Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The logical conclusion?
The Dime
wilowisp
Gays are not currently allowed to serve openly in the United States Military. From my understanding of that rule, should I be openly gay at the time that any draft should be instated, I would receive an immediate discharge. A much larger percentage of young men than ever before are openly gay. Thus, in a time of a draft, the men to stay behind will be the old, the unfit, the gay and the college-enrolled. The second assumption to work into this conclusion is that any war or conflict that is great enough for the US to re-instate the draft will cause a great number of casualities (to the young, fit, heterosexually-labeled men of the United States). Thus after any conflict is finished, this returning population of draftees is confronted with a country that has a much larger pertentage of the educated and the queer, ready to enter positions of authority.

This hypothesis is of course outlandish in its scope. There are too many variables, and my assumptions may be completely without basis in fact. Discuss, comment, critique (of course, in a respectful manner), or hypothesize a new future!

  • 1
As much as I don't like the idea of a draft in any form, that hypothesis is fascinating. However, there's also the question of whether or not those who remain behind will be alientated from the system enough that they would neither seek positions of authority, or, in the post-war world, be considered second-class citizens the way many hippies and draft-dodger types were. Yea, that last bit's an exageration, but still - looking at the example of the vietnam war it doesn't seem as though the people who stayed behind and protested turned out to have any more power than they would otherwise have had - less even, so long as protesting the fighting is promoted as being unpatriotic.

All that said, I'm still highly sceptical of the draft actually being reinstated at all.

I am skeptical as well. But if we look at the Vietnam example, it's not so much that not being in the war empowers a person so much as being in the war dis-empowers a person. A high percentage of the homeless on the streets are Vietnam vets, suffering from alienation as well as many mental disorders brought on by that combat. And every war/combat has it's mental victims. From shell shock of WWII, all the way up to Gulf War Syndrome.

Well... there's one problem

In the case of the first gulf war... the suspension of gay/lesbian servicement was stopped for the duration of combat operations - then, when the now-veteran soldiers got home, they were discharged and stripped of their combat benefits.

So, we'll all be drafted after all... sigh...

Re: Well... there's one problem

Hmmm... what, if any changes, have come about due to Don't Ask Don't Tell, which if memory serves me correctly, came about during Clinton's time. I honestly don't know much about it.

From what I hear of current draft thoughts, college would not be an exception (more people go to college now than ever before). And the draft would be a danger until you're 28. Scary.


Okay, my scenario just keeps getting worse and worse... if gays are allowed in 'just to fight', and college won't keep you out, basically the only people left in the country of our generation will be those who have parents that are already in power, thus reinforcing the morals and values that got us here. Bummer. But again, all speculation. Ain't it fun?

I don't know - I could see it unfolding similarly to the protests that took place during WWII, Korea and Vietnam - where people were protesting and fighting for the right to serve, be honored, recognized and treated like all other soldiers. Obviously it's different to be gay and in the military than it is to be non-Caucasian and in the military. But discrimination is discrimination, and this administration will most likely not be receptive to changing it.

Just some random points.

It's a strange situation for anyone facing discrimination based on something like a war. I personally disagree with the war on a moral/ethical level, and on an even more personal level, I am scared senseless of the idea of being in combat and at risk of dying every second. Yet on the other hand, what does it say that I'm willing to use the discriminatory policies of the US to my own gain in this circumstance?

I feel the same way. Because I'm a woman I don't have to fill out any selective service card and I don't have to worry (unless they pass the right legislation, and I've heard it briefly mentioned like twice since 9/11) about soldiers knocking on my door. They won't come for me - they'll just come for all my male friends - and five years from now, my brother. That's not quite fair either, is it?

There's nothing wrong with being a conscientious objector. I think we use the technicalities as a sort of extra shield. Which may not be as brave and bold and daring as saying, "hey Military, you may want me, but you can't have me!!" but it suits us. I think what really matters is what happens when the ball drops and they do start taking people. You know, if it comes to that. God willing, it won't.

It doesn't say anything, except that you'll take an advantage where an advantage is given. I've heard it claimed that the main reason the ERA didn't pass in the 1970s was because people got freaked out about women being included in the draft if it got reinstated. I don't blame 'em. I think women would be better off if the ERA had passed, but I sure as hell ain't complaining about not having to fill out Selective Service forms. And yes, I have also heard rumors that any future draft could include females.

If these people are going to use some concept of morality to justify bigotry, though, you need to be able to use whatever tools you can just to survive, and you don't deserve to feel guilty for it. There is already a war going on, inside this country (or one of many, I should say). It is a war against homo/bi/transsexuals, and just by being out you run the risk of becoming a casualty. The places you and I live are a lot safer than most parts of the country in that regard, but that doesn't mean the possibility of being bashed is out of the question.

If they're not even willing to let us marry whoever we want, despite the fact they're going around parading "protecting our freedoms" as the reason they're having this war in the first place, they deserve to get fucked.

  • 1
?

Log in