(12-03-2012 11:55 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:40 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  not until there is true equality..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

I'm still gonna laugh my ass off when we discover that the Founders really did mean all MEN who own land. The irony of America is how the more it "progresses" and tries to destroy itself from within, the more and more the Founders look like geniuses.

C'est vrai.

(12-03-2012 11:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So when is the first brother-sister wedding scheduled? What about two women and one man? Or two men and one woman?

Consenting adults ....

(12-03-2012 11:58 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  congrats to the happy couple...the GOPers will have to be brought kicking and screaming into the future...

Feel free to go away and leave us alone.

ABSOLUTELY ... go "love" somebody and enjoy ! ! :rolltide:

(12-03-2012 07:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 01:16 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 01:11 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 01:06 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 12:56 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Except that it has for every single event you listed.

Care to try again?

And how have they been destroyed Torch?

Columbus was a racist.

Columbus was not the one who gave the indians smallpox and enslaved them. It was the governments and the Catholic church who just wanted to save their souls.

Maybe, but Columbus is being protested because he may have had slaves. But let's forget about the black people also had them and made money selling them.

As a lawyer friend of mine has said for YEARS.... "WE SHOULDA PICKED OUR OWN DAMN COTTON" ! ! !

(12-04-2012 09:48 AM)tigertom Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:58 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  congrats to the happy couple...the GOPers will have to be brought kicking and screaming into the future...

Feel free to go away and leave us alone.

ABSOLUTELY ... go "love" somebody and enjoy ! ! :rolltide:

so if you don't like an opinion...just send it away...that's the GOP way.

Yeah, we see how well that's working out for them lately.

(12-04-2012 12:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 09:48 AM)tigertom Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:58 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  congrats to the happy couple...the GOPers will have to be brought kicking and screaming into the future...

Feel free to go away and leave us alone.

ABSOLUTELY ... go "love" somebody and enjoy ! ! :rolltide:

so if you don't like an opinion...just send it away...that's the GOP way.

I don't like stupidity and foolishness. You just don't recognize it.

(12-03-2012 11:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So when is the first brother-sister wedding scheduled? What about two women and one man? Or two men and one woman?

Consenting adults ....

I don't know. Probably when anyone supports it. Which will be never. Incest has no more relevance to Gay marriage than it does to Straight marriage. In fact, many states ban Gay marriage but allow 14 year old first cousins to marry. So its a red herring. Legalizing Gay marriage does absolutely NOTHING to bolster any argument against a sister marrying a brother. Banning marriage equality does nothing to prevent incestuous relationships.

If you'd like to talk about polygamy, might I suggest you discuss that with the LDS Church and the Republicans and anti-Gay marriage candidates those that come from that tradition largely support. Again, Gay marriage has nothing more to do with polygamy than straight marriage.

Can you do me a favor and actually think through your arguements prior to making them? Actually, scratch that. Keep making these arguements. It will be easier for us to wipe the floor with you with regards to public opinion.

(12-04-2012 12:04 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 12:03 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:53 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:43 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  incest is illegal due to genetic issues arising from a small gene pool.

So you think that genetics should be a reason to control people? to an extent...and so do the politicians and doctors that came up with the law. You rounding up the mentally retarded too? of course not...it's not their fault their parents broke the law.

If your argument is "between two consenting adults," then all options/possibilities have to be open. You can't pick and choose. I don't pick and chose.

You don't allow brother-sisters, you're picking a choosing. Two consenting adults. Thats your standard.

So all mentally retarded people are children of criminal parents now?

Exactly how does banning or allowing Gay marriage stop or allow a brother sister couple from being married?

(12-05-2012 12:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 12:04 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 12:03 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:53 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:43 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  incest is illegal due to genetic issues arising from a small gene pool.

So you think that genetics should be a reason to control people? to an extent...and so do the politicians and doctors that came up with the law. You rounding up the mentally retarded too? of course not...it's not their fault their parents broke the law.

If your argument is "between two consenting adults," then all options/possibilities have to be open. You can't pick and choose. I don't pick and chose.

You don't allow brother-sisters, you're picking a choosing. Two consenting adults. Thats your standard.

So all mentally retarded people are children of criminal parents now?

Exactly how does banning or allowing Gay marriage stop or allow a brother sister couple from being married?

Slippery slope argument. Doesn't really matter to me, because every single thing we do is on a slippery slope.

(12-03-2012 11:55 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:40 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  not until there is true equality..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

I'm still gonna laugh my ass off when we discover that the Founders really did mean all MEN who own land. The irony of America is how the more it "progresses" and tries to destroy itself from within, the more and more the Founders look like geniuses. The electoral college, deferment to the states, voting rights.

Can you give any evidence to back this up? Or just a wet dream of yours?

And if you are upside down on your mortgage, does the bank get your vote? Since you really don't own it?

And is there a minimum acreage requirement? Can I sell 1 inch square plots of land to allow those people without access to ownership voting rights?

And I see you hate women - only want men to vote. Probably don't like the darkies voting either, right?

(12-05-2012 12:36 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:55 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:40 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  not until there is true equality..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

I'm still gonna laugh my ass off when we discover that the Founders really did mean all MEN who own land. The irony of America is how the more it "progresses" and tries to destroy itself from within, the more and more the Founders look like geniuses. The electoral college, deferment to the states, voting rights.

Can you give any evidence to back this up?

You know nothing about the founding of the US. And people pretend that the US' founding principles dont' change w/ immigration.

(12-05-2012 12:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 12:36 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:55 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:40 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  not until there is true equality..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

I'm still gonna laugh my ass off when we discover that the Founders really did mean all MEN who own land. The irony of America is how the more it "progresses" and tries to destroy itself from within, the more and more the Founders look like geniuses. The electoral college, deferment to the states, voting rights.

Can you give any evidence to back this up?

You know nothing about the founding of the US. And people pretend that the US' founding principles dont' change w/ immigration.

I would imagine I know far more about the founding of the US than you.

(12-05-2012 05:42 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 12:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 12:36 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:55 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 11:40 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  not until there is true equality..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

I'm still gonna laugh my ass off when we discover that the Founders really did mean all MEN who own land. The irony of America is how the more it "progresses" and tries to destroy itself from within, the more and more the Founders look like geniuses. The electoral college, deferment to the states, voting rights.

Can you give any evidence to back this up?

You know nothing about the founding of the US. And people pretend that the US' founding principles dont' change w/ immigration.

I would imagine I know far more about the founding of the US than you.

Imagine away

(12-05-2012 12:36 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Can you give any evidence to back this up? Or just a wet dream of yours?

And if you are upside down on your mortgage, does the bank get your vote? Since you really don't own it?

And is there a minimum acreage requirement? Can I sell 1 inch square plots of land to allow those people without access to ownership voting rights?

And I see you hate women - only want men to vote. Probably don't like the darkies voting either, right?

You mean in addition to my already stated one on the electoral college? Or like the fact that Senators were not directly elected by the people? Or that only non-foreign born people could become the president?

Bank doesn't own my home even with a mortgage. I have the deed. I owe them money. If I don't pay the money, then they get my home. But then, banks aren't citizens. That and you only get to vote once regardless of how much you own. So your point is moot.

Doesn't matter. We don't vote that way. So whatever point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

Please, continue talking out of your ass and demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about, much less my opinions on things. Reread my statement, and tell me where I stated anything you assert I believe. Your inability to comprehend what a person writes is not my problem. Of course, you're probably a voter. Which again, reinforces my point about how smart the Founders really were.

(12-05-2012 06:10 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 12:36 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Can you give any evidence to back this up? Or just a wet dream of yours?

And if you are upside down on your mortgage, does the bank get your vote? Since you really don't own it?

And is there a minimum acreage requirement? Can I sell 1 inch square plots of land to allow those people without access to ownership voting rights?

And I see you hate women - only want men to vote. Probably don't like the darkies voting either, right?

You mean in addition to my already stated one on the electoral college? Or like the fact that Senators were not directly elected by the people? Or that only non-foreign born people could become the president?

Bank doesn't own my home even with a mortgage. I have the deed. I owe them money. If I don't pay the money, then they get my home. But then, banks aren't citizens. That and you only get to vote once regardless of how much you own. So your point is moot.

Doesn't matter. We don't vote that way. So whatever point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

Please, continue talking out of your ass and demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about, much less my opinions on things. Reread my statement, and tell me where I stated anything you assert I believe. Your inability to comprehend what a person writes is not my problem. Of course, you're probably a voter. Which again, reinforces my point about how smart the Founders really were.

Back in the late 1700's when they wrote the constitution, I tend to believe that they were talking about a ruling class of land owning white men. Eligibility to vote was left up to the states. I do not even know if the constitution had any eligibility requirements. Electors and Senators were elected by the sate legislature and not popular vote.

But this is now 2012. Who is eligible to vote is still left up to the states. However the Constitution does say thinks like race, gender, and age (if 18) cannot be factors in prohibiting someone to vote. They may be prohibited for other reasons ( in jail or whatever). I guess the poll tax prohibition may mean you do not have to own land.

So even if the original writers of the constitution intended that white land owners could vote and only they were created equal - why does that matter in 2012. Now we regard man as humanoid when reading this. Not man as a male.