Replies

"You see the problem is Einstein, you keep comparing the practice of perversion (disordered behavior) to a normal man/woman relationship (right behavior)."

First off, I don't think that Einstein is the problem. Second, of course I made that comparison. That was the basis for my question. Note that I was asking a question, since I do not know the answer to it. See below:
"I fail to see any significant difference in the level of disruption that would result between two males doing whatever they do, and a man and women doing their thing. I am not an office rat, which is why I posed this as a question, 'Is this any more disruptive than male and female office rats being attracted to one another?'”

I am an infantryman, so I have never worked in an office setting, nor have I ever worked closely with women or people whom I knew to be homosexuals, while in uniform. The only exception to this is when I was a cadet, but I don't really consider that to be the Army. That is why I posed this as a question. I have my suspicions, but I don't pretend to know the answer.

I gather that your answer to the question would be "yes." Is that correct? If so, that would settle the issue, from the position that I was asking the question from. A "yes" answer would mean that the Army is correct to not allow openly homosexual soldiers to serve.

"That’s why you can’t give a reasoned answer for your arbitrary 'office only' situation for incest, just because bestials and pedophiles don’t neatly fit in your scenario is irrelevant."

What question was this? I answered the 3 questions that you posed. See below:

"To answer your original questions, no, no, and no. Now what? I still fail to see their relevance."

What is their relevance?

Second, of course I made that comparison. …What is their relevance ?

There is no comparison, homosexuality is no more relevant to a normal man/woman relationship than any other paraphilic disorders, a point I’ve made over and over again. A point you can’t seem grasp. A point often posed by homosexual apologists, like you, to present a morally relative equality where there is none. Get it?