Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century

January 2007 would be the 21st century. (Easy to miss - still no flying cars and robot butlers, I notice.)

Both ways, typically; if you think that's exactly like a normal heterosexual relationship in humans, then I suggest you need to stop picking up "women" in bars with names like "The Manhole."Also, much like your little adventures, bacterial conjugation is not a form of sexual reproduction because gametes are not fused to form a zygote. Rather, bacterial conjugation simply represents an exchange of donor mobile plasmids between individuals. No new individuals are created.

Rob, could you substantiate your assertion that preventing same-sex marriage will reduce the incidence of sexual abuse of children?

People are born with their sexual orientation (in all likelyhood in most cases), but people are not born with the wherewithall to consent to sexual activity.But, of course, I suspect you already knew that when you attempted to sandbag the debate by equivocating homosexuality with peodphilia. I don't know if you have to be Christian to be dishonest, but in my experience it certainly makes it easier.

Message 147, your words:

quote:

---

And they have sex with their opposites, too. Try Googling "bacterial sex" and see for yourself. There are many good photographs of male E.coli scoring on females. A score is when he shoots out his papilla and it hits her in the sweet spot.

---

When Shraf disagreed that this was how bacteria reproduced, you contradicted her in message 169:

quote:

---

Oh, but they conjugate, too, which probably feels a lot better.

---

Where you clearly make the assertion that bacterial conjugation was an additional form of bacterial reproduction, which it is not.

Nonsense, you asserted it before and you continue to repeat the assertion.If you believe that same-sex unions increase the incidence of sexual abuse of children, then either you believe that preventing them will decrease the incidence - or you're tacitly admitting that there is no connection, you're completely unconcerned about the sexual abuse of children, and motivated only by hatred towards homosexuals engaged in perfectly legal, legitmate private conduct.So, again, I'm asking you if you can substantiate your assertion that the prevention of same-sex marriage reduces the incidence of sexual abuse of children.

Could you substantiate your assertion that animals regularly possess the intelligence, communication skills, and manual dexterity to operate computers and create threads on internet forum boards?Could you substantiate your assertion that homosexuals regularly develop fur, claws, boxlike muzzles, canine dentition, and heightened senses of hearing and scent?

"Homos"? "Homophiles?" Is it necessary to use bigoted language?If Rob isn't interested in supporting his statements with evidence, but in throwing bitch-fits instead, I hope he stays gone. Who gives a shit?

Well, that's an absolute falsehood, though you certainly have a bad habit of making these spurious accusations as smokescreens.I quoted your statement verbatim, exactly as you made it, and precisely contrary to your implication otherwise.

See, I don't see what remarks like that contribute to the debate. They seem unneccesarily belligerent and contrary to the Forum guidelines, particularly rule 10.You don't seem particularly interested in legitimate debate. Why is that?

It's working perfectly; he's just not any good at it.

Oh, that explains it. We've got a glibertarian here, folks.

Fair enough. How about your opinion can dictate the terms of your marriage, and other people's opinions can govern their own? And then you can stop all the bigoted panty-sniffing?By the way - how, exactly, does a libertarian come to the conclusion that he gets veto power over other people's marriages?

Well, for one thing - they don't exist. At least not in the US. We do have marriage, on the other hand.

You're a bigot and a homophobe, HM. That's what you are.That's why every single one of your posts drips with contempt and revulsion towards gays and their defenders. It's why you think that the rest of us must be ignorant about what homosexuals do in the bedroom, and if we only knew, why, then we're come around to your eminently sensible hatred of all things queer.It's why you think that this: represents some kind of gay assault or appropriation of your "normal" culture, instead of the entirely common phenomenon of people feeling kinship and self-recognition with characters in books. (Christopher Robin Milne, A.A. Milne's son and the basis for the character, was not gay, as far as anyone can tell.) Pretty much. I had thought your brand of bigotry died with Reagan. I guess I was wrong.