pajarito

Sorry...didn't see your . Were you kidding?

You're incorrectly using your statements with "according to the Bible." Where in the Bible does it say that blacks and whites shouldn't marry?

It's not just in the Old Testament, as in Leviticus, that describes homosexuality as wrong.

We've already been through a VERY lengthy and informative discussion concerning the different Jewish laws both Old & New Testament and why some but not all would be applicable today. One of the threads was "Religion Based Intollerance." Don't get sidetracked. I wasn't even advocating defending marriage based on the Bible. Those were just my personal views.

My apologies. I thought we were talking about "U.S. fired on Iraqi Wedding." Maybe we should start a new thread concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Sure, I've got religious reasons why I think the sanctity of marriage should be maintained and protected by defining it as only between one man and one woman. However, the defense of it will not ride on religious reasons and it doesn't need to. As for the Bible, however, it clearly defines homosexuality as wrong and also clearly describes the proper family unit ordained by God himself.

Shit......I guess that settles it then if the Iraqi/insurgent/terrorist (or whatever he was) on the ground says so and the "BBC" agrees. I guess there wasn't gunfire if you didn't see it on TV. If there wasn't anyone armed in the crowd, how could there have even been the "celebratory gun fire" that everybody claims? If that's what it was. Also, does their official uniform require that they have something covering their faces?

I hope you eventually get drafted into service.

We know. http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6240658%255E1702,00.html Nice article which takes my comment completely out of context, but friendly fire accidents happen on any side. Identification is crucial. What I'm talking about is if you are taking fire and identity cannot be determined. Especially in the case of the Iraqis. How do you think they were to distinguish? 3:00am local time and taking direct fire from a house? Nice try at a slam, though.

You’re right. It does make it a lot easier to get ahead if you start ahead but somebody had to make that sacrifice. My Granddad did. My Dad pushed it even further for me because of what his Dad did. I love my kids. If I had to start from rock bottom to push them up the hill, I’d do it without question. My Granddad worked his ass off to ensure that his kids went to college and had the chance at a better life. There was no option for them as far as he was concerned. They would have it better. They should be rewarded for their hard work and sacrifice. It wasn’t given to them as a handout.

That’s bullshit! My Grandfather grew up in a large family on a farm. They were extremely poor. He fought and was wounded in battle in WWII. He used his entitlements from the military to go to college and became an Accountant. My Dad and his family grew up in pretty much a shack with very little money. They scraped much of what they had together to send his two sisters to college. My Dad used entitlements from the military. They all worked very hard, got college degrees, and became very successful. They weren’t “given” anything. They worked hard and made their own way in life. Capitalism works if you are self-motivated, have drive, and a strong work ethic. By the way, nobody put me through college either. I served in the military and also used my entitlements from that.

Poor example, Billvon, to use other's gross misinterpretations of the Bible concerning racist ideas to show how homosexuality is then justified.

It could have very well been a wedding party. My point is that they use civilians as shields and, if they’re killed, as propaganda against us. The evidence indicates that more was going on there besides just a wedding party whether it was actual or just staged. There’s nothing new here. How do expect our guys to fight a war when the Iraqis/insurgents/terrorists are obviously firing from behind or in the midst of women and children? Do you really expect for our guys not to fight back if they’re being attacked by the enemy from say a mosque even if there might be civilians inside worshiping? If civilians were killed, the blood is on their hands, not ours. If our guys are shot at, they will shoot back and will be fully justified in doing so. This is the reality of war.

I'm sorry but even if you're British and you're shooting at me, I'm going to shoot back. That automatically makes you the enemy unless you make it very clear otherwise. Quite a few British troops and a British jet fighter were killed by "friendly" US fire in both the '91 war and the '03 war. I don't believe the British shot first in either case. What's your point? Let's keep this in perspective. It has become very comonplace for our troops to be fired on by men and women not in any kind of uniform from mosques and now I suppose now from wedding parties. They use civilians as shields and I'm fairly sure as sacrifices in order to give the appearance to the world that we're targeting their women and children. This particular incident occured around 3:00am in the dead of night with limited visibility. The team on the ground said that they were taking fire from the house in question. That makes that house a legitimate target. As soon as the Iraqis/insurgents start to fire at our troops/aircraft from a "wedding party", I say "Game On!"

I guess that settles it then. Nothing suspicious. Could happen anywhere.

That was "some" wedding party!

I'm sorry but even if you're British and you're shooting at me, I'm going to shoot back. That automatically makes you the enemy unless you make it very clear otherwise.

Just said on the news that there was to be a hit on a terrorist "safe house." The team was taking heavy fire from it and "called for fire." A gunship opened fire and destroyed the place. I say if they're going to use wedding parties, mosques, and the like for staging areas, then it's fair game. Doesn't sound like "celebratory" gunfire to me.

I agree. Just thought I'd reply and say that since it doesn't happen very often (almost never).

It even says in the article that NOTHING is confirmed. Has anyone heard confirmation that the US fired on a wedding party? Until then, all this is speculation. What's the point? They could have in fact been firing on our aircraft. We don't have all the facts. I would't put it past them to use a "wedding party" as cover for an offensive. They've proved that they'll use their own mosques as staging areas for their attacks. I could see a "wedding party" as being excellent cover for them since everyone knows that part of their celebration typically includes firing weapons into the air.

I still think that an institution as important as marriage should be supported and encouraged by the State (as it is in mine). It should also be protected by the State. It should be ingrained into the very fiber of it. A healthy family life affects everything. The family and family values used to be at the core of American's lives. Not any more. We're falling away from those core values and are dilluting ourselves as is illustrated in your proposed example.

That's funny but, to me, this is a sad issue.

Any two consenting adults should be able to set up a civil union. It should have nothing to do with having sex with that person, or what color, religion, sex or size they are. It just establishes legal rights within the partnership. Assuming that discrimination is now implied with this issue, then your definition is discriminating. Why only two in a "partnership?" How can you now set new boundaries limiting the number of people who can enter into union/marriage? If we're going to open the doors, don't we now have to swing them wide open?

Unforeseen events happen in war. They do in all wars. We improvise, adapt, and overcome (I assume you’re referring to Al-Sadr and his followers). Progress is being made. Why insist on being the eternal pessimist? In reference to our biggest “foe”, however, we didn’t “create” Al-Qaeda by invading Iraq. My point in saying what I said was that you should never underestimate your enemy and this one has proven to be quite formidable. We will defeat them, however. We will recover from the prisoner abuse scandal because of the kind of people we are. It will be demonstrated to the world that we will not tolerate that kind of action and justice will be served to those that did it. I wasn’t aware that I was making my argument political. I agree that it does not make them cowards. Who are we to second guess the commanders on the ground making those decisions? You almost make it sound like we “backed down” from the enemy as in “submitted to” or failed. They pulled out, per orders, and there was a cease fire. That’s different from “backed down on Fallujah.” Maybe I’m just misinterpreting what you’re trying to say.