Cocksuckers of the World Unite

Such a pity this came out so soon before 11/4, as it may need more than two days to reach everyone it needs to (particularly those who could make videos around it...).

Oh. That's vicious. Effective, but vicious.

Beware of H.R. 3687:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h108-3687

As a male, I fully endorse this Lysistrata Initiative.

I prefer positive inducements. Vote it down and bj's are guaranteed indefinitely.

As a lesbian I say thank you to my straight sisters.

Oh, Abbie, that's cruel. Effective, but cruel. And, anyway, the same should go for cunnilingus, because we're all about equality, right?

Great t-shirt I read about on Andrew Sullivan: "Can I vote on your marriage?"

I'm voting for Prop 8. Nothing against gays, but marriage is between men and women, dick and pussy. Very simple, very straightforward. That's how evolution works, too. Those who adapt to survive, get to REPRODUCE, and pass on their genes.

You've got a very simplistic view of evolution, Barbo. Ever heard of kin selection? Besides which, last time I checked, sterile people are allowed to marry, and fertile people can have children out of wedlock, so marriage =/= reproduction

So you would also deny those gay penguins from Central Park their marriage? They already dressed for it!

Yikes! Is there still time for me to move from Alabama to California and register to vote?!

barbo #8 - I got married this summer, and my wife and I don't want to have children, at least not for the foreseeable future. Do you want to take away our marriage? Or is it ok because we have the capability? What if I were to get the snip? Would we then have to divorce?

Marriage is not about reproduction anymore. That stopped about the same time we stopped marrying off our daughters strategically to improve our social standing.

The Sarah Silverman of scienceblogs writes:

Straight girls, want to make sure your boyfriends/husbands get out to vote against Prop Hate on Nov 4th? Propose a simple scenario to him: If it passes, no more blow jobs.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you're straight, ah, with that foul mouth, your husband/boyfriend might be better off.

And you're okay with exchanging sexual favors for votes?

I think you hurt Willy Wally's sensitive ears...

Made him jealous is more like it. You know how sex-obsessed his ilk tend to be.

"Assuming for the sake of argument that you're straight..."

Oh for fuck's sake Willy, just because she's not into you doesn't automatically mean she's a lesbian.

Thanks for posting this Abbie -- as a gay boy who got to bring a straight girl to prom (and, she was one of the only folks who knew I was gay). It's ironic that barbo brings some fancy non-biology thoughts to a biology blog.

I like how prudish some of those folks can be - WW's sensibilities are offended by a cute proposal. Ah well - he thinks all these girls' boyfriends would be better off without oral sex - I wonder if they feel that way. I'd surmise not.

--J

Ladies and gentlemen, for a demonstration of a straw man argument, please see #8.

OK, am I the only person who thinks that WW associating taboo language with literal uncleanliness and danger tells us all something diturbing about him?

Strawman argument?

Take an anatomy course, sometime. The males have external sex organs, the females have internal sex organs -- they fit nicely, like hand and glove. That's why, as men, we fight for food and kill our competitors -- to get the women, procreate, and propagate the species.

Sorry, taking it up the ass doesn't really advance the species.

I like the idea of boys and girls, kings and queens, and prince and princesses. Be gay, all you want, I'm really not too concerned what consenting adults do in private. Listen to George Michel records and bugger away! Just STFU!

Voting proudly to retain traditional marriage, like any sane adult.

Barbo,

Well doneand in the proud atheist trailer-park vernacular so often heard here at ERV to boot.

Somehow, I don't think they'll understand.

Why is it always the conservative who brings teh buttsehks up first?

(That was a rhetorical question: we all know it's the reaction formation hard at work).

Sorry, taking it up the ass doesn't really advance the species.

Nothing "advances the species", you fatuous goatfucker.

Oh dear, Barbo hope you engage in intercourse 24/7/365, because if you don't it's a strawman argument.

Barbo - it's a pretty lame argument you're making. Where (in law) has it ever been stated that the purpose of marriage is procreation? Call me crazy, but I've always seen marriage as a commitment between two people who love each other to spend the rest of their lives together. If, as you say, you are not anti-gay, why would you deny gay couples the right to make that commitment?

WW - if you have such a low opinion of erv (both the blogger and the blog), why do you always turn up here? Have you nothing more constructive to do with your time?

WW,

insultum ad hominem doesn't bolster your argument's 'cred'. You're not suddenly right about a topic because this one was too vulgar for your fragile sensibilities. Barbo isn't right because of any of the nonsense he's sputtering.

I mean, he makes a strawman argument that marriage is about procreation (which, if it were strictly limited to those who intend to have children, MIGHT be a point, but since it is not limited, so goes the argument)

But back to the beginning - this whole post was tagged under humor (it says so right next to Category WAY at the top of the post) - it would behoove you to acquire a sense of it.

Seriously though, what axe are you trying to grind, again?

Take an anatomy course, sometime. The males have external sex organs, the females have internal sex organs...

So homosexuality's only a no-no for the species that have external male sex organs? Disclaimer: I haven't taken any anatomy courses. (I do, however, have a pet bird.)

...they fit nicely, like hand and glove

Or cock in ass!

Oh dear, Barbo hope you engage in intercourse 24/7/365, because if you don't it's a strawman argument.

...and intercourse which isn't procreative doesn't count.

Have you nothing more constructive to do with your time?

He's here for penance since, when he isn't posting here, he's busy sinfully normalizing his vector.

The males have external sex organs, the females have internal sex organs -- they fit nicely, like hand and glove. That's why, as men, we fight for food and kill our competitors

...with your sex organs? "ur doing it wrong"

to get the women, procreate, and propagate the species.

Why does this require 'traditional marriage'? How many animal species have 'traditional marriage'?

"Voting proudly to retain traditional marriage, like any sane adult."

I agree, polygamy and female servitude are fucking awesome.

"I agree, polygamy and female servitude are fucking awesome."

Why Tyler when you put it that way.....

.....

Told ya, chumps. Proposition 8 passed in California. Yippee! And Obama won! Yippee.

A whole lotta Obama supporters quietly voted to keep marriage simple and straight. Can't marry a cow, a head of lettuce, your brother or your butt buddy. Can marry a girl, though.

Again, nuthing against gays. Do what you want. Get jobs, bugger, listen to Milli Vanilli records. We.Don't.Care.

But, don't try to cram marriage down anyone's throat (no pun intended).

Keep it real, y'all.

Barbo, I know you're a little retarded, but I'm going to try to get this into your cavernous skull anyway. You can't say that you don't care what people do, that they can do what they want, and then go and pass a law telling them that they can't do what they want. At least, you can't do both without being a fucking liar. You are therefore a fucking liar.

Also, because you are clearly obsessed with it, it might interest you to know that if you aren't looking at it on a per capita basis, there's a lot more heterosexual buttsex going on than gay buttsex.

Dustin the Dork,

I'm not really into buttsex, straight or gay. I don't think it's morally wrong, but it certainly is hygienically wrong!

The people have spoken. Learn to lose gracefully.

"Again, nuthing against gays. Do what you want. Get jobs, bugger, listen to Milli Vanilli records. We.Don't.Care."

"But, don't try to cram marriage down anyone's throat (no pun intended)."

And again, I'm not racist. I just think races should stick with their own kind. Don't cram your big black cocks down any white throat and I'll be fine.

Again, nuthing against gays.

If you don't have anything against homosexuals, why are you in favor of denying them the same rights as heterosexuals?

Can't marry a cow, a head of lettuce, your brother or your butt buddy.

Except nobody wants to marry cows, heads of lettuce, and (I hope) their brother. These are all invalid comparisons. The first two are simply ridiculous. A human cannot have the same kind of relationship with a cow or a head of lettuce as they can with another human being. The third is prohibited, quite rationally, because incest is bad for genetic diversity and increases the incidence of birth defects.

Unfortunately for you, I doubt that you can come up with a rational reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

And what is with the beastiality fixation? It seems like it's become almost as pervasive as the homophobic obsession with anal sex. (In case you didn't notice, your lame hand-in-glove argument could also be used in favor of bestiality, provided that it's heterosexual beastiality.)

The problem with tyranny of the majority is that they somehow think that by doing something unconstitutional (taking away rights of a single group) is somehow a justifiable act BECAUSE it's the will of the majority.

Thankfully, legal challenges have already been issued, and ideally the same court will rule the same way that this is nonsense.

There is no constitutional right to a government marriage license. That being said, homosexauls can get married, to persons of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.

Deal with it.

"That being said, homosexauls can get married, to persons of the opposite sex, just like everybody else."

And before Loving, all black people could get married to someone of the same race, just like everybody else.

You really are quite the vapid shithead, Willy.

WW,

1) Liberty is freedom after the law; if the law does not strictly prohibit gays getting married, then it is something to which all people are entitled. The law had to be changed to specifically deny that right - and who ammended the constituion? The majority - which is the cardinal problem of tyranny of the majority. An unpopular minority is always at risk at having its rights compromised.

2) As Tyler pointed out, there was a time in which only people of the same race could marry - everyone had the same rights, they were allowed to marry people of the same race. What's the problem with that?

3) Plessy v. Ferguson said that "separate but equal" was ok - so why did Brown vs. BoE of Topeka, KS change that? So if civil unions have all the same rights and priveleges of marriage, but are all at once not same thing, how is that not an attempt at a "separate but equal" institution?

Jason,

Constitutions establish governments, and are amendable. When you think they and the governments they create become too oppressive, you have choices: 1. "When in the Course of human events..." 2. Emigrate 3. Suffer. 4. Persuade.

Regarding Loving v. Virginia, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. BoE., give it a shot. An amendment to the California Constitution cannot by definition be Un(California)Constituional unless it was raitifed improperly. I suppose it could be against the U.S. Constitution, and that will be an interesting state v. central government case to be sure. Your best shot is to amend the Constitution to repeal the new amendment, as was done after prohibition.

Homosexuals can obtain a marriage license no matter who they marry--black, brown, red, yellow, or lily white--as long as it is a member of the opposite sex.

Furthermore, homosexuals can be united to persons of the same sex, if they so choose, in any religious institution that deigns to marry them, or they can create their own religious sect for this or other purposes.

WW,

so, amendment to the California Constitution cannot by definition be Un(California)Constituional unless it was raitifed improperly is an interesting argument. You're asserting that because it is part of the constitution it cannot be unconstitutional. Enter Marbury vs. Madison. We have judicial review, and just like prop 22 went down, this might also be struck down (though, I do not believe it can be appealed to the state level). Laws and ammendments can be viewed as unconstitutional.

This: Homosexuals can obtain a marriage license no matter who they marry--black, brown, red, yellow, or lily white--as long as it is a member of the opposite sex. Furthermore, homosexuals can be united to persons of the same sex, if they so choose, in any religious institution that deigns to marry them, or they can create their own religious sect for this or other purposes.

is intellectually dishonest.

Marriage licences are obtained from the state to receive the legal benefits of marriage, and as yet those federal benefits still do not get awarded. I, as an atheist, do not care about religious marriage. I want the same rights the gov't gives married couples. Why am I not entitled to those? Please provide a secular argument (vis-a-vis the Establisment Clause), and be cognizant that should you choose to argue biology, on a blog full of biologists, that you will be asked for relavant citations.

Churches would not be forced to perform marriages they would not sanction, so this false ammeliorative claim of, "they can go somewhere else to have the marriage performed" is meaningless. This is about end of life care, property benefits, tax benefits, and equal access to and protection under the law. Religion has no role - other than giving people some means of "legitamizing" their homophobia.

Marbury vs. Madison established judical review. Of laws. Not the constitution.

Constitutional amendments are by definition constitutional, unless they were ratified improperly.

California courts can compare any law and refuse to enforce any that it finds violation of its own, or, I believe, the Federal constitution.

The Federal courts *might* be able to review state constitutions, and may already have, though I do not know of any such instances.

But if a federal court declared a provision of a state constitution a violation of the U.S. constitution, I think it would be unprecedented, and it would be a landmark decision as significant as Marbury vs. Madison, and could possibly lead to a crisis for the union.

I, as an atheist, do not care about religious marriage. I want the same rights the gov't gives married couples.

Then lobby for civil unions which give the same benefits as marriage, to homosexual couples, but by another name, e.g., "civil unions."

Problem is, the nutcase leaders of the homosexual agenda won't settle for this.

Then lobby for civil unions which give the same benefits as marriage, to homosexual couples, but by another name, e.g., "civil unions."

No. Separate but equal. If marriage is a civic institution, which it is (again, state issued marriage licences make it so), even though civil unions exist (as they do in california) you've created a "separate but equal" institution.

I shouldn't have to settle for that.

Offer me a secular reason for why I should have to deal with your bigotry?

The alternative to this is to get rid of state-sanctioned marriage for everyone and only offer civil unions, and let religious instituions deal with marriages, but this is wildly unpopular.

Separate but equal. If marriage is a civic institution, which it is (again, state issued marriage licences make it so), even though civil unions exist (as they do in california) you've created a "separate but equal" institution.

I shouldn't have to settle for that.

Then do what is natural, and find a mate of the opposite sex.

From the Oxford English Dictionary
Natural: Existing in, determined by, conforming to, or based on nature.

So the challenge of the last comment was to come up with a secular reason for why I should deal with your bigotry, or otherwise abolish secular marriage and do civil unions for all. Instead, another dishonest answer.

Your implication is that same-sex pairing is not natural. Thankfully, we know that it is patently false. As it does occur in nature, what leg have you left to stand on? I mean, consider that it is a SINGLE gene in some animals (notably, the Fru gene in fruit flies). I'm certain that the argument you used was once part of the anti-miscegenation crowd's favorites, too.

You've yet to justify your "ownership" of marriage in secular terms. You've not demonstrated harms, but further, your bigotry, and let's not mince words because that is exactly what it is, was most obviously demonstrated when you advocated for a separate but equal institution.

@Jason: I know "separate but equal" has a particularly bad history in the States but I suspect it comes down less to the law and more to whether people want to treat things as truly equal. In the UK there are civil partnerships for same sex couples, which are formally distinct from marriage but functionally equivalent. In almost all cases people refer to the civil partnership ceremonies as "weddings" (well "gay weddings" at least), the partnerships themselves as "marriages" and to the people getting them as "brides" or "grooms" and then as "husbands" or "wives" who are "married". (Quotes to express fact that these are the words used, not as scare quotes).

Basically, people made the civil partnerships marriages through language even though the government made them separate.

For the record I support (formally) equal marriage for same sex couples but it's worth noting that civil partnership/union is not worthless.

Limp Willy! How "nice" to see you here!

To continue my previous questioning, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Gotta get a stiffy somehow, right?

This guy is a closet homo, folks. Seriously obsessed with teh buttsecks. Also a total ignoramus on constitutional law. Feel free to mock him at your leisure.

"Then do what is natural, and find a mate of the opposite sex."

Such a thing doesn't come "naturally" to gays anymore than choosing a mate of the same sex does to you, you fucking douchenozzle. Please an hero and make the world better.

Hi, Wally! Fuck the fucking fuck off, you lying, hateful, anti-American fuck. :-D

See, that is how you handle "William Wallace", the limp-wristed troll. Challenge him directly, and swat him on the nose with "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" (There is a history there. He kept putting out strawman arguments and refused to admit they were bogus. So I gave him my own.)

It's a lot like housebreaking a puppy.

Jason,

Your seperate but equal argument is the ultimate strawman. First, gays can marry, and *they* do it already, so long as it is to a member of the opposite sex.

Second, men and women have different bathrooms, with different facilities in the bathrooms.

So go protest that.

Nice strawman yourself, Limp Willy!

Stop beating your wife yet? Gotta get hard somehow,right?

First, gays can marry, and *they* do it already, so long as it is to a member of the opposite sex.

Yes, and within my lifetime African-Americans could marry, so long as it was to a member of the African-American "race". Shove it up your ass.

Second, men and women have different bathrooms, with different facilities in the bathrooms.

And..? My car and my wife's car have different keys, yet we park them in the same garage and have even been known to use the same antifreeze. You honestly don't have the faintest clue how to use analogy or construct a logical argument, do you?

WW,

Eric responded to both your points rather adequately, but I hope he'll be cool with it I add some fuel to the response.

gays can marry as long as its to people of the opposite sex, to the exclusion of, well, the people they would otherwise choose to marry. BRILLIANT! So, that's a stellar idea right there. Really great for the sanctity of marriage when you have a guy with a girl and one or both of them are cheating on the side because they aren't supposed to be together. Contrived and stupid.

Tell you what, allow gay marriage, and that way gays can marry who they want, and should straight people decide to marry other straight people of the same sex, nothing would stop them. Done, everyone's treated fairly.

So... back to where were before you came up with this response...

remember this gem of yours, "Then lobby for civil unions which give the same benefits as marriage, to homosexual couples, but by another name, e.g., "civil unions.""

How the hell do you have the testicular fortitude to say that and then tell me that separate but equal IS a strawman?

You MADE it fit that category and now you're calling it a strawman. That... just makes you a douche. I've been civil with you until now - but you really are deluded if you think that this parses for serious discussion. You're flagrantly dishonest and you consistently ignore normal logical flow in favor of your insipid nonsense.

Brilliant!

On your checklist of responses you may wish to include:

1) something asked way earlier - a secular reason that this is an issue (you argued its unnatural so I gave you natural examples of gay behavior)

2) Why civil union switch all the same rights as marriage is a not separate but equal (you spell out why it is) and if you believe that it is separate but equal, how come it's ok?

So, under your reasoning, if a brother and sister from Arkansas want to marry each other, but are prevented by the law, even if the sister has had a hysterectomy, and the brother has a low sperm count, they are somehow being oppressed?

You people will justify any perversion to in the name of political correctness.

See, Limp Willy, that is a classic example of a strawman. You might want to look that up. Ask your mom, maybe she can help you with the big words.

Stop beating your wife yet? Come on, Willy, inquiring minds wanna know! Have you found a way to achieve an erection without smacking the old lady around? You can tell us!

So, under your reasoning, if a brother and sister from Arkansas want to marry each other, but are prevented by the law, even if the sister has had a hysterectomy, and the brother has a low sperm count, they are somehow being oppressed?

No one here said or even suggested anything like that. Any particular reason why you don't address what people actually say...? Oh, that's right; it's because you're a lying, impotent, anti-American piece of slime. Silly me...

Stumped the chumps. LOL.

Your refusal to acknowledge counter arguments does not constitute our being "stumped", moron.

Just because you can't get it up is no reason to be unable to muster a coherent argument.

Tell your wife I said "hi!"

Jason,

Do the homosexual animals pass on their genes? No? Hmn. Must be nature protecting itself.

In any event, your argument by analogy to the animal kingdom illustrates where Darwinism leads. Some animals kill members of their own species for sport, so murder is okay under your analogy. Some animals are cannibalistic, so cannibalism is okay under your analogy.

Now, tell me how your reasons don't apply to the incest example I gave....if we should legalize homosexual marriage, why shouldn't we leagalize incest? Some animals commit incest, after all.

The sound of crickets chirping speaks volumes.

The chumps have been stumped.

Idiots.

LOL.

It is hard to tell what the 'primary' purpose of sex is.

Evolution and genetics suggests that procreation is the primary purpose but they also point out that procreation is, obviously, just producing one or more copies of yourself. Something humans are uniquely capable of doing through vaginal intercourse, IVF or a turkey baster.

Humans pretty commonly live for 80 years. Let's arbitrarily knock off ten years at the beginning and end. So 60 years, or 21900 days, or 3.15x10^7 minutes. The male part can be accomplished in roughly ten minutes.

So ten minutes to satisfy the biological imperative and the remainder, a whole lot of time, free to 'play with the equipment' as you see fit. Penises fit pretty well into various and sundry orifices on a wide variety of animate and inanimate objects. YMMV.

This is how gays can have children. Even if the actual mating is done by surrogate using a turkey baster it is still a evolutionarily valid way of satisfying the biological imperative. Others talk of doing 'the nasty' a few times, one lesbian confided that she felt sick during sex with the chosen gay male friend, to make a baby. But for want of a baby she would never engage in heterosexual sex.

Does that make her straight? Should she locked into what she viscerally feels is an unnatural relationship for the long term by marrying the father and 'cheat' on him with her girlfriend. Wouldn't that infidelity devalue the institution of marriage? Or should she be free to marry her heart's desire and, by mutual agreement, be allowed to get knocked up in what she feels is a unnatural but necessary act while spending the vast majority of the time in a loving and committed relationship with her partner in a gay marriage. A marriage that, other than the same sex part, is an ideal example.

Is it better to legally emphasize and formalize a heterosexual relationship based on a ten minute performance which she feels was necessary but unnatural for her; or is it better to emphasize and formalize the gay relationship which will last for years and be in charge of raising the kid?

Personally I see nothing particularly wrong with a person marrying a ficus. It would need to be an eighteen year old ficus and, because the plant can't express its interests, a guardian would need to be appointed.

People have been having sex in all kinds and flavors much longer than marriage has even been a concept. Even before people knew where babies came from people were humping every available orifice. If it felt good and right they were happily bonking away. Only later would gay/straight, sanctioned/unsanctioned, married/unmarried become issues.

As far as anyone can tell human sexual interests and desires haven't really changed much in this time. We wear clothing and have applied a social and cultural overlay but we are still pretty much apes happily humping our way through time.

In a conflict between the sexual instincts and behavior of the human animal that have remained mostly constant for most of our history and an only recently applied social construct called marriage it is the concept of marriage that will have to bend.

"So, under your reasoning, if a brother and sister from Arkansas want to marry each other, but are prevented by the law, even if the sister has had a hysterectomy, and the brother has a low sperm count, they are somehow being oppressed?"

It stands to reason that, under William Wallace's reasoning, we should all an hero so we can go to heaven and fuck Jesus in the ass.

WW,

Do the homosexual animals pass on their genes? No? Hmn. Must be nature protecting itself.

Or...you know... they do. If, for example, a "gay" gene in a male increased success for reproduction in a female, then you have a mechanism for it being selected for. Now, let's go one step further and assume that it's autosomal. If the heterozygous AND homozygous conditions in the female somehow improve fecundity, and only the homozygous condition in the male cause gayness, that would lead to some pseudo-sexlinked inheritance patterns that would be hard to tackle down. Now let's add the caveat that it's incompletely penetrant and likelihood of expression increases following male births. Now you have a hard to trace inheritance pattern that fits multiple observations made in humans i.e.(1)maternally inherited, and (2) probability increases when a male has older brothers.

Like sickle-cell trait, if there's a heterozygous advantage, there exists a selective pressure that supports the gene's continuity.

But thanks for the bogus biology lesson. I'll take my biology lessons from my PhD studies over your nonsense though. Just sayin'

Some animals kill members of their own species for sport, so murder is okay under your analogy. Some animals are cannibalistic, so cannibalism is okay under your analogy.
1) I'm pretty sure only humans kill for "sport", and I think if you look around the world, you unfortunately find examples of humans killing humans for sport as well.
2) There are human cannibals as well, but that doesn't justify the action. Because...
3) Thanks for more strawmen, douche. Killing is on the same level as two consenting same sex adults wanting to marry? Ditto cannibalism? Brilliant! No, wait, still a douchebag.

Now, tell me how your reasons don't apply to the incest example I gave....if we should legalize homosexual marriage, why shouldn't we leagalize incest? Some animals commit incest, after all.

From a purely theoretical perspective, i'm not against it in the example you described. If they cannot have children, then they aren't doing anyone any harm. We may find it reprehensible, but I don't know what good it does to prevent it. Now, if they attempt having children, because of over-representation of homogeneity, I think this is unfair to the children and should not be allowed. This is problematic, and thus should be prevented.

You are such a douche though, it's amazing. You still advocate separate but equal, you CANNOT offer a secular reason to prevent gay marriage, but assume that because I don't respond I'm stumped.

It's amazing. Those two points and you continue to ignore them, but then expect that we should agree with your conclusions or are SOMEHOW STUMPED by your AMAZING INTELLECT because we've stopped acknowledging you at all.

Civil discourse is impossible with you (though I certainly did try). You still haven't figured out what a strawman is yet (case in point, look how you accuse me of constructing one in argument when I use the statements YOU MAKE! And then you equate homosexuality to cannibalism and murder).

I'm done though. You don't understand biology, and you are unable to step outside of your own proclivities and tendencies to evaluate what is and is not moral. You need a book written 2000+ years to tell you how to think; no doctor uses med school books written 60 years ago, let alone 2000 years ago, to tell them how to practice medicine.

And that is why the only response to Limp Willy is simply:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

What is amazing, is that William Wallace honestly believes that he makes valid points, and that he isn't just a bigot with an IQ south of his shoe size.

He struggles gamely on, flinging nonsensical argument after nonsensical argument at people much smarter and better informed than he is, totally unaware of just how fucking stupid he always, and I mean always, looks.

It's kind of fascinating, in that 'moth beating itself to death against a window' sort of way.

Barbo, if that's how evolution works, then why do you need legislation? Is it because evolution does not work that way? ;)