Not to mention, even if you weren't having sex, no one would believe you.
My thing is: Brian and I touch each other. All the time. Not in a sexual, PDA sense, but we've spent enough time apart that I, at least, like to touch him when he's there to remind myself that, yes, he does exist.
You'd be astonished how little marriage has to do with sex. This is also the truth at the heart of "Why gay and lesbian soldiers should be allowed to have life partners."
The more I think about it, the more I think it's a bad idea. I think it's cruel towards the people whose spouses and partners aren't Army and thus not in Iraq. I can see it as more of a morale buster than booster.
I know marriage doesn't always have to do with sex. My point is, while the couple might decide not to have sex for whatever reason (lack of fairness, desire not to risk pregnancy, modesty, etc) - the likelihood of the people around you actually believing it would be quite small.
That comment was directed towards the unmarried E-Prince. You were in fact the one who initially brought up the point that marriage has little to do with sex, and how the "don't ask, don't tell" issue comes down to who can put photos of their beloveds on their desks.
Not really astonished, but it'll be the sex that will be resented. Whether it happens or not isn't relevant; it's the perception that some are able while others are not that will be the crux of the matter. MNFI Gen. Order 1 has already reduced the serviceman, someone who's already signed away half of their "rights", into a monastic lifestyle against their will. Go ahead and introduce a paradigm into that equation that doesn't have to comply and see what happens.
I agree with ya, babe, I agree with ya. Seriously though, the General Order is far from obeyed and I know a lot of commanders over there ignore it anyway. This is one of the things that scares me about going to Iraq, since legal personnel tend to go alone. Some PXs actually sell condoms, there's so much fucking over there, and I know from soldiergrrrl and other women that it can be really difficult for a chaste woman. Sometimes actually dangerous. But I'm going off-topic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-04-01 01:36 am (UTC)Not to mention, even if you weren't having sex, no one would believe you.
My thing is: Brian and I touch each other. All the time. Not in a sexual, PDA sense, but we've spent enough time apart that I, at least, like to touch him when he's there to remind myself that, yes, he does exist.
So it wouldn't be a good idea for us.
DV
no subject
Date: 2008-04-01 01:59 am (UTC)The more I think about it, the more I think it's a bad idea. I think it's cruel towards the people whose spouses and partners aren't Army and thus not in Iraq. I can see it as more of a morale buster than booster.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-01 03:02 am (UTC)I know marriage doesn't always have to do with sex. My point is, while the couple might decide not to have sex for whatever reason (lack of fairness, desire not to risk pregnancy, modesty, etc) - the likelihood of the people around you actually believing it would be quite small.
DV
no subject
Date: 2008-04-01 03:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-01 12:51 pm (UTC)Sorry, tired when reading last night.
I think I know what post you're talking about RE gay marriage, but it seems like it was a long time ago...
DV
no subject
Date: 2008-04-01 02:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-01 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-01 07:57 pm (UTC)