Getting congress to amend the law is part of the process. That's partly why it's going to take until 2016. The DOD is pushing congress in order to remove all barries to service.

What?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2515674/Its-official-Circumcision-DOESNT-affect-sexual-pleasure-according-biggest-study-issue.html

At each time point, there were no significant differences in sexual performance or satisfaction in men who were circumcised and those who weren't.

At 24 months, 99.9 per cent of men were satisfied with their circumcisions. In fact, 72 per cent of men said sensitivity had increased and 19 per cent said it was the same.

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

The only prolonged risk of circumcision is a higher chance of injuring the penis -- and I don't often run through the jungle naked. The other risks are only applicable after being circumcised (i.e. infection).

I personally have no problem with circumcision as there's only one low-probability lifelong drawback.

The DOD doesn't "get" Congress to do anything, and it would not take Congress three years to change "male persons" to "persons". The 2016 projection was based on how long it will take them to implement the changes within the DOD. Period. Stop making things up, or at the very least make up better things. This is embarrassing to even read.

No, not proven. Just because you say it's proven, doesn't mean it is. The fact of the matter is, the text you quoted doesn't state that women will be part of the draft. Even if the SSS WANTED this, it doesn't matter, because as badgenome has shown to you: both the Congress and Supreme Court have acted on this, and the SSS won't be able to change without Congressional approval.

So, even if you do supply evidence that the SSS is trying to extend to the women, you cannot say it is proven that women will be added to the draft until you show us evidence of movements in Congress - and even then, movements within Congress that are likely to pass.

As it currently stands, women are not eligible to the draft, and even if the SSS wants this by 2016, there has yet been any presented evidence that this can happen.

All that aside, let's look at your quote in full:

The secretary announced that the service branches will continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. The change is intended to ensure that the best qualified and most capable service members, regardless of gender, are available to carry out the mission. Panetta added, “If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed, color, gender or sexual orientation.”

The secretary directed the military services to undertake an evaluation of all occupational performance standards to ensure they are up to date and gender-neutral. Specialty schools will be included in the evaluation, a senior defense official said. … the entire process is to be completed by January 1, 2016.

Once the policy is fully implemented, military occupations will be closed to women only by exception, and only if approved by the defense secretary, a senior defense official said.

This quote only refers to barriers to service, and this quote is not even from the SSS, it was them quoting a Press Release from " American Forces Press Service", you have to be reaching pretty far to believe that this is "proof" that the SSS was moving to eliminate the draft, if that was even an ability that they had to do.

Man this topic drums up some angry people. If you think there is a point to be made adding anger and name calling to that point really lowers the value of it in most peoples ayes, I personally just read angry posts as someone who is more emotionally involved than just looking at the facts objectionably I'm sure a lot of people do the same.

Law going to be attempted to be changed in 2016 doesn't really mean anything tho, will be a different president by that stage even, not sure if Pres. Oprah would allow her gals to be drafted :)

Have you seen Anya from gears of war? :o when she digs the retro lancer into something and holds it over her head before splitting it in two... damn. But no I don't think characters in video games or movies really have that much bareing on what happens in real life, sure you don't have TV shows where men hit women anymore to calm them down but that isn't because TV dictates that we don't hit them it's that games and media are a mirror of what goes on in society for the most part, if it was to be too different from the normal roles people play then the media would not be believeable and it would break the willing suspense of disbelief for the viewer.

After that she calms down and lets him examine her stomach which is why she was stopping him in the first place, her planet didn't have men who were allowed to touch women without their consent and Bones tried to check if her baby was okay... one good 60s tv smack made her see straight tho! See this didn't stop being shown on TV and then that echo'd into us not hitting women irl... it very much goes the other way around.

Dude, I think you need to face the fact that you are wrong.  You are taking a single general sentence and acting as if it is referring to something it is not.  Even when given a quote from the person in charge saying that they are not trying to change selective service.  Just get over it.  You are wrong, so move on.

1) This is a pretty major one

2) The USA doesn't actually have a draft anymore, and probably never will, but the selective service is still something that ought to be abolished.

3/4) If women have the right to give up parental responsibility, it naturally follows that men should be able to as well. And yet absentee fathers are stigmatised where a woman who gives her child up for adoption never would be.

5) The definition of rape as forcible penetration is really quite a bizarre one. There's no reason why it should be classed as separate to sexual assault, which does include being "forced to penetrate"

In the US, men have to declare themselves eligible for the draft in order to receive government-sponsored financial aid for college. Or at least that's how it was when I graduated from high school a decade ago.

I think it's one of these old laws that no one wants to change because it would make to much noise, but it doesnt fit to our modern world anymore. It's from the time when we had to create specific laws to protect women because we considered them weaker and different, so it's odd but this law is somehow sexist for women too if we consider it's origins.