🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <c6596c3w165w@TASP.NET> djk@TASP.NET (Daniel J. Karnes) writes:

> eijkhout@jacobi.math.ucla.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:

Since that's me I feel I can add to the general hubub of dissent
with mr. Karnes:

> > > Just as breeders can discriminate against gaypeople in accommodations, so
> > > too gaypeople can discriminate against breeders. 
> > 
> > Just as the one is contemptible, so it the other.
> >
> 
> Except one is justified and homosexuals are not. :)

Justified by who? Or by what? I read an intersting argument the
other day that a certain percentage of homosexuals is evolutionary
a good idea: a group that has some people who are not preoccupied
with their own offspring but can work for the common good has
a higher overall chance of survival. In a nutshell.

Apart from such objective arguments, I doubt that you know
any homosexuals from up close, and your ramblings are just that.
Without any basis in informed fact.
--
Victor Eijkhout
405 Hilgard Ave ................................... A modern US Navy cruiser
Department of Mathematics, UCLA ............ now requires 26 tons of manuals.
Los Angeles CA 90024 ................. This is enough to affect the vessel's
phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 .................. performance [New Scientist]
home:  +1 310 209 0068 ----- http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout/ -----------