Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

What do these three have in common? Well they might not be people!

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away a slave and his master traveled to Illinois. A free state at a time when the travel companions lived in a slave state. While there the slave sued for his freedom. The slave and his master moved to Missouri, a slave state, so the case was transfered there.

Now Missouri had to make the call...once a slave always a slave; or once a free man, always a free man. Instead of choosing one or the other, Missouri decides that slaves were not people therefore could not petition the courts for anything.

I know what your thinking... That was a long time ago and we were sitting on top of a powder keg, the war of Southern Independence was just waiting to blast off. It was an effort to keep that from happening. No way we would make a ruling like that in these modern times.

Enter the free spirit 1970's. We do it again. We rule that a baby in the womb is not really person, so it gets no rights. What??? This whole business of making people less than people is starting to look like a trend, right?

Flash forward to today... We have matured. We are not likely to rule AGAIN that a person is not a person right? Wrong. THere are people out there activly fighting to make sure that gays are not really people. After all people are allowed to marry. Could we do it again? Could we rule that gays are not people either?

Interesting...

I see what you are doing here, Mr. Dammit

I do too....and I think the comparison is weak, at best.

AZGrizFan wrote:I do too....and I think the comparison is weak, at best.

Same.... everyone knows slaves and babies are people!

wideright82 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:I do too....and I think the comparison is weak, at best.

Same.... everyone knows slaves and babies are people!

What about baby homosexuals? That's a conundrum.

bandl wrote:

wideright82 wrote:


Same.... everyone knows slaves and babies are people!

What about baby homosexuals? That's a conundrum.

What about baby slave homosexuals?

AZGrizFan wrote:

bandl wrote:
What about baby homosexuals? That's a conundrum.

What about baby slave homosexuals?

...or women?

AZGrizFan wrote:

bandl wrote:
What about baby homosexuals? That's a conundrum.

What about baby slave homosexuals?

Slave homosexuals don't exist.

AZGrizFan wrote:

bandl wrote:
What about baby homosexuals? That's a conundrum.

What about baby slave homosexuals?

Could we PLEASE have a serious discussion with out you throwing in this ballyhoo?




Baby homosexuals are NOT human. The homosexuality trumps the baby. Duh, bandl, everyone knows that.

hall
of
shame...

in record time.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:hall
of
shame...

in record time.

not sure why..... but I'll respect your opinion

wideright82 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:hall
of
shame...

in record time.

not sure why..... but I'll respect your opinion

I respect babies, homosexuals, and slaves, but not the combination of all three.

Man you guys suck.

bobbythekidd wrote:Man you guys suck.

Sorry, Bob. Try this thread again, just name it something else. I'm sure we can make this a mature discussion

wideright82 wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:Man you guys suck.

Sorry, Bob. Try this thread again, just name it something else. I'm sure we can make this a mature discussion

Reread the thread. I really doubt it. I am starting to think you were all kickers.

bobbythekidd wrote:Man you guys suck.

You could argue that the first and the latter could suck (either voluntarily or involuntarily), but that's kind of sick to make a baby....uh, nevermind, here comes Chris Hansen...

bandl wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:Man you guys suck.

You could argue that the first and the latter could suck (either voluntarily or involuntarily), but that's kind of sick to make a baby....uh, nevermind, here comes Chris Hansen...

Those three words you NEVER want to hear:

"I'm Chris Hansen"....

I'm Anti Slaves having Homosexual Babies