[Taristin]

I am not anti-gay, I'm only anti-sodomy.

Yeah, and I'm not anti-music, just anti-instruments.

Are you trying to tell me that it's not possible for two men to be in a loving relationship without sex?  Because if that is the case, I have been carrying serious delusions.

I believe you may be. Either that, or I hope you fall in love with a woman without a vagina.

[ToecrusherHammerjaw]

I'm not doing this.  I am not getting drawn into a sparring match about personal views.  It happens every time I get involved in a debate like this.

Raa:  I am sorry to have offended you.  This is not the way I had hoped to first talk to you.  I had seen your personalities on Game Warden and Sectorgame, and we share many of the same interests.  It's just right now, I'm in a constant crisis state between trying hard to be open minded on sexuality, and trying to be somewhat religious as well, and the two don't seem to mix.  At any rate, sorry.

[Ford Prefect]

Are you trying to tell me that it's not possible for two men to be in a loving relationship without sex?  Because if that is the case, I have been carrying serious delusions.

I'm telling you that sex is integral to love, regardless of orientation. We're taught to fit sex and love into the classic dichotomy of physical versus spiritual, superficial versus meaningful, and this is a completely distorted interpretation of the nature of human interaction. Sex is not simply a drug that we take to enhance our relationships; it is the basis of what we consider the spiritual notion of love. You can't have the non-corporeal without the corporeal-- it's empty, unfullfilling, and it will collapse. As much as it flies in the face of America's sloppy, simplistic Platonism, the establishment of a spiritual relationship must begin at the physical level, (which, ironically, was a concept articulated by Plato.)

[ToecrusherHammerjaw]

Are you trying to tell me that it's not possible for two men to be in a loving relationship without sex?  Because if that is the case, I have been carrying serious delusions.

I'm telling you that sex is integral to love, regardless of orientation. We're taught to fit sex and love into the classic dichotomy of physical versus spiritual, superficial versus meaningful, and this is a completely distorted interpretation of the nature of human interaction. Sex is not simply a drug that we take to enhance our relationships; it is the basis of what we consider the spiritual notion of love. You can't have the non-corporeal without the corporeal-- it's empty, unfullfilling, and it will collapse. As much as it flies in the face of America's sloppy, simplistic Platonism, the establishment of a spiritual relationship must begin at the physical level, (which, ironically, was a concept articulated by Plato.)

All of what you say is absolutely true.  Perhaps then, you misunderstood me.  When I said sodomy, I meant specifically buttsecks.  Anything other than that, in my views, is all good.  Does that clarify things a bit?

[Ford Prefect]

Well yes, but then there's the practical issue of gays not being left with too many options.

[ToecrusherHammerjaw]

I can think of a few things, but if I say them here, it might give some people the willies.   

[Ford Prefect]

Well then I can't imagine that they're much more decent than "buttsecks".

[ToecrusherHammerjaw]

You would probably be right, too.  I personally just consider the backside a "dirty" zone (yes, I know it sounds old-fashioned), and to some extent the mouth, though not so much.  But I should probably stop there, as I'm probably putting images in people's heads.  But hey, whatever works for you.  It just wouldn't work for me.

[Taristin]

I don't care what you think about the issue (well, I do, but oppinions are seldom changed by internet words). However, I really wish your faith would not dictate how I can live my life. Especially when I don't believe the same as you.

[SadisticSid]

Are you trying to tell me that it's not possible for two men to be in a loving relationship without sex?  Because if that is the case, I have been carrying serious delusions.

I'm telling you that sex is integral to love, regardless of orientation. We're taught to fit sex and love into the classic dichotomy of physical versus spiritual, superficial versus meaningful, and this is a completely distorted interpretation of the nature of human interaction. Sex is not simply a drug that we take to enhance our relationships; it is the basis of what we consider the spiritual notion of love. You can't have the non-corporeal without the corporeal-- it's empty, unfullfilling, and it will collapse. As much as it flies in the face of America's sloppy, simplistic Platonism, the establishment of a spiritual relationship must begin at the physical level, (which, ironically, was a concept articulated by Plato.)

I'm half in agreement with you - personally I don't think I could fall in love with another bloke without the physical aspect, but it's not a tautology - the no sex before marriage crowd, if it still exists, for instance. And if sex is so integral to a loving relationship, then what about when you're incapable of having it? Can the heavily disabled not love, in that case? When you get to 70-80, are you no longer capable?

Well yes, but then there's the practical issue of gays not being left with too many options.

For the boringly uninventive, perhaps.

[Mefustae]

For the boringly uninventive, perhaps.

Okay, I really don't like where this thread is heading... *runs out of thread*

[karajorma]

I can think of a few things, but if I say them here, it might give some people the willies.   

You have no idea how humourous that sentence is to us Brits do you?

[Andreas]

I believe you may be. Either that, or I hope you fall in love with a woman without a vagina.

In any case, on-topic, I absolutely agree with Raa, this is just It's pretty damn stupid reason to be demoted and/or possibly discharged just because you took a few pictures of yourself or something. Doesn't the army have better to do? 

[Flipside]

Unless you find looking at Lesbian Porn disgusting, I seriously suggest people take a good long look at their ethics.

[aldo_14]

Ah, hell, you called me out.  Let me say first of all, I am not anti-gay, I'm only anti-sodomy.  And the point I was trying to make in that comment was that there are a lot of nut jobs like Fred Phelps out there who will use this to further their agendas.  I didn't mean to upset anyone, I tend to word things a little poorly when I write my opinion.

People shouldn't, however, have to hide their lifestyles because some bigoted idiot will use it to attack them; it's not much different from making black people 'white up'.

Worth noting, though, that studies have indicated (human, at least) sex does not serve the sole purpose of procreation but is a key method in the process that allows partners to determe each others suitablity/compatability, etc.

[Stealth]

If they were involved in heterosexual porno videos, would you make that same complaint?

yes, but that wouldn't give people like you the opportunity to cry "OMG!!111 theyre singling them out because theyre gay!!!1111 OMG bigotry!"

[karajorma]

When was the last time you saw an officer sentenced for adultery Stealth?

Do you really think any officer who commits it should also receive the same punishment?


Oh and cause this is too amusing not to post.



No offence meant but

[Wild Fragaria]

I am sorry, but this is simply too good to pass.  I guess I will nominate you to one of the film awards

[Taristin]

If they were involved in heterosexual porno videos, would you make that same complaint?

yes, but that wouldn't give people like you the opportunity to cry "OMG!!111 theyre singling them out because theyre gay!!!1111 OMG bigotry!"

It is bigotry, because like Kara said, regular adultry isn't prosecuted. They are being singled out because they're gay. The only time that heterosexual sex results in punishment is when a female officer becomes pregnant, wether it be in the navy, or abroad.

[vyper]

Excuse me folks, but aren't they being prosecuted for making porn?