I'm not trying to invalidate your reading, and as I said, I agree that the bond of friendship between John and Rodney is important in the story. *Nobody* is saying that John and Rodney are protrayed as devil-may-care promiscuous straight men.
For me, the story works both within SGA canon and outside of it; I find the author's use of queer cultural references lets me go off into really interesting (to me) theoretical readings about the function of gender and sexuality. I recced the story in my LJ and a friend who's never seen SGA read and loved it, which suggests that it does also work out of the canon context. I don't think that a reading like yours, closely attentive to canon, and one like mine, that goes more into structures of identity and community than character, have to be incompatible at all; but I suspect that the difference in perspective there is where the percieved (but I don't think actually present) disagreement is coming from. At least for me; of course I can't speak for cathexys.
Re: *is tracking conversation*
For me, the story works both within SGA canon and outside of it; I find the author's use of queer cultural references lets me go off into really interesting (to me) theoretical readings about the function of gender and sexuality. I recced the story in my LJ and a friend who's never seen SGA read and loved it, which suggests that it does also work out of the canon context. I don't think that a reading like yours, closely attentive to canon, and one like mine, that goes more into structures of identity and community than character, have to be incompatible at all; but I suspect that the difference in perspective there is where the percieved (but I don't think actually present) disagreement is coming from. At least for me; of course I can't speak for cathexys.