As I clean out my e-mail box this afternoon, I realize (yet again) that I need blog more regularly on repealing the ban on gay people serving openly in the military (i.e., Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell or DADT). This issue, the one clear case of federal discrimination against gays, should be the top priority of gay activists. And not just because it’s good for gay people.
It’s good for the military as well. By making it more difficult for gay people to serve, DADT deprives the military of tens of thousands of citizens who would otherwise eagerly serve our country in the armed forces.
And study after study (after study after study) has shown that allowing gay people to serve openly would not compromise unit cohesion or morale, a criticism frequently leveled by those who favor the ban. Whenever I speak with members of the armed forces (nearly all of them straight), they all tell me they’re aware that some of their colleagues are gays; they don’t see their sexuality as a hindrance to their service.
Earlier this month, Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara which, for the past decade, has focused “on sexual minorities in the military,” began a speaking tour to promote his new book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America. In the course of his research, Frank found that military and political architects of the policy acknowledged it was “based on nothing†but “our own prejudices and our own fears.â€
So, as activists lobby Congress to overturn the ban, let us hope they focus on what Frank learned in writing his book–that it undermines the military and weakens America.
I honestly think we need to defer to people who have actually served and know the dynamics. Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez served in the Middle East and went on to become an embedded reporter. He knows hundreds of officers and grunts and he is certain that allowing open homosexual activity would seriously harm unit cohesion. Let’s let those who have had the actual courage to serve in combat make the hard decisions instead of letting liberal gay militants force social engineering on our troops: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/28/sanchez_obama/
A liberal who could/can’t do no wrong handed it down. Why would gay liberals oppose it? They never disagree with their plantation masters.
Keep in mind that the left would never do anything to help the military. The One is making veterans pay for their own insurance, while the Democrats want to put all civilians’ healthcare in the hands of the state.
GPW writes, “they all tell me they’re aware that some of their colleagues are gays; they don’t see their sexuality as a hindrance to their service.” I couldn’t agree more. As an active member fo the guard/reserve, I know who the gay service members are (or at least know who most are) in my unit. And, I should know … I’m one of them. Because of DADT, most acknowledge the presence; few speak about it.
As soldiers, seamen, airmen, and marines, we are professionals and can rise to the occasion. If the ban is lifted, we will all put on our uniforms … and serve as we normally do.
Whoa, cowboy. What do you have in mind with the phrase “allowing open homosexual activity”? No one wants circle jerks in the tents. To say it less flippantly: The proposal here isn’t to relax any existing rules against fraternization, harassment, or inappropriate relationships or fornication. The proposal is to let service members serve, without being harassed or hounded out simply because they may happen to be gay.
Sometimes I think the military is ambivalent about gays. Officially, gays are excluded but unofficially they ignore it unless either somebody complains, or caught in the act, or a gay wants out by declaring himself. In my three years of active duty in the army I´ve known many other gay guys. When I rotated back to the U.S., there was a small gay bar in B´more that I used to go to. One saturday night I counted the patrons and found that one third were military, the next highest number were beauticians.
Is being gay a handicapping condition? Or is acting on gay drives a handicapping condition? Or is being gay a part of the greater status quo? Is acting on gay impulses part of the greater status quo?
Being gay is a unique quality. Where and how it fits in the public square is subject to the tensions of those who embrace it as “acceptable” and those who reject it as “unacceptable,” an aberration or worse.
How can DADT be addressed without resorting to politics? As a political issue, most heteros would focus on gay sex and wonder why including gays would bolster the mission of the military. Most heteros would see it as giving a civil right to gay sex.
This is where the gays who act out in the public square have really hurt all gays in general. They have become the face of the gay world and their antics have kept many heteros from seriously considering the issues of being gay.
Americans and gays in particular have become so discrimination-centered and so sensitive to every perceived slight, legal and social, that they blithely apply civilian standards to a non-civilian arena, insisting that the most powerful military force ever assembled is ‘undermined’ not by banning homosexuals from serving, but by enforcing the enlistment agreement that on paper forbids inquiry and confirmation/disclosure.
It’s good for the military as well. By making it more difficult for gay people to serve, DADT deprives the military of tens of thousands of citizens who would otherwise eagerly serve our country in the armed forces.
Tens of thousands? Cite your source.
Whenever I speak with members of the armed forces (nearly all of them straight), they all tell me they’re aware that some of their colleagues are gays; they don’t see their sexuality as a hindrance to their service.
There is a big difference between several military personnel being aware of a few homosexual soldiers and a policy of open service. “They all tell me” and “some of their colleagues” and “a hindrance” are vague, anecdotal phrases that can easily be countered by their opposites and aren’t particularly useful.
I’m interested in the U.S. having literally the best, most willing soldiers on Earth. I’m not interested in queer theorists using the military to project their feelings of inadequacy and victimization and discussing discrimination by deliberately confusing a ban on open service with a ban on any service. (Frank’s title Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban… is extremely misleading — there is no ‘Gay Ban’ — as is your statement “By making it more difficult for gay people to serve, DADT deprives…who would otherwise eagerly serve…” Banning open service does neither.)
Like marriage, serving in the military is a privilege. I agree with Scott that in the area of recruitment policy these decisions should be made by the military via Congress rather than vice-versa. As for Nathaniel Frank, I would simply say that not all prejudices and fears are unfounded, misplaced, or unjustified, especially since the policy doesn’t forbid a person, but a behavior — a behavior disclosed at the time a volunteer recruit decides whether to enlist.
The public safety afforded to gays by our military should mean an appreciation and respect for the institution. The presumptuousness of some astonishes me.
Filtered.
No one wants circle jerks in the tents. To say it less flippantly: The proposal here isn’t to relax any existing rules against fraternization, harassment, or inappropriate relationships or fornication.
To Heliotrope’s point, though, ILC, the gay community has done a tremendous job of saying one thing and doing quite another. Furthermore, as I am fond of saying, California still has laws that prohibit public sex, nudity, and other lewd behavior in front of children; the issue is that, thanks to leftist gays and their Obama Party enablers, those laws are not enforced. Why should people believe that gays will follow the UCMJ any better than they follow current laws, or that the UCMJ will be enforced by the Obama Party when it currently blocks any enforcement of existing law as “homophobic”?
In other words NDT, “Our military is good; why mess with a good thing?” A fair question. Not that it has no answer; just that it’s fair to ask it and expect a very good answer.
Personally, I would most like see any move to a change DADT come from within the military (who are the experts on this) more than Rep. Tauscher. And I would have a less negative view of DADT if it was made into DADTDP (“Don’t Pursue” honorable gay people who are already in the military), as originally planned.
To Heliotrope’s point, though, ILC, the gay community has done a tremendous job of saying one thing and doing quite another. Furthermore, as I am fond of saying, California still has laws that prohibit public sex, nudity, and other lewd behavior in front of children; the issue is that, thanks to leftist gays and their Obama Party enablers, those laws are not enforced. Why should people believe that gays will follow the UCMJ any better than they follow current laws, or that the UCMJ will be enforced by the Obama Party when it currently blocks any enforcement of existing law as “homophobic�
Well, you’re obviously of the opinion that homosexuals are some lower form of human incapable of respecting laws and following rules. Is that about right?
Well, you’re obviously of the opinion that homosexuals are some lower form of human incapable of respecting laws and following rules. Is that about right?
Well, you know, between meetings at the office I always like to pop into the men’s room for a quickie. Just an irresistible urge. Same thing whenever I walk through a park… I just get so excited, I need to find some bushes and a hot guy. Can’t control myself. And when there are children around? Oh boy, I just gotta start mackin’ on whatever man is closest to make sure I let that kid know it’s A-okay to be gay. I start to get aroused around airport bathrooms, but then I remember those are only for Republican Senators.
As I understand it, discharges for homosexuality historically rise during peacetime and lower during wartime. That to me is as strong evidence as you’ll ever find that the gay ban is baseless. If the presence of gays undermined our military in any way, you would get the opposite result.
Sometimes I think the military is ambivalent about gays. For years, before DADT gays were prohibited, officially. Yet depending where and when, it had been overlooked unless a redneck complained, or the person was caught in the act, or wanting out, confessed his orientation. In my three years of active duty in the army, I had known a good number of fellow gay troops (some were lifers). When I rotated stateside and on one saturday night at my favorite small gay bar in B´more, after counting heads I observed that one third of the clientele were military, the next highest group were hair stylists.
Why should people believe that gays will follow the UCMJ any better than they follow current laws, or that the UCMJ will be enforced by the Obama [sic] Party when it currently blocks any enforcement of existing law as “homophobic�
Nobody has to believe that, NDT. First of all, it’s too bad that laws can’t be enforced in California. I’m not sure why that should automatically translate to UCMJ following California’s lead in that area. And for those that believe the military enforcing its rules equally and fairly as homophobic, I’d advise them to not join the military.
Heck LEvi, you think anthrax scares are ok, so you’ve no room to talk.
The question, tactless though it may be, has been raised. You can’t answer it.
Personally, I think the UCMJ should be enforced. And there shoud be the needed slapdown when it’s broken no matter what.
Colorado Patriot said that the onerous has to be on people to make the case to change the rule proactively. The initial post does that. Too bat Levi can’t.
CR, dull your sarcasm down please. It made me chuckle, but doesn’t address the post.
Livewire, fair ‘nough, but it’s hard for me to take much of anything NDT says seriously. When I see someone post seriously and I think it’s worthwhile, I return the favor. When they post something absurd, I think it’s worth an equally absurd rejoinder. (I am glad I made you chuckle, though.) To offer a serious reply… (Actually, I think I technically had the first post but it’s gotten caught in the spam filter. For some reason that gets caught but sarcasm doesn’t… go figure.)
With the singular exception of the prohibition on troops identifying as active homosexuals, I personally have nothing wrong at all with vigorous enforcement of the UCMJ and, probably much like a lot of you, I happen to know a lot of gay servicemen who feel the same way. They are also all in monogamous, long-term relationships and none of those relationships are with people in their chain of command (or even their service, for that matter, but that’s taking the anecdote a little too far). As for myself, I’ve considered applying twice… First when I went to college for ROTC, and again when I was about to graduate from law school and considering JAG. Both times I asked myself if I felt comfortable concealing my sexual orientation, and both times I decided I wasn’t. If someone isn’t comfortable going into the military because of that, they shouldn’t… like it or not, that is the law. I completely agree with that argument.
For a lot of the reasons cited in Colorado Patriot’s post, what I disagree with is the idea that the ban on gay and lesbian service-members shouldn’t be dropped. The argument made by NDT and a couple others here says there is no purpose in changing the UCMJ because gays and lesbians have no self-control over sexual urges — we will be boinking away in the barracks night and day because we’re all sex-obsessed freaks who have public sex and swap spit in front of children every chance we get because we have no sense of propriety. We’ll be boinking on duty, off duty, on base, off base, in fox holes and in glory holes, screwing COs and subordinates and probably having more than a few orgies in the showers, and on and on because we have no control over our urges, somewhat like an animal.
Quite frankly, I know gay men who give rise to stereotypes like that. I also know gay men who choose to serve in the military and in front-line combat units. They are not the same kind of person, and to equate one with the other grossly trivializes and insults the service and sacrifice the latter have made and are making.
filtered… (twice now, actually).
And when there are children around? Oh boy, I just gotta start mackin’ on whatever man is closest to make sure I let that kid know it’s A-okay to be gay.
You know, CR, you’re not exactly surprising me with that statement.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……..
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Or others.
Well, you’re obviously of the opinion that homosexuals are some lower form of human incapable of respecting laws and following rules. Is that about right?
Well, hard to say, Levi.
You see, I don’t have any trouble respecting laws and following rules, quite unlike the gay liberals I’ve cited above who think their sexual orientation means they don’t have to do either.
But then again, most of those gay liberals scream that I’m not really gay anyway, so that would make your statement correct; obviously sexual orientation makes it impossible for gays to respect laws, follow rules, or be anything other than obedient Obama Party shills.
NDT, then neither of is is surprised by the other. Your argument goes that because some gays did something somewhere that you objected to, then all left-of-far-right gays must be engaged in the same thing and/or whole-heartedly endorse it. It’s an absurd argument.
I have nieces and nephews. My husband and I don’t go visit their home in leather and harnesses, swap spit, or grab each others crotches. As I said in the post that was filtered, I know the kind of gay men for whom you seem to have such contempt. I also know the gay men and women who have served or are serving our country in the armed forces. They are not the same kind of people — they are worlds apart. And you insult those who have chosen to serve this country, and denigrate the sacrifices they have made for our country.
When Livewire or others offer a serious, non-absurdist post, I’m happy to respond in kind. Your post received all the due consideration and respect it deserves and, I dare say, your last received considerably more.
And you insult those who have chosen to serve this country, and denigrate the sacrifices they have made for our country.
No, CR; the people who do that are the gay men who use their sexual orientation as an excuse for the misbehavior that I pointed out, and the ones like yourself who spend more time condemning those who point out said misbehavior than they do dealing with those who are doing the misbehavior.
CR, I am sure NDT will take care of your points very well, but I am curious about this remark:
It’s the “left-of-far-right gays” that catches my attention.
There are people on the political and cultural left and those on the right. There is far left and there is far right. If you consider the average public square in our large cities and small towns to be in the “moderate middle” where do you see the “average” gay?
I live in a “progressive” town with only Democrats on the city council and representing us in the state government. Our town does not permit public nudity, zones and controls the porn shops, and has trouble policing gays who use the nature park as a meat counter. I would say our town is liberal. Not far left, but definitely liberal. Gays here are conservative in their public demeanor and fly off to gay places to do whatever they do when they go to gay places.
Why would you choose “left-of-far-right gays” as your dividing point? Do you mean to imply that gays who act out in public range from socially conservative to the left?
I have never met an “in your face” gay who wasn’t liberal and complaining about being a repressed liberal. In fact, I have never contemplated the concept of a conservative libertine.
Help me out here. I am interested in your language, but I fail to comprehend what you are communicating.
filtered… for a third time. Hopefully GP or GPW can come in and post it… right now I gotta go grocery shopping, but I did write you a thoughtful response helio. Hopefully it will be released from the filter.
NDT, given that you are the one making broad generalizations that “gays” can no more be expected to obey the UCMJ than they can the laws of California, I think it’s pretty rich to hear you say I’m the one insulting their record of service.
Actually CR, I’ve taken issue with the ‘oh those are just far left loonies’ arguement when it comes to FSF. As a nominal member of the BDSM community, I’ve loudly condemned the excesses of the FSF as giving people like me a bad name. When it’s the ‘face’ of a lifestyle, those who disagree with it have to be loud and bold.
Re: The_Livewire:
While I appreciate the shout-out (by the way, find my original series through links here), I take slight issue.
As much as I respect and usually agree with Dan, I disagree with your estimation that his post makes a convincing argument. Not to dismiss or oversimplify Dan’s argument here, it basically consists of: DADT should be overturned because:
1) We’re kicking a lot of people out (I’m not sure I agree with that number, FWIW)
2) Military folks don’t care, and
3) It was an unfair and prejudiced policy to begin with.
As for 1), yes, but I can name a dozen other policies under which we lose more military members each year.
As for 2), this may be true of the men and women Dan has met (and I would agree it’s pretty much that way for most of us, frankly), but that’s not a very persuasive argument for changing the fundamentals of the military’s very make-up. I know a lot of military members who might not mind serving alongside drug dealers or wife-beaters. Not that I’m comparing them to homosexuals, just that consensus is not how the military is (nor should be) run.
As for 3), that’s a non-sequitur and irrelevent to the military’s mission and has nothing to do with defending America.
Basically, I guess, you could say to an alcoholic that he should drink coffee instead of alcohol because:
1) it’s easier to get than booze,
2) people will like him more if he’s not drunk, and
3) that he never should have picked up the bottle in the first place.
But unless you can convince him that he’s killing himself, what incentive does he have? These three reasons aren’t going to do it, I’m afraid.
Nick (Colorado Patriot) from HQ
NDT, given that you are the one making broad generalizations that “gays†can no more be expected to obey the UCMJ than they can the laws of California, I think it’s pretty rich to hear you say I’m the one insulting their record of service.
Right now, CR, the UCMJ is enforced. What that demonstrates is that gays can serve just fine if they are capable of going against the typical behavior of the gay liberal community and following the rule as outlined in DADT.
What you are saying is that the military should turn the same lax eye that the police in California do. Do you really think that’s a good idea?
CP
I will have to side with Dan on point number 2. As I said in my comment #15 it depends on where and when. As for your justification for your arguemnet against Dan´s point that ¨consensus is not how the military is (nor should be) run,¨ are you sure? When the joint chiefs have their meetings in the Pentagon, are they all of the same mind? I don´t think so. It is highly likely that directives that come down from the chiefs could very well be a consensus. Even the execution of war is not necessrily one man´s decision even though he receives credit for victory or defeat.
While this is a little off subject, I wish I could remember the source; when I was in college I read that the Spartan army was primarily gay and that the lovers when arm in arm into battle. the worst thing that could happen was for soldier to have his other half killed, because he became ferocious in battle. This could be just gay wishful thinking like Batman and Robin were lovers.
Correction: paragraph two, line three, should read that ¨the lovers went etc.
Livewire, I’m sorry my reply to you seems to have been lost in the spam filter. Long story short, NDT clearly wants to prtotray me as one defending public sex, etc. when nothing is further from the truth. Although I’m considered a “liberal” here, most of our single gay friends consider my husband and I as prudish conservatives. I got into a heated argument with a law school prof who argued public sex was an affirmative social good. So, the truth is I’m probably a moderate, but as you can see it’s easier for some to dismiss criticisms as coming from a liberal. So, in very short form, that’s why I said “left of far right”, because although I am to the left of NDT, I am not a political liberal. Perhaps my earlier post will eventually be released or work it’s way through. Peace. (sorry for any typos etc as this is coming from my iPhone)
Roberto:
Yes, I’m sure that consensus isn’t how the military is run. Quite sure. But your argument is convoluted. So I may better prepare my response, are you arguing that things are or are not determined by concensus in the military?
Either way, the point I was making wasn’t about the JCS. It was addressing Dan’s point that “Whenever I speak with members of the armed forces (nearly all of them straight), they all tell me they’re aware that some of their colleagues are gays; they don’t see their sexuality as a hindrance to their service.” True as I’m sure this is, and we can debate whether that’s representative of attitudes in the military, it’s a moot point.
No matter how popular the idea may be, that’s not how changes are made in the military. When the JCS makes changes because everybody seems to be cool with this, that’s when we’ll be in trouble.
For the record, I know that’s not en toto the argument Dan’s making. And while it can be an extenuating reason to ease minds, it’s not a legitimate argument for changing the policy. One popular argument for letting us openly serve is a completely inappropriate comparison to desegregating the military. If we had used this reasoning then, that policy wouldn’t have been implemented. Bottom line: military men and women are professionals. If the policy were changed, we’d all fall in line. It’s what separates us from the caricature of us painted by so many who aren’t us.
8: change the words gay/homosexual to the word black, and you’re looking at pretty much the same arguments people were using against having a racially integrated military.
“Like marriage, serving in the military is a privilege”? what nonsense logic; the statement is made only to remind us uppity gays that we shouldn’t be entitled to these things in this country, putting a stamp on our second class citizenship (at least where these 2 topics are concerned). Both of those are codified in US laws in various places which means the ability to participate in them should be available to all citizens equally, not just the privileged few.
‘Fraid not, Kevin. Handicapped folks can get married.
And can we stop calling ourselves “second-class citizens” already? Sheesh. How tiring.
And also tired are the arguments comparing gays in the military with desegregation. If you need a refresher on why these topics aren’t the same, check out my series on DADT linked in my previous comment.
Nick (Colorado Patriot) from HQ
Although I’m considered a “liberal†here, most of our single gay friends consider my husband and I as prudish conservatives. I got into a heated argument with a law school prof who argued public sex was an affirmative social good.
And thus is my point affirmed; most gays, as CR inadvertently points out, consider sexual restraint and responsibility as of the type they would have to practice in the military to be “prudish” and abnormal, and indeed argue that the sexual promiscuity they wish to practice publicly is an “affirmative social good”.
if you think that “affirmed” your point, NDT, then you are a shallow intellect.
We know, boob; anyone who does not affirm sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility by gays is a bigot and hatemonger with a “shallow intellect” in your opinion.
Fortunately, the American public is starting to realize that you are nothing more than the gay equivalent of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, screaming “homophobic” in the same fashion as these scream “racist”, not as a statement of fact, but as a reason to bully and intimidate others into ignoring the irresponsible and promiscuous behavior you protect, promote, and endorse.
CP,
I´m having difficulty understanding your position. Having been a sergeant for almost half of my enlistment., I know the military is not a democracy. But I can´t imagine that the JCS are all of one mind. They are not automatons. Once retired they give divergent opinions on various military topics. this A.M. on CNN Democratic Congressman, John Stecek, a retired athree star admiral was very critical of the Bush´s conduct of the war and on the treatment of prisoners at GITMO. He believed if we stop water boarding and renounce torture it will go a long way in restoring our image in the world.
Maybe racial integration maybe a tired argument, but what about women in combat? There was a time when the idea of unisex units (squad, platoons etc) was perceived to be a distraction. It was after my time of service, but I believe that the billets are now co-ed.
I must be distracted by the elections here in El Salvador. I was told by my family that if the commies lose they will riot and they are armed. I was told to have my firearm loaded and ready to defend my property.
Last Wednesday they filred into a busload of girls from the Young Areneros (Republicans) which was part of a caravan in support of Rodrigo Avila. For that reason, I´m not understanding what you mean by
¨When they make changes because everybody seems cool with this, that´s when we´ll be in trouble.¨ What do you mean this? To me, it sounds like a good thing.
We [sic] know, boob; anyone who does not affirm sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility by gays is a bigot and hatemonger with a “shallow intellect†in your opinion.
I doubt very much that was what Bob meant, but since you brought it up, I’m curious. Is there anybody on this site that believes that “anyone who does not affirm sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility by gays is a bigot and hatemonger with a ‘shallow intellect’â€?
of course not, pat. haven’t you learned by now that NDT is a moron who sets up strawmen arguments?
As a student of the English language, I can not grasp the use of “husband” in a gay marriage. To husband is a specific task assigned by sex. So what is the partner? A “wife” also has specific task assigned by sex. No person can be both husband and wife in terms of tasks. A person can be a husband and fulfill the task of a wife, but he cannot be both. Obviously, the English language is fluid, but for the purposes of basic communication (read: understanding) words must be benchmarks that do not have ambiguous meanings.
Do married gays introduce themselves thusly: “This is my husband Steve.” “This is my husband Dave.”? Sounds like a bizarre game of “Let’s Pretend” to me.
Color me old fashioned, but when I am told that “this is my partner Steve” I am not confused about the relationship.
My acquaintance Pam just told me to call her P.J. “Call me ‘P.J.’, I just had my name changed legally.” No problem. As you wish. But, you just told me more about your screwed up psyche than I ever needed to know. (And I will darn sure remember to call you P.J., because I don’t have any interest in how your mind works.)
NDT, will you be joining me at the moron lodge meeting? Don’t touch me, I’m straight.
we can just use the word “spouse” if that makes it easier for you.
Hugo Chavez just bought El Salvador. He has done what the Kremlin couldn´t do, isolate the U.S. Mexico is impotent due to the drug cartel wars. Guatemala south is now communist. Only Colombia is left. Chavez is giving one of his off shore islands as an air and naval base.
So lift the ban on gaysi n the military. Every ablebodied person will be needed to defend the country.
of course not, pat. haven’t you learned by now that NDT is a moron who sets up strawmen arguments?
Bob, I don’t believe NDT is a moron. Far from it. But I agree he is notorious for setting up strawmen arguments.
Pat offers: “But I agree he ((NDT)) is notorious for setting up strawmen arguments.”
Is that a strawman argument?
#47: no.
Is that a strawman argument?
Matt, I don’t think so. But I’ll let you read through some of the threads and let you decide for yourself.
CR,
I dont’ care what NDT does, so there. 😉
I’m just saying that as a devient subset, I feel I need to condemn the actions of FSF and its ilk louder, because it’s easier to link such disgusting things to what I enjoy doing behind closed doors. I find it counterproductive to say ‘pay no attention to the leather daddy behind the curtain!’ and pretend he’s not there. It’s better to say “Yeah, that’s wrong, want to help me shut it down? some things belong behind closed doors.”
And, as an aside, for our more, boistrous, posters on the left, getting them to condemn it is like pulling teeth.