Sunni Man
Diamond Member
Know what they say about women? Women are for families, boys are for fun.
Kind of difficult to believe that's what sailors say about women.
But I guess you should know ABikerSailor
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Know what they say about women? Women are for families, boys are for fun.
Know what they say about women? Women are for families, boys are for fun.
Kind of difficult to believe that's what sailors say about women.
But I guess you should know ABikerSailor
Ever hear of Beruit in '83? I was there when the Marines got hit.
How's about Desert Storm? The Ike had to chase away 2 gunships coming through the Straits of Hormuz
You wern't even born when any of these events happened.Yeah.........tell me again how floating in the water isn't war. Ever hear of Pearl Harbor?
How about Midway?
How about Tonkin Gulf?
You wern't even born when any of these events happened.Yeah.........tell me again how floating in the water isn't war. Ever hear of Pearl Harbor?
How about Midway?
How about Tonkin Gulf?
btw the Gulf of Tonkin incident has now been proven a fraud to get us into the Vietnam War
Some of the stuff in those lectures was the history of the Navy, which we were expected to learn.
As far as the "fraud" of Tonkin Gulf? Well........go tell that to the families of those that died there.
Some of the stuff in those lectures was the history of the Navy, which we were expected to learn.
As far as the "fraud" of Tonkin Gulf? Well........go tell that to the families of those that died there.
I guess you fell asleep during the part of the lecture concerning the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The was NO causalties to any Navy personal. Zero
The whole thing was the WMD fraud of the Vietnam War
In 1965, Pres. Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."
30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War
Gulf of Tonkin Incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964 two American destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, resulting in the sinking of one of the torpedo boats. On August 4, 1964, the American destroyers reported a second engagement with North Vietnamese boats. However, this second report was later discovered to be in error.[1][2] Together, these two incidents prompted the first large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Vietnam.
The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating American involvement in the Vietnam War.
In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[3] that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated
t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.[4]
You are welcomeI just want to say that if you served in our military, thank you.
Back on topic for a moment...
I think gay marriage or civil unions are inevitable. And I've said repeatedly that I think marriage should be a private, non state sanctioned affair, and that civil unions are what the state should recognize.
Ok, Sunni & ABS, carry on.
Back on topic for a moment...
I think gay marriage or civil unions are inevitable. And I've said repeatedly that I think marriage should be a private, non state sanctioned affair, and that civil unions are what the state should recognize.
Ok, Sunni & ABS, carry on.
wow, what a mean group we have here.There is just nothing faggot about their friendship. Except to a homo lover like you.
Where exactly n the Bible/Torah does it say King David was in a legal same sex union recognized by the Rabbis ?King David himself had a legally sanction, same sex union, recognized by the Israelites, God's Chosen People.
Here ya go.........by the way people, Sucking Idiot has Alzheimer's (I think).
He's had this question answered by me several times.........
David and Jonathan
There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
This narrative far outweighs the two trivial aspersions against same-sex love in Leviticus. The bigots who use the Bible to assault gays are apparently blind to it.
LGBT Texts
I always crack up when I hear the retarded argument that the state shouldn't recognize marriage but just civil unions. Sounds reasonable in theory sure, but it's retarded because it's wholly unrealistic. Marriage is an institution. Has been for a long time. Taking this position is at best a copout and not really a position at all. At worst it's a backdoor, cowardly, and thinly veiled statement of opposition to same-sex marriage.