> Which is why I support the National Doggie-Style Amendment. > As anyone who has been to the zoo knows, front penetration is > unnatural. We should not provide government incentives to, > for example, Catholics who engage in the unnatural act of > front penetration. Any savages who copulate only by front > penetration are, by definition, infertile. Therefore, it is > only natural that we amend the Consitution to prohibit > children conceived through front penetration from attending > public schools. This will force the sick parents to pay for a > private education, thus removing one of the government > incentives to the sick and unnatural act of front penetration.
Does anyone find this ironic that the Missionary position AKA Front Penetration, was thus named so from Catholic Missionaries who found the rear-entry position used by savages to be unnatural. It was promoted by the missionaries as the "correct way" to copulate for conception. There is also some research that suggests this is a more successful position for conception. Nerd From Hell > > Of course, you may argue that this amendment is wrong-headed. > Obviously, there are many other government incentives to > front-penetration, such as the government allowing churches > who promulgate this sick, unnatural act to get off without > paying their fair share of taxes. I agree that the National > Doggie-Style amendment does not go nearly far enough to > de-incentivize the sick, unnatural act of front penetration > which threatens the stability of our great nation. That is > why I am currently working on a amendment to ban marriage for > Catholics. Of course, that is just a start... > > > -- > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
