize for misreading your public school teacher comment. Yes, that's true... and as I said, I'm fully pro-teacher. I think it's a wonderful profession. If I weren't a greedy bastard, I'd love to teach. Kudos to you!

What you describe here is a good definition of second class citizenship.
So they want to exclude us, but only when it's convenient.

As I said, institutionalized bigotry. Think about how that would sound if you substituted blacks or Jews. Even better, substitute straights for gays and lesbians there, and you'll see how belittling such an attitude is.


Oh, I know this one: Bigotry.


If I'm made uncomfortable by a black man kissing a white woman, should that be banned? Why should we cater to the bigots?

Wait, so homosexuals have to hide who they are and who they love to avoid getting their asses kicked, and that's not defining us as second class citizens? If blacks were getting their asses kicked for being black, would you be defending that? If women were being assaulted for being women, would you be defending that?

I would never do that. Would you sign a statement declaring that you were gay as a condition of employment?

This does seem to be a very strong indicator that the military doesn't want homosexuals.

People do get testy about being denied equal rights under the law.

If anything, your defense here has only cemented my belief that homosexuals are treated as second class citizens in the military. They have to sign a statement that is untrue, pretend to be straight or at least hide their sexuality for fear of being beaten, discharged, or jailed, and live in an atmosphere that promotes bigotry against them. I would assume that I would not be allowed to live with my wife, so we can add broken families to that list.

Assume for a moment that you were expected to do all that as a result of your being heterosexual: signe a statement saying you were, gay, pretend to be gay, be separated from your wife, live in fear of being attacked for being straight, and live in fear of being discharged or jailed for being heterosexual. Would you still be supportive of such a policy?

By the way, it isn't just certain parts of Europe. It's Canada, the vast majority of Western Europe, and recently, South Africa. And at the same time that same-sex marriage prohibitions are being enacted, more states--currently 27--are including protections for orientation in their civil rights legislation, and more are protecting for gender identity and expression--currently 8 and DC.

I'm thinking we'll be seeing widespread legalized gay marriage within ten to twenty years. The current legislation is the last gasp of a morally bankrupt idiology that will soon go the way of miscegenation and sodomy laws.

Gilda


"Tolerance and acceptance you must be patient for. Justice you should always demand now." ~forwarded from my sister in law

"When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one." ~From the tombstone of a gay Vietnam veteran

"Why can't they have gay people in the army? Personally, I think they are just afraid of a thousand guys with M16s going: Who'd you call a faggot?" ~ John Stewart

"Soldiers who are not afraid of guns, bombs, capture, torture or death say they are afraid of homosexuals. Clearly we should not be used as soldiers; we should be used as weapons." ~Letter to the editor, The Advocate

Gilda I know this wont help you, but it's not that they're afraid of the things, they're trying to avoid problems

Same reason why there are many strict rules for fraternization (beyond those of simple relationships). They lead to situations which distract people from their mission. When people are distracted on such dangerous jobs people die.

Whoa, wait a minute? Blacks don't get their asses kicked for being black? Since when? Women don't get harrased or assaulted because they're women? Where the hell do YOU live? You know what? Sometimes white guys gets their asses kicked for being white guys, too. You know what? Sometimes being a straight, middle-class American male isn't a perfect existance either. That higher education at Michigan STATE University? I know three honors students with VERY high SAT and ACT scores that got bumped because there weren't enough new student slots. That SAME year there were inner-city black kids going in as freshmen that were dumber than dirt. (I'm sure there were white idiots, too... this isn't about whites over blacks)... so the SMART kids that might make more of themselves DON'T get to go because they aren't black? Yeah... white men are never treated poorly. There's NO SUCH THING as a perfect society. Why do you think hippie communes didn't sweep the nation. There's no such thing as a truly equal society. It has never happened and I honestly don't believe it ever will. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Hmmm, crazy... what are you denied that's a constitutionally protected right? Oh that's right... nothing. Not employment nor housing. You live somewhere, right? You have a job and earn money? There's nothing, last I checked, in the Bill of Rights that says you are required to not be looked at in a bad light by some people. What about straight white girls that are denied the morning after pill because of religious biggotry? It's wrong, but it didn't happen to some odd minority.

Gays and lesbians fall in the same category as mexicans and blacks, in my book, from a minority standpoint. You can't constantly insist on being equal (the same) while constantly trying to prove how different you are. Blacks want free college and better jobs and better housing, but many don't want to work for it. This is emphasized by the HIGH percentage (per capita) of black welfare recipients that have five kids and use their welfare money (not so easy with the newer bridge cards, albeit) to buy crack and liquor. Sure, it happens to white people, too... but it's not as prevelent overall. Illegal immigrants are the same way. They want to come here, but not do it legally. They want to work, but not pay taxes, and then get free healthcare and protest OUR government for the "mistreatment" they receieve. How is that right? Gays and lesbians (some, not all) are in the same boat. Many falunt the difference between being gay and being straight, and then wonder why people look at them differently. You know what? Minorities will ALWAYS be looked at differently. Try spending time in Japan as a Westerner. Yes, you'll generally be treated well, but not always, and people will often stare at you. You can't just go over there and date any old Japanese girl since many have father's who'd rather have family members die honorably than have a daughter marry a white guy (especially an American). Sure, it's not ALWAYS like that... just like you haven't ALWAYS been turned down for a job or housing or a raise or education. Everyone gets the shaft sometimes by some people somewhere. Get over it.

I find your quotes amusing, Gilda. The first, I don't see how it's applicable. It sounds like tolerance and acceptance are what you think is right, but you aren't patient for it to happen? The second is just a sad truth. Better to be discharged for being gay than for beating your wife, I'd think... As for the third, well... it's Jon Stewart. I don't know the context of the quote, perhaps it was more humorous in context. Are you offended by all gay jokes on the principle that they are gay jokes? I think anti-white jokes are often funny, despite being white. I also think many feminst anti-male jokes are amusing, often because they're true. So? The last, well... I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think many people are "afraid" of homosexuals, military or not. Some people aren't accepting because they weren't raised to be accepting. It's only partially their fault. Some people get over it over time. Also, any soldier who says that aren't afraid of guns, bombs capture or torture are liars or dumbasses. It's not about not being afraid, it's about doing your job, regardless. It's a lot like being a teacher in innercity Detroit or Los Angeles. *shrug*

At any rate, I jsut don't get "minority" argumnets for the most part. For every time you've been slighted for not being straight, I bet I have for not being female, not being black or not being something else I'm not. EVERYONE has people who are biggoted against them. Life goes on, Gilda...

So apply those rules equally to homosexuals. Two men or women can engage in a relationship to the same degree that a man and a woman can.

Gilda

Perhaps you don't get it because you are, and always will be, in the majority.

Gilda, I get where you're coming from.

:icare:

Are those groups denied entry into the military because they might get beaten based on that status? Are assaults on blacks and women common in the military? That is the context in which that statement was made.

Well, first I said rights, not "constitutionally protected" rights.

However, equal treatment under the law is a constitutionally protected right. See the 14th amendment, section 1.

Specifically, marriage, which is a constitutionally protected right in the US under the 14th amendment according to Loving v. Virginia, and the more than 1000 rights and privileges that go along with it.

My wife and I have on several occasions been denied housing as a result of our being a homosexual couple.

I hear this a lot, but I don't see it much. I do the same things with my wife and with my marriage that heterosexual people do. I make casual references to my wife. I have pictures of her on my desk at work. We hold hands in public and sometimes I'll give her a kiss goodbye as we're parting after lunch. If that is flaunting homosexuality, then the vast majority of opposite sex couples are flaunting their heterosexuality.

Sure there are the flamboyant types, but they are not representative. Most of us want to be treated the same. What I do with Grace is no more flaunting my sexuality than any heterosexual woman who does the same with her husband.

I happen to be married to a Japanese woman. Her father, a Japanese-American man has no problem with two of his daughters being in relationships with other women, one with a white woman.

No doubt. When this happens, it should be identified as wrong and opposed. When the same group is disproportionately targeted by institutionalized prejudice, that prejudice should be opposed on that level.

You've misread it.

Are those two things somehow similar in your mind?

No. The intent matters a great deal.

I very seriously doubt that.

I'll never understand the claim that straight white males are persecuted. It's easy to dismiss arguments in favor of protecting equal rights for everyone when you are a member of the group least targeted by prejudice.

Gilda

I'll never understand why it's ok for Whites to be persecuted because there happens to be lots of rich whites.... even though the majority of the poor in the US are white.

I'll never understand why no one can ever feel sympathy for a white being persecuted because the majority of people NATIONWIDE are white. FYI I was one of ten whites in my highschool, but everyone assumes I've always been the majority.

Oh, good job of taking my comment completely out of context and distoring it beyond all meaning in the process. Did I say or imply that it's ok for anyone to be persecuted? Did I mention anything about income level?

No, I made a statement regarding which group was least likely to be targeted based on status. I believe prejudice and discrimination based on race, sex, orientation, gender identity, religion, or nationality are all wrong and should be opposed.

Gilda

No, Gilda, but your arguments sound more like a "pity me because I'm different and misunderstood" more than anything else. I'm not trying to be a dick, but it applies quite simply to ALL people everywhere. In fact, many of your counter-points were fairly moot. For example:

For reference, the entirety of what I said was,

First of all, by saying he's a Japanese-American (which makes no sense... I'm not an Irish American or a Ukrainian American... I'm just an American) you muddle the issue. Is he a naturalized American citizen born in Japan, or a second or later generation American of Japanese heritage? Also, my statements were not blanket statements and I think I made that fairly clear. That, in fact, bolsters my point. You may see (somewhat often) the term YMMV on this very board. Everyone mileage in life varies. If you lived in San Fransisco, do you think you'd have been denied housing due to your sexuality? If I lived in India, do you think I'd easily be admitted to an Indian Institute of Science as a white American? The world is bigger than your town, your county or your state... Whether you want to wear blinders and disbelieve me is up to you, but I've also been denied things because of who I am. *shrug* Sorry sister, the poor poor me boat extends outside of the scope of sexuality, race and gender. But, unfortunately it seems to make many people feel better about themselves when they ARE in a minority to become the center of attention when they are treated differently. People are ALWAYS treated differently. I automatically treat people differently based on things I don't even think about. I almost automatically treat women with more respect than men because I was raised by a single mother and have a deep seeded respect for women. I get more angry about lazy poor people than lazy rich people because lazy poor people often use their poorness as an excuse to do nothing. The wealthy have less to gain. Down here in Arizona, I'm much LESS likely to be agitated by black people. It's nothing to do with the color of their skin, but their inherent attitude and disrespect for me. In Detroit, I'd get glared at, get attitudes at restaurants, etc. Here, because blacks aren't in the same impoverished situation, they are much more polite and pleasant. In fact, aside from skin color, I've yet to meet people around here that are much different than I am, to include people of varying races and creeds. When a minority actively looks sideways at a majority, the majority will tend to feel threatened and will surely do what they can to make sure these people they believe look down on them do not move forward. It's a road that needs cooperation from both sides, but generally NEITHER is willing to come to terms.

Oh, and as for this:

What are you trying to prove? There are PLENTY of people that are offended by a man and a woman showing affection in public. People are going to stare and wonder regardless of you thinking you might be special, different or otherwise. You don't have it any better or worse than anyone else, and life is, quite literally, only what you make of it.

If you're seeing "pity me" in what I've written, you are badly misreading the tone there.

If it applies to all people everywhere, then show me the soldiers who've been discharged for being straight. Show me the laws that prohibit straights from marrying. Show me the military policy prohibiting straights from discussing their sexuality. Show me where straights are required to sign a statement professing to be gay in order to enlist.


I'd have said Nisei, but that isn't as widely understood. He's an American of Japanese descent. Hyphenated identification of this sort typicially identifies one as ethnicity-American. In American English, modifiers typically preceed the word they are modifying, thus Japanese-American identifies one's nationality as American and ethnicity as Japanese.

Cool. I'm Irish and Ukranian, too, though my mom was actually of Russian, Ukranian and Chinese descent.

His family was living in a predominantly Japanese area of Hawaii when its goverment was overthrown and it was annexed to the United States, an area that remains predominantly Japanese. He is, I believe, third generation since the annexation. The family, and much of the area in which they live, retains much of the cultural heritage they had when annexed to the United States, including language and customs. I see no harm in acknowleging one's heritage along with one's nationality.

And this supports my point. In certain areas of that city, no, of course not. Nor would a straight person. Clusters of GLBT people tend to be inclusive, not exclusive. We have several straight people in the GLBT organization at the University at which I teach, and we're glad to have them.

No doubt. The fact that prejudice exists elsewhere does not mean that it should not be identified for what it is and opposed where it is found.

I'm not your sister, and the condescension is neither necessary nor productive. If you need a polite form of direct address, Gilda will do nicely.

That's certainly not been what I've been saying. I think gays and straights should be treated equally, that homosexual relationships are the equal of heterosexual ones, that people should be free to serve or not to serve, and to do so openly, regardless of their orientaion.

Your latest statement is quite different from the original one to which I replied.

For the record, I believe my relationship to be the same as a married heterosexual couple, special to me certainly, but neither special nor different in a general sense.

First, to return to that original statment, being equal does not mean being the same. I like to celebrate differences, they give flavor and color and interest to life. I'd think that celebrating differences would be something that heterosexuals do a lot. Heck, it's part of the definition.

My point is that there is a double standard here for the same behaviors depending on who is exhibiting them. A homosexual couple is "flaunting thier sexuality" by holding hands, sitting on a bench together, dancing a slow dance at a club, displaying pictures in a locker or on a desk, while a heterosexual couple exhibiting the same behaviors usually goes unnoticed or unremarked, and I've never heard anyone describe any behavior as "flaunting heterosexuality". It becomes, as it did in your description, an inappropriate public display of affection. Or often just goes unnoticed.

It's an assumption, one I see and hear a lot, that such behaviors, when engaged in by homosexuals, are done for the purpose of advertising one's sexuality, when the same is not said of heterosexuals.

Gilda

Gilda,

I'm willing to agree to disagree on a variety of points with you. I agree that people SHOULD be treated equally regardless of differences. I'd love to see that be the case, but I don't hold a lot of hope that it will be in my lifetime or my childrens'. I'm also sorry if you feel I was condescending, it was not intentional... when I rant, I rant.

I suppose, upon further examination, that this is true in my experience as well, though I've often seen people "flaunting" themselves in both cases for the purpose of putting on a public show. Frankly, I don't care either way (doubly so, affection or not, gay or straight). But yeah, I do see your point.

Also, Irish and Ukrainian? Aside from my immediate family, I've not yet found this combination elsewhere... it seems like all the Ukrainians that came to the US found Polish and Russian people to settle down with. Small world...

I'm against the draft for one reason: this is *my* life. Any wars that spark between dipshit politicians angering other countries does not involve me.

This country is in a sort of Downward Spiral at the moment. People are too self-centered and ignorant. Lawmakers can pass whatever bills they want and most of the public is unaware of it because they choose to be. People are more concerned about buying this and that, or what Tom Cruise is doing as opposed to things they should be interested in.

Until there is major change or people snap out of whatever stupor they're in, I'm not wasting my life over some lost cause. I know many probably won't agree, but like I said, it's my life.

Name me a time when this type of thinking wasn't the case. You have over 200 years of history, name me one time.

I am in a downwards spiral. This is twice in two days I've agreed completely with Ustwo on something. Fuck. It's jackboots, sterile smiles and the big GOP balloon drop for me now. I'm too old to be swerving out of my rut.

I support the idea of drafting everyone who favors a conflict, yet fails to enlist on their own. You should also be drafted if you display a "Support our troops" bumpersticker or yard sign or magnet. You could call it the Put Your Integrity Where Your Mouth Is Act.

I never said there was a time when this type of thinking didn't exist.

It's my reason why I choose to not fight, it doesn't change anything even if there was a time so it's pretty much moot.

If people get themselves into a situation, it's not my responsibility to bail them out, nor does it make sense for me to die or risk ending my once chance at life for something that won't change anyway. Like I said, unless there's some sort of change, or people magically snap out of it... it's just not gonna happen.

Humans are silly.