Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

apple0154 said:
Hear! Hear!

When it comes to creating new life or doing anything that may lead to creating a new life I sure as hell don't want some outside agency interfering! :)
Click to expand...

See, fascists like stringfield want reproduction to be DEPENDANT on a statist citizen laboratory. They must decouple all institutions from reproductive truth, and de-educate the populace about reproduction to supplant natural reproduction with fascist citizen creation laboratories.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Gay couples can get kids, sure. But there is something special about a union that needs no outside agency to create new life. And the creation of new life is not a religious notion. It's bio 101. that's why you should just go with civil unions, okay, chet? And stop trying to actively erase natural reproduction from humanity's culture understanding.
Click to expand...

STFU, with your idiotic straw man arguments. No one is trying to erase natural reproduction. My cousin conceived all of her's the old fashioned way, underneath some drunk (she was married, for one). There was nothing "special" about it. She could have done it WITHOUT that outside agency.

You can continue believing in the fantasy, where all children are conceived in wedlock and marital bliss, that will last forever. But no matter how much you fool yourself about it, that's not the reality in many/most cases.

And nobody is talking about conception necessarily taking place in a laboratory either. God damn, you are bat-shit crazy. I am talking about what IS quite normal in our world NOW.

Put down your crack pipe. The evil Jews are not coming to get you, yet. I still keep getting that Indian guy.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
See, fascists like stringfield want reproduction to be DEPENDANT on a statist citizen laboratory. They must decouple all institutions from reproductive truth, and de-educate the populace about reproduction to supplant natural reproduction with fascist citizen creation laboratories.
Click to expand...

There is an upside. Genetic engineering. Of course, it would be a slap-in-the-face to regular couples if the children obtained from "progeny plants/offspring outlets/copulation corporations" given to homosexual couples were smarter and stronger than children born to regular couples.

It's not unreasonable to imagine a time when the regular, old fashioned way of having children is regulated. Just as we think it's irresponsible that teenagers and certain other members of society have children they can not look after properly I can see a time when society looks unfavorably upon those who simply throw caution to the wind and copulate without considering genetic testing/adjustments.
 
apple0154 said:
There is an upside. Genetic engineering. Of course, it would be a slap-in-the-face to regular couples if the children obtained from "progeny plants/offspring outlets/copulation corporations" given to homosexual couples were smarter and stronger than children born to regular couples.

It's not unreasonable to imagine a time when the regular, old fashioned way of having children is regulated. Just as we think it's irresponsible that teenagers and certain other members of society have children they can not look after properly I can see a time when society looks unfavorably upon those who simply throw caution to the wind and copulate without considering genetic testing/adjustments.
Click to expand...

Yes. Eugenics. Purifying the genome. Nazis. Congratulations.
 
RStringfield said:
And yet, who is arguing for state control over the process? You, the actual nAHZi and your gaggle of dogs.
Click to expand...


No. You're trying to erase the connection between marriage and natural male/ female reproduction. I didn't see you arguing to eliminate state support (definition in your book) of the institution, you just want to redefine it. Bam. The truth. You're the zealot.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. You're trying to erase the connection between marriage and natural male/ female reproduction. I didn't see you arguing to eliminate state support (definition in your book) of the institution, you just want to redefine it. Bam. The truth. You're the zealot.
Click to expand...

The connection has been erased. It was not a conspiracy, but the obvious result of giving women their full rights. Again, I am not sorry about it. It was a necessary part of their independence. Men cannot control them anymore. We never should have tried to and we are not going back to the "good ole days."
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
The connection has been erased. It was not a conspiracy, but the obvious result of giving women their full rights. Again, I am not sorry about it. It was a necessary part of their independence. Men cannot control them anymore. We never should have tried to and we are not going back to the "good ole days."
Click to expand...

the biological truth of man/ woman reproduction does not deny women their rights, you fool. That's insane.

Conversely, denying the phenomenon of natural unassisited human male/female repoduction is not liberation either. In fact, it
seems a bit anti-knowledge, almost a dark ages mentality of withholding information from the masses "for their own good".

We reject your repugnant elitism.
 
AssHatZombie said:
the biological truth of man/ woman reproduction does not deny women their rights, you fool. That's insane.

Conversely, denying the phenomenon of natural unassisited human male/female repoduction is not liberation either. In fact, it
seems a bit anti-knowledge, almost a dark ages mentality of withholding information from the masses "for their own good".
Click to expand...

??? Straw man, a particularly insane one. I don't know why I bother, you are so completely divorced from reality.

Nobody, is saying that we should try to convince people that you can't make babies through sex or that is not the "natural" process.

How would that even be possible when one can witness it in other mammals/animals? Personally, I did not need sex ed. I figured it all out the first time I saw a dog getting humped and the resulting birth of the gaggle of dogs, but...

Back to the actual conversation...

Nothing about conception inside of wedlock is necessary to the "natural" process. People have been having sex, outside of marriage, and getting pregnant from the beginning.

The human female's subservience to the male is unnatural, as they are fully capable of exercising their rights. It may have, back in the stone ages or when women depended on men to hunt and protect them from predators, served a useful purpose. But the market's division of labor, technological advancements and the rule of law have made that unnecessary and unnatural to mankind.
 
RStringfield said:
And I just want to point out, that I seriously doubt that you speak for anyone outside the insane asylum. Your points have some remote resemblance to typical conservative nonsense, but you are nucking-futs.
Click to expand...

I have defeated you soundly on our every disagreement.

Nobody says gaggle of dogs. It's wrong.

If it was written in your child's homework, and you were proofreading it, you would be a poor father not to correct it and explain why it's wrong.
 
Last edited:
So the guy who wrote the dictionary entry using it to describe something other than gees, could not pass a grammar school writing assignment? Okay, whatever, dumbfuck.
 
RStringfield said:
So the guy who wrote the dictionary entry using it to describe something other than gees, could not pass a grammar school writing assignment? Okay, whatever, dumbfuck.
Click to expand...

Im sure he would correct gaggle of dogs on his child's paper, SO the child wouldn't be considered idiotic, like you.
 
gaggle

late 15c., gagyll , with reference to both geese and women. Barnhardt says possibly from O.N. gagl "goose;" OED calls it "one of the many artificial terms invented in the 15th c. as distinctive collectives referring to particular animals or classes of persons." Possibly of imitative origin (cf. Du. gagelen "to chatter;" M.E. gaggle "to cackle," used of geese, attested from late 14c.). Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top