The Future of Gay Marriage in America

[Sunni Man]

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

 

[ABikerSailor]

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

Actually you helmeted slack jawed window breather, that is what the MusLAMES say about boys.

By the way, when was it you signed up for the cornhole express? I bet you like to wash it down with a heavy session of t-bagging as well.........

 

[Sunni Man]

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

ABS, floating miles out in the sea and playing grab ass with the other sailors really isn't combat.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Really? Ever been on a ship asshole?

Nowhere to run if it gets hit. Ya gotta fix it or sink. Kinda sucks when you're getting fired at by heavy artillery like what happened in Beruit.

Oh yeah.......the gunships in the Straits of Hormuz were no joke either. But, they turned back when the FA-18's buzzed 'em about 100 ft off the water, one down each side...........

We told 'em if they didn't turn around peacefully, they were gonna get lit up.

Yeah.........tell me again how floating in the water isn't war. Ever hear of Pearl Harbor?

How about Midway?

How about Tonkin Gulf?

Fuck off ya ground pounding poser asshole.

 

[Sunni Man]

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.

btw the Gulf of Tonkin incident has now been proven a fraud to get us into the Vietnam War

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

btw the Gulf of Tonkin incident has now been proven a fraud to get us into the Vietnam War

You're right. I WASN'T BORN when those things went down. Had to wait until '64 to get here, but that doesn't mean I didn't study history.

Matter of fact, one of the things that we had to do every year was NR and R (Navy Rights and Responsibilities). 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.

But.........on a more recent note.............

Ever hear of a ship called the USS COLE? I was in the same area, right around the time that they got hit.

Saddest thing I ever saw was seeing my fellow shipmates having to sleep out on the main decks.

Try again asshole.........you ignorance is glowing.

 

[Sunni Man]

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

 

[ABikerSailor]

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

Hey idiot.......you do realize there were 2 incidents. One on the second, one on the fourth.

The one on the fourth was faked.

The other was real.

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]

Keep trying Sucking Idiot......you may eventually have a cogent thought.

 

[Sunni Man]

So which one did all of the sailors you claimed get killed in?

The supposed real first incident or the faked second incident??

 

[slackjawed]

I just want to say that if you served in our military, thank you.
(don't really care about your sexual orientation)
thanks

 

[ABikerSailor]

I said battles, and brought up several.

YOU are the one that made all the assumptions.

You were starting to get smarter, but I see you could only keep it for a little while. Nice effort though. Now, put on your helmet, put in your mouthguard, and try to stay out of the street when playing, and don't eat the stuff like almond roca.

You still haven't demonstrated the ability to tell that from dog turds.

Just looking out for your best interests.

 

[Sunni Man]

I just want to say that if you served in our military, thank you.

You are welcome

 

[Amanda]

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.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

You know, marriage itself should be allowed to anyone that wants one with another human being, gender notwithstanding.

Know why? Many theologies, and several churches, recognize same sex unions. Now, if they're willing to allow it in their church, why shouldn't the state?

I personally think there should be 2 boxes on a marriage license, one for "civil union", which means that if you are a gay couple OR a straight couple, and you are married by a Justice of the Peace (totally NON church wedding), then it should be marked down as a civil union.

If you are married by someone who is an ordained minister? When they sign it for a straight OR gay couple (depending on if the church is willing to marry them), the ordained minister part would qualify it as a "marriage".

However, as far as legal rights, visitation in hospital and dependent status? Both should be viewed as equal in the eyes of the government.

 

[Polk]

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.

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It seems that the only people who have a problem with civil unions and gay marriage are the ones that keep themselves apart from everyone else because they think they're "better than".

A lot of Christians are like that nowadays.

Like I said........we were told to love God above all else, and love one another like you love God. Why? Simple........our souls are small pieces of God that He carved out from under His Throne with the blade of Self Will and inserted into the embryo created by our parents (it's the spark that starts your nervous system).

The Torah refers to this. So does the Bible. Matter of fact, Yeshua (Jesus) referred to that when He said "the Father and I are One". Also when He stated "the Kingdom of God is within".

Oh yeah.....by the way.......Yeshua wanted us all to learn how to do what He did. Why else would he ask His Apostles to step out of the boat and walk on the water with Him? Only one did by the way, and when Yeshua let him go, his faith in himself wasn't strong enough and he fell into the water.

Yeah.......we're also supposed to learn how to heal others by laying on of hands.........why else would faith healers exist?

So...........with all that said, why NOT allow gay marriage?

 

[Toronado3800]

There is just nothing faggot about their friendship. Except to a homo lover like you.

wow, what a mean group we have here.

For the record I could care less if Orthodox Jews are marry Catholics, if Whites marry Blacks, or whatever. I feel folks should keep their religion out of politics out of fear someday I'll get elected and have the "right" to impose mine on them.

Funny how many Republicans who claim to be libertarians get wrapped up in using the muscle of big government to support their religious views.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

King David himself had a legally sanction, same sex union, recognized by the Israelites, God's Chosen People.

Where exactly n the Bible/Torah does it say King David was in a legal same sex union recognized by the Rabbis ?

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

Ya...and Ezekiel saw flying saucers too.....anyway......

 

[manifold]

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.

 

[Polk]

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.

It's not necessarily a thinly veiled opposition to same-sex marriage. The real argument is about equality under the law. If the state only recognized a civil process, but left the word "marriage" up to religious bodies, then you'd have equal treatment under the law.