Chick-fil-A "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community.

reply to post by Annee


Thismyth is so widely believed, not only among the general public but among sailors, that both the United States Navy and the British Mercantile Marine Office have taken the extraordinary step of explicitly forbidding captains to do free-lance weddings. Let me quote from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32, Subtitle A, Chapter VI, Subchapter A, Part 700, Subpart G, Rule 716, also known as 32 CFR 700.716):

"The commanding officer shall not perform a marriage ceremony on board his ship or aircraft. He shall not permit a marriage ceremony to be performed on board when the ship or aircraft is outside the territory of the United States, except: (a) In accordance with local laws … and (b) In the presence of a diplomatic or consular official of the United States."

Similarly, the official logbook supplied to ships' captains by the British Mercantile Marine Office warns that shipboard marriages performed by the captain are not legal. If the ship is registered in New York state, the captain can be fined or imprisoned.


In other words, no, captains cannot marry people, even in international waters.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

No it doesn't, nice attempt at a deflection. You said they are performed in churches you were wrong (aka being ignorant). I wasn't addressing federal or state. I was addressing your apparent lack of knowledge. You said they were performed in churches, I simply reminded you how wrong you were.

Is it your position that no marriages are performed in churches?

What planet are you posting from?

Annee said: Federal marriage has privileges not available by any other means - - including state marriage

TinfoilTP said: Read your own quote next time before going off half cocked with a useless paragraph.

I said: It wasn't my quote, first of all.

TinfoilTP said: It was taken out of the exact wording you quoted in your response to me. If you cannot be bothered to read what you are quoting don't waste peoples time with vast paragraphs of nonsense based on your inability to read what you quoted.

TinfoilTP, You're a troll. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I never quoted Annee's words in my response to you. You obviously are just looking for something to argue about, hence the overuse and capitalization of the word "SUPERIOR" in so many of your posts. You found out that you could use it as a buzzword. Then you go on to write posts that ignore the context of the conversation completely and act as though you are ignorant about the topic being discussed. Take it somewhere else or find someone else who wants to waste their time with you.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


LOL --Govt is a myth--but its essential to get the people to fight and destroy themselves over fictitious documents that serve no purpose in reality--except to keep lawyers employed---so that the myth can continue.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by Annee

 

Thismyth is so widely believed, not only among the general public but among sailors, that both the United States Navy and the British Mercantile Marine Office have taken the extraordinary step of explicitly forbidding captains to do free-lance weddings. Let me quote from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32, Subtitle A, Chapter VI, Subchapter A, Part 700, Subpart G, Rule 716, also known as 32 CFR 700.716):

"The commanding officer shall not perform a marriage ceremony on board his ship or aircraft. He shall not permit a marriage ceremony to be performed on board when the ship or aircraft is outside the territory of the United States, except: (a) In accordance with local laws … and (b) In the presence of a diplomatic or consular official of the United States."

Similarly, the official logbook supplied to ships' captains by the British Mercantile Marine Office warns that shipboard marriages performed by the captain are not legal. If the ship is registered in New York state, the captain can be fined or imprisoned.


In other words, no, captains cannot marry people, even in international waters.

edit on 7-8-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)

That is only for the NAVY, which coincidentally is FEDERAL government. You just shot your argument in the foot with a cannon. The Federal Govt forbids performing marriages in their authority, good to know they follow the rule of the land.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

References have been made to the black civil rights movement. However, when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, it wasn't because she was trying to tell others to sit with her; she was a true victim who quietly took an empty seat. When blacks could not use the same restaurants as whites, they didn't urinate in the restaurants they were left out of. When they staged a demonstration, they presented themselves as normal people who were being denied rights others had because of nothing more than their skin color. And as time went on, those watching came to see them as normal people and stood with them until the situation was resolved.

Rosa Parks was not the only black protestor during the civil rights movement - nor was Martin Luther King, Jr. There was a lot of violent rioting going on in the southern AND northern states, so the blacks weren't all quiet victims. Violence is never the answer, but to imply that gay activists are all militant and violent compared to blacks, is an untrue and unfair assertion. I have yet to see any violent rioting going on within the gay population. The thing is, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and sometimes you gotta make some unpleasant noise to get something done. Blacks weren't very popular when integration was being forced, but no one even remembers that 50 years later.

The gay rights issue wants an "equal right to marriage" when there is no right to marriage. They claim to wish equality when the only inequality is that they prefer someone others do not; heterosexuals cannot marry within genders in many places as well. They want to be treated like "normal" people when their parades consist of abnormal extravagance: some big hairy guy with a green mohawk wearing a bright pink tutu and earrings the size of dinner plates doing ballet steps down Main Street is not normal, nor will it ever be seen as such by the majority.

Please don't tell me you are stereotyping ALL gays as having green mohawks and pink tutus. You don't know very many gays, I guess. I am familiar with several - and all of them are college-educated professionals with conservative haircuts and clothing. None of my gay friends have even been in a gay pride parade, but I live in Texas, so that's not unusual.

I've seen some pretty "abnormal" looking straight people too. But, it's funny - even a guy covered up in tattoos with piercings all over his body can still get a marriage license - as long as he is heterosexual.

Gay marriage is not illegal anywhere in the USA. Cohabitation is not illegal anywhere in the USA. Being gay is not illegal anywhere in the USA. There are no legal restrictions on the activities of gays specifically anywhere in the USA. The issue is about official governmental recognition of a marriage agreement that does not meet societal norms. That, and trying to force individual actions by government decree... something that is specifically abnormal in American historical society. We tried that via Constitutional Amendment Prohibition; we got bootleggers. We tried it with the Federal 55 mph speed limit; we slowed commerce. We are trying it with Obamacare; we will promote poverty and depression.

We had to force people to stop discriminating against blacks, and against women - why not force them to stop discriminating against gays?

Round two, now that we have the attention of the majority, will either be a Constitutional Amendment or a demand for some sort of anti-discrimination bill that will actually elevate homosexuals above others. It will meet with such massive opposition that it will cause a huge political power shift towards those who are indeed homophobic and openly bigoted, or it will result in a new and increased wave of violence toward any effeminate male or "butch"-looking female. Neither of those potential outcomes will be pleasant.

Again, we've been through all this with blacks. Remember when black kids were escorted into white schools by armed police officers to protect them? Not an issue anymore. People get over it, and subsequent generations won't even be aware anything had changed.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by Annee

 

This myth is so widely believed, not only among the general public but among sailors, that both the United States Navy and the British Mercantile Marine Office have taken the extraordinary step of explicitly forbidding captains to do free-lance weddings.

I know.

I believe there was a time - ages ago - because of the reality of life at the time - - captains could marry a couple. Doubt any license was involved.

Today - - I think couples can arrange to have Cruise Ship Captain marriages - - but they still require the LEGAL License.

No matter who marries you - - if you want LEGAL marriage - - you have to have the government license.

What are these State vs Federal licence benefits? am I going to go look for myself, or do you have clear grievances?

reply to post by TinfoilTP


You really should read more before you spew, it applies to international shipping as well as cruise ships, private pleasure craft and fishing boats.

It's not just for military ships.

Originally posted by rainbowbear


What are these State vs Federal licence benefits? am I going to go look for myself, or do you have clear grievances?

edit on 7-8-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

They are outlined specifically in previous posts. Go back and look.

Originally posted by AM47240

TinfoilTP, You're a troll. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I never quoted Annee's words in my response to you.

anyone can go back and see what you quoted, so why lie?
If you try to edit it wont work because I quoted what you quoted in other responses for all to see.
You are pretty adept at opposites, so thanks for the troll comment.

OK, so--the cons are

1.federal employees spouses cannot benefit from insurance.

2.Couples licenses are not recognized by other States.

ok.

1. Why would I want my taxes to pay for ANYONES healthcare--that # is EXPENSIVE! you want to raise everyones taxes? good luck.

2. So what. I smoke pot. if I go to a zero tolerance State, I could get busted. So I dont go to those places. I have no need to get the FedGov to impose Fed jurisdiction on other States. If I dont like my State, or If I like anothe better. Ill move.

WTF if theres a group that wants a NWO its gays....judging by the MO and the comments here.

did I over simplify?

On a related note.

Did anyone read about the guy who posted the viral video of him berating a young girl working the drive thru?

The young lady handled herself very well, and he acted like a complete jackass. So much so that he lost his job as the CFO of a fairly large company.

All of the tolerance I've seen has been on the chik fil side.

Guess Mr. Cathy better donate some more money.

(maybe this one would be good in its own thread - feel free)

California campaign against gay marriage faces $49,000 in fines

August 6, 2012

California campaign against gay marriage faces $49,000 in fines The campaign committee for Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot measure banning gay marriage in California, faces $49,000 in fines for failing to properly report and handle political contributions it received.

The fines are proposed by the enforcement staff of the state Fair Political Practices Commission against the campaign committee ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8 for failing to properly file public reports disclosing late contributions and contributions over $5,000, as well as failing to properly dispose of an anonymous $10,000 contribution. More than $1 million in contributions were not properly reported.

In all, the campaign committee faces 18 counts of violating state campaign finance laws.

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
On a related note.

Did anyone read about the guy who posted the viral video of him berating a young girl working the drive thru?

There is already a thread on it.

Originally posted by AM47240
reply to post by gncnew

 

She can support one boycott and not the other, simply because both companies are not doing the same thing. Oreo put out an advertisement that celebrated gay pride month. They did nothing else. Dan Cathy came out and said that he does not support gay marriage. Upon investigation it is found that he donates money to anti-gay organizations. Most of them just operate within the US government but a couple of them have ties to the Uganda "Kill the Gays" legislation. So, yes, she and I can support one boycott when it's about people boycotting a company that is trying to oppress a group of people. We can also condemn a boycott by people when the company is not attempting to take away rights but merely saying "Happy Gay Pride Month". It's not the same thing.

I can appreciate that you aren't the bigot you're making yourself out to be, here, but Annee has valid points that you are constantly just throwing out because you don't want to actually discuss the issues. Instead, you keep looking for logical fallacies in an attempt to avoid addressing her legitimate points.

No, I'm talking about the LBGT reaction to the NEGATIVE response Oreo received, but then condoning their own NEGATIVE response to Chick-fil-A.

In essence, it's ok for them to hate on someone for their views and beliefs, but not ok for others to hate on someone they agree with for their views and beliefs.

And trust me, Annee does not have valid points - she has talking points that she plants as flags and uses as a sheild to keep from getting into "sticky" conversations.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TheRedneck

The gay rights issue wants an "equal right to marriage" when there is no right to marriage. They claim to wish equality when the only inequality is that they prefer someone others do not; heterosexuals cannot marry within genders in many places as well.

I find the argument "there is no right to marriage" very misleading.

I will keep this as simple as possible.

There is a Government License called Marriage. It affords privileges not available by any other means.

It is discrimination to deny these privileges to consenting couples who want them (and are of legal age).

Is there a "Federal" license? I don't think I have one if there is, just a plane old state license. Or did you just make that up - pushing for more federal control over states rights?

Originally posted by gncnew

No, I'm talking about the LBGT reaction to the NEGATIVE response Oreo received, but then condoning their own NEGATIVE response to Chick-fil-A.

In essence, it's ok for them to hate on someone for their views and beliefs, but not ok for others to hate on someone they agree with for their views and beliefs.

And trust me, Annee does not have valid points - she has talking points that she plants as flags and uses as a sheild to keep from getting into "sticky" conversations.

Boycotts and Protests are rights protected by the Constitution - - as is Free Speech.

AGAIN - - - it is about the millions of dollars Mr. Cathy has donated to anti-gay organizations fighting to deny a minority group equal rights.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by gncnew

 

OP I have to say you really missed the mark with this thread because you didn't research it.

There is no agenda by the LGBT community (at least not in the way you relate).
Read about it here

I had to honestly just stop the quote there...

Come on now, lets not play games and semantics. That's like saying there's no "Conservative Agenda". Sure, the "community" isn't operating as a hive, but there are specific groups that assume to speak for the community that DO have an agenda.

That's what we're talking about here and we both know that.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

So equal rights is more about everyone having to swallow that gay people are married, not actually about their legal rights?

So all the hullabalou is just about forcing people to accepting something they dont agree with?

Civil Rights was forced.

Fantastic non-answer as usual, thanks!