And with this nonsensical assemblage of words, I think it's time to put this to bed.I'm curious, Mars: why you don't want a gay character in Star Trek?
If you could find a good story reason, sure. But I can see them adding this and adding that because various political groups are bugging them to do it as well, it sort of constrains the writers freedom of imagination if you tell them he must include one of those, then he gets a character he didn't intend and has to write a story around him, maybe include some homosexual love interest. It gets tiresome writing about man love man romances. Well actually there was a homosexual character, now that I think about it. How about the Mirror Universe's Kira, the Intendent of Bajor, she had the hots for herself, so that box was checked already, yep homosexual character, we can cross that off now.
Mars is clearly not interested in actually acknowledging any points made in opposition to his viewpoint, and continues to trot out the "but it wouldn't serve the stoooooorrrryyyy!" argument despite it having been completely debunked like eight times, and has resorted to completely fabricating what his opponents' points are. So yeah, nothing more of value in this back-and-forth.
Plus, equating homosexuality with having AIDS? Seriously, that's pretty vile.