Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

[Professor Baxter]

Dude, your argument on flock and gaggle has been thoroughly beaten. If you are still too stupid to see it, then go stand in the dunce corner. See that guy with the funny hat that says 1/3? That's where your new home is going to be.

Flock of dogs, gaggle of dogs, pack of dogs, 1/3, .333e (decimal), .1 (base 3)... I know some of them seem strange and foreign to you, but there is nothing to fear. It's not the Jews that are behind it, retard. Your buddy likes to call them pinheads. We all know that's just your pet words for the people that are smarter than you and who routinely expose your foolishness.

[AssHatZombie]

Just another retreat to an already compromised position. No worries once this one is trashed, again, your pea brain will let you return to the one man one woman nonsense.

So, THE "definition" of marriage only applies to those who are making babies?

What has baby making to do with the law or the valid interests of the state?

Whitney Houston and many people agree that children are the future. The state gives incentive to the supports of family because it knows families are indeed the creation center for new citizens. This why there are family related concepts in tax law etc.

Gay people are not any more likely to reproduce because you don't allow them to marry. Are you arguing that homosexuals should be forced to breed in order to pump out more soldiers/taxpayers?

Yes. Why are they there then? what is the compelling state interest? You're not arguing for the abolishment of the legal entity. What is the state interest, counselor.

Further, this line of argument begs the question if we should deny marriage rights to the infertile, while ignoring the fact that homosexuals CAN reproduce.

Oh... but not naturally, will be the reply as there is always some rationalized crevice that you cockroaches can crawl into.



??? Non sequitur. I don't care about baby making. That's your argument, retard, and you are clearly projecting. I care about individual liberty. If they want to make babies, okay. If they don't, okay. If they want to do it through the "natural" process, fine. If they want to use some other means, that's okay too. As long as it is their choice and does not amount to forcing their will on another, I don't fucking care.



Grasshopper, I will whip your ass no matter which way you turn. Your attacks are weak and easily countered.

Two men cannot make babies.

Giving the cultural and reproductive unit of humanity a legal advantage is a reason for state interest. they can extend this same interested advantage to gay couples in the form of civil union. marriage is a union between a man and a woman, one each gender of POTENTIAL natural reproduction. that's really what it is, just one of each of the biologically differentiated known genders which complement each other by being able to reproduce with each other. Of course they didn't force barren couples to get divorce.

You want barren couples to be forced to be divorced. Bad you.

[Professor Baxter]

Whitney Houston and many people agree that children are the future. The state gives incentive to the supports of family because it knows families are indeed the creation center for new citizens. This why there are family related concepts in tax law etc.

lol, Whitney Houston. I hope that's a joke.

The state gives support in order to create jobs for bureaurats. The welfare statism is a mishmash of different programs, including some that give support to things you oppose.

Besides that, gay people still have kids. I have a gay cousin that has three boys, one of them off in Afghanistan.

Many children are being born outside of wedlock anyway, and the courts have adapted to try to make sure parents are held responsible. Marriage and the family share no resemblance to "Leave it to Beaver" anymore (not that it really ever did). It is not likely to return to that and it is stupid to pretend that it will. That some long forgotten fantasy of the ideal household is a good reason to keep homosexuals from pursuing their own happiness, is absurd.

Yes. Why are they there then? what is the compelling state interest? You're not arguing for the abolishment of the legal entity. What is the state interest, counselor.

So you believe that marriage serves the state interest in making more conscripts? Okay. That's good in the nAHZi state, but our system will reject it.

I have explained the state's interest to you numerous times. Read the DofI.

Two men cannot make babies.

With a willing woman, they can. There is no reason that they have to make the child through sex or homosexual sex. This is just another of the arbitrary and stupid rationalizations for discrimination.

Giving the cultural and reproductive unit of humanity a legal advantage is a reason for state interest.

Why should the state give them such an advantage? As has been explained, homosexuals can reproduce. Is there some valid state interest in ensuring the child is genetically linked to both members of the couple? Again, see the reality of the average American household.

Who's basis for government does this supposed state interest serve? Hitler's, maybe... not our founders. The DofI does not read...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are not created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain duties to the state, that among these are paying taxes, dying in foreign wars, and making babies to do the same. — That to procure compliance with these duties, Governments are instituted among Men...

they can extend this same interested advantage to gay couples in the form of civil union. marriage is a union between a man and a woman, one each gender of POTENTIAL natural reproduction. that's really what it is, just one of each of the biologically differentiated known genders which complement each other by being able to reproduce with each other. Of course they didn't force barren couples to get divorce.

You want barren couples to be forced to be divorced. Bad you.

You have failed to explain why that is important under a system of government whose sole purpose is the protection of individual rights. Under your view of Utopia, a Nazi state, that might be valid, but not under our government.

No, dumbfuck. I don't want barren couples to be broken up. That's your argument. Your argument is that gay marriage is prohibitable because you argue homosexuals can't have babies (they can), so why not the barren? Are they married? Can they be married?

[AssHatZombie]

lol, Whitney Houston. I hope that's a joke.

The state gives support in order to create jobs for bureaurats. The welfare statism is a mishmash of different programs, including some that give support to things you oppose.

Besides that, gay people still have kids. I have a gay cousin that has three boys, one of them off in Afghanistan.

Many children are being born outside of wedlock anyway, and the courts have adapted to try to make sure parents are held responsible. Marriage and the family share no resemblance to "Leave it to Beaver" anymore (not that it really ever did). It is not likely to return to that and it is stupid to pretend that it will. That some long forgotten fantasy of the ideal household is a good reason to keep homosexuals from pursuing their own happiness, is absurd.



So you believe that marriage serves the state interest in making more conscripts? Okay. That's good in the nAHZi state, but our system will reject it.

I have explained the state's interest to you numerous times. Read the DofI.



With a willing woman, they can. There is no reason that they have to make the child through sex or homosexual sex. This is just another of the arbitrary and stupid rationalizations for discrimination.



Why should the state give them such an advantage? As has been explained, homosexuals can reproduce. Is there some valid state interest in ensuring the child is genetically linked to both members of the couple? Again, see the reality of the average American household.

Who's basis for government does this supposed state interest serve? Hitler's, maybe... not our founders. The DofI does not read...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are not created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain duties to the state, that among these are paying taxes, dying in foreign wars, and making babies to do the same. — That to procure compliance with these duties, Governments are instituted among Men...



You have failed to explain why that is important under a system of government whose sole purpose is the protection of individual rights. Under your view of Utopia, a Nazi state, that might be valid, but not under our government.

No, dumbfuck. I don't want barren couples to be broken up. That's your argument. Your argument is that gay marriage is prohibitable because you argue homosexuals can't have babies (they can), so why not the barren? Are they married? Can they be married?

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.

[apple0154]

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.

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!

[AssHatZombie]

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!

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.

[Professor Baxter]

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.

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.

[apple0154]

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.

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.

[AssHatZombie]

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.

Yes. Eugenics. Purifying the genome. Nazis. Congratulations.

[Professor Baxter]

Yes. Eugenics. Purifying the genome. Nazis. Congratulations.

And yet, who is arguing for state control over the process? You, the actual nAHZi and your gaggle of dogs.

[AssHatZombie]

And yet, who is arguing for state control over the process? You, the actual nAHZi and your gaggle of dogs.

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.

[Professor Baxter]

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.

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."

[AssHatZombie]

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."

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.

[Professor Baxter]

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".

??? 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.

[Professor Baxter]

We reject your repugnant elitism.

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.