🚀 go-pugleaf

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

> 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:
>

Oh joy.

> > Except one is justified and homosexuals are not. :)
> 
> Justified by who? Or by what?
>

God's law. Their own actions. Me.

> 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.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! How rich!! I agree that homosex is "evolutionary a good
idea" but there is no lofty purpose involved at all... Simply survival
of the fittest and natural selection in action. Sort of like nature
looks at what was created (the individual pre-queer person) and says
BLAUGH!!! Did I ever screw up!!! Shame on me! - And so to ensure that
the mistake is not able propagate itself beyond the original screw-up
state certain wires get crossed and the screw-up gets more interested
in things like feces, urine, masturbation, etc. and *POOF* you have a
homosexual!!! The mistake stops there, and it does not become part of
the gene pool!

> 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.
>

You are wrong. I know many homosex victims. I've had far far too much
experience with that ilk.

I speak from experience.

-djk

--
----
   Daniel J. Karnes      | |
        WA6NDT          || || ||   djk@TASP.NET / djk@PrimeNet.Com
---||=|----------------|||||||||||||||||--------------------------------
"Why doesn't Winchells  || || ||   BeepmetillIscream: 714/302-2180
  have Mogi Donuts?"     | |