Mmmmm no it's not. Maybe you had it open in a window for a long time before trying to play it? YT does that.

In reply to this comment by guessandcheck:
This one's dead already http://www.videosift.com/video/Aimee-Mullins-double-amputee-athle
te-and-model

it was so young :*(

This one's dead already http://www.videosift.com/video/Aimee-Mullins-double-amputee-athle
te-and-model

it was so young :*(

I don't think anyone can argue that homosexuality is 'unnatural' simply because boy parts don't go with boy parts as per initial design, suggesting therefore that we can and should only use our bodies for the actions prescribed by their current arrangement... this, is of course quite silly, because after all, the human body is only in its current form today due to the behavioral changes our ancestors made millions of years ago and the actions they put their bodies to... hands function as they do and our shoulders are aligned as they are due to tool usage and the selective breeding resultant from the success of those hominids better practiced at flaking bits of stone into even pointier bits of stone...

In short, its our behaviors and the uses to which we put our bodies that have shaped our bodies into the very forms we recognize today... obviously, gay men aren't going to start growing vaginas any time soon, but arguing that a behavior isn't natural, or right simply because the parts don't fit is comparable to pointing out that walking on ones hands isn't right or natural simply because hands aren't designed for that. Those behaviors might not be the primary function, but given the right circumstances, like being a double amputee or having whatever genes or chemical composition it is that makes one gay, alternative functions can, for the individual, become quite natural in and of themselves.

I also think that the perception that people are either gay or not gay is strictly cultural, as many societies throughout history have defined the phenomenon in quite different ways... most ancient pre-Judeo Christian peoples seemed to think of sexuality as on kind of a sliding scale, such as Mink has suggested, that one could at times migrate between the masculine and the feminine, and this has been my experience as well. I, for instance, like Mink, find visual appeal in the physiology of members of my sex, (like, I would much rather look at neked chicks lathering themselves up than a bunch of dudes, because frankly, to me anyway, you boys all look like monkeys) but I would not be in any way interested in pursuing it beyond that as, also quite frankly, I like cock and I am much more suited to having a relationship with a member of the other gender as opposed to one of my own... so I could hardly be labeled a lesbian, but I don't think saying that I'm 100% heterosexual is correct either... would I be, as the dating forums are so fond of labeling people, deemed bi-curious? Who knows, my point is, the labels that are applied to people are just that, labels, and I think it is entirely unfair to legislate or apply regulation to organizational entities such as the military based solely on labels alone.