TomAiello 26 #26 May 6, 2005 Quote"Wal-Mart" is a stupid name. Couldn't they have thought up something less tacky? Given the derivation, the other options would have been "Sam-Mart" and "Ton-Mart." Neither is noticeably less tacky than Walmart, in my opinion. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #27 May 6, 2005 I've removed this from the Walmart thread. Ron, Narcimund, you guys need to make this less personal. It's all good to discuss the issue of gay marriage. When you start telling people that they are your enemy, or they need to talk to the wall...you need to step away from the keyboard and go make a skydive, or something.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #28 May 6, 2005 >The Muslim religion is not so nice about it. If fact you would be put to death. The bible says that gays shall be put to death, and the bible is the foundation of all christian faiths. I suspect you ignore that part of it and instead heed the parts you prefer. People in other religions do that too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #29 May 6, 2005 If you dislike an existing law, you have the right to campaign to change it. Whining does nothing but irritate those who disagree with you--it serves to further galvanize the opposition. By law there are no "Second Class Citizens" in the US--only those who think they are, which does not by definition make it true. Whining does not change a law--Engaging the legislative proces does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #30 May 6, 2005 >By law there are no "Second Class Citizens" in the US--only those >who think they are, which does not by definition make it true. Before 1940 or so, blacks could not marry whites or attend the same schools whites did. Would you defend such practices as being fair, or were they second class citizens back then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #31 May 6, 2005 C'mon, Bill. We know things were "separate but equal", right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #32 May 6, 2005 Quote>By law there are no "Second Class Citizens" in the US--only those >who think they are, which does not by definition make it true. Before 1940 or so, blacks could not marry whites or attend the same schools whites did. Would you defend such practices as being fair, or were they second class citizens back then? When I was in college, there were classes I was barred from enrolling in due to my skin color. Would you defend such practices as fair, or was I a second class citizen back then?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #33 May 6, 2005 >Would you defend such practices as fair . . . Such practices are unfair. >or was I a second class citizen back then? Whether you are a first class or second class citizen depends on whether or not the majority of classes were available to you. A first class cabin on a cruise ship is still first class even if you can't go into the third class areas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #34 May 6, 2005 Quote>By law there are no "Second Class Citizens" in the US--only those >who think they are, which does not by definition make it true. Before 1940 or so, blacks could not marry whites or attend the same schools whites did. Would you defend such practices as being fair, or were they second class citizens back then? And before the Civil War, blacks could not even marry other blacks (in most parts of the US). I would say they were definitely second class citizens (if not worse). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #35 May 6, 2005 QuoteWhether you are a first class or second class citizen depends on whether or not the majority of classes were available to you. A first class cabin on a cruise ship is still first class even if you can't go into the third class areas. It becomes very difficult to differentiate sometimes, though. That's the basis of the Supreme's "separate is inherently unequal" reasoning. Real life doesn't always give us a clear indicator if we are the first class or the steerage passengers.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #36 May 6, 2005 QuoteAnd before the Civil War, blacks could not even marry other blacks (in most parts of the US). Can you provide a historical reference for this statement? I'm not doubting it, but I do know that there were several important course cases involving married slaves.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #37 May 6, 2005 Quote>The Muslim religion is not so nice about it. If fact you would be put to death. The bible says that gays shall be put to death, and the bible is the foundation of all christian faiths. I suspect you ignore that part of it and instead heed the parts you prefer. People in other religions do that too. In the Old Testament (Numbers), God actually had a guy put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. His sexuality was unknown. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #38 May 6, 2005 Quote>By law there are no "Second Class Citizens" in the US--only those >who think they are, which does not by definition make it true. Before 1940 or so, blacks could not marry whites or attend the same schools whites did. Would you defend such practices as being fair, or were they second class citizens back then? I said "There are no 2nd Class Citizens. I did not introduce a historical context. You did. You are debating something other than what I said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #39 May 6, 2005 QuoteThe bible says that gays shall be put to death, and the bible is the foundation of all christian faiths Please tell me where in the NEW TESTAMENT it says gays should be killed? See Christains follow the NT, not the OT. Now if you want to look at this from a Jewish POV, yes Jews would think gays should be killed....Muslims also."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #40 May 6, 2005 Quote...See Christains follow the NT, not the OT. I thought Christians followed both old and new? I'm not too current on Christian dogma, so I could be wrong.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #41 May 6, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd before the Civil War, blacks could not even marry other blacks (in most parts of the US). Can you provide a historical reference for this statement? I'm not doubting it, but I do know that there were several important course cases involving married slaves. Doing a quick search, I can't find a good reference, only stuff like this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_cove1.htm... So I could be wrong... It is something I remember discussing with one of my US history teachers a long time ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #42 May 6, 2005 Biblical reference arguments on the Death Penalty for gay sex are off-topic. It is on the legal status of the "gay "marriage'" issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #43 May 6, 2005 I believe that Holy Bible = Old + New testaments. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #44 May 6, 2005 QuoteI thought Christians followed both old and new? I'm not too current on Christian dogma, so I could be wrong The NT trumps the OT. Most Christians I know don't pay any attention to the OT snce the NT is the word of the savior. OT: An eye for an eye. NT: Turn the other cheek."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #45 May 6, 2005 >I said "There are no 2nd Class Citizens. In 1940, there were people of a certain race who were not allowed to marry a specific race. They were second class citizens. Today, there are people of a certain sexual orientation who are not allowed to marry a specific sex. They are second class citizens. You may wish to ignore history, but as they say, that often condemns you to repeat it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #46 May 6, 2005 >See Christains follow the NT, not the OT. No, they follow the bible. Go to any church and take a look at the bible on the altar. It contains the old testament. Listen to the readings; some are from the old testament. The Nicene Creed, the creed of many sects of christianity, acknowledges that God has spoken through the prophets (like Moses) - therefore, God speaks through the old testament. YOU may decide to ignore the old testament, just as most muslims ignore the outdated parts of the Koran. No problems there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #47 May 6, 2005 QuoteNo, they follow the bible Do you have any passages about gays in the NT? Do you deny that Christains follow the NT when it goes against the OT? QuoteYOU may decide to ignore the old testament, just as most muslims ignore the outdated parts of the Koran. No problems there. Actually I ignore them all."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #48 May 6, 2005 Quote>I said "There are no 2nd Class Citizens. In 1940, there were people of a certain race who were not allowed to marry a specific race. They were second class citizens. Today, there are people of a certain sexual orientation who are not allowed to marry a specific sex. They are second class citizens. You may wish to ignore history, but as they say, that often condemns you to repeat it. The race prohibition went both ways. It did not establish first class citizenship for one group and second-class citizenship to another. Nor does this issue. Gay persons have just as many rights as heteros-Neither can marry one of the same gender. If they feel that because of this they are relegated to second-class citienship, that is in their own minds, which is not the problem of others. I say again-if one dislikes the law, change it. You have just as much access to the legislative process as the rest of us. However, being as whiny/pouty as a child who was refused dessert accomplishes nothing but being extremely irritating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #49 May 6, 2005 QuoteDo you deny that Christains follow the NT when it goes against the OT? Do they indeed conflict? I've never read either in its entirety. I would think (but I may be wrong) the the Genesis (OT) is a pretty major foundation of the Christian's "creation" theory. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #50 May 6, 2005 QuoteIf you dislike an existing law, you have the right to campaign to change it. Whining does nothing but irritate those who disagree with you--it serves to further galvanize the opposition. If you believe rights and equality are only present when the majority deems it acceptable, you've missed the point of the Constitution. Not that the US history hasn't shown that we've violated this principle, but it's a pretty crappy defense for such practices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
