flamo
  •  flamo
  • 87.94% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman Topic Starter
Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:35:17 AM
Here is the line of the century

“...When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone..." he said. "At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

Fighting on HIS BEHALF??? Sorry joker, those troops are fighting and Dying on the behalf of All Americans. He is not king or ordained.

As for marriage... It is a religious sacrament and RITE not right. Now the govt wants to intervene in religious matters. But the BHO doesn't know what the constitution is all about.
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
Benjibear
Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:58:05 AM
The phrases "on my behalf" and "in my behalf" have become interchangeable and I bet few people know the difference. "In my behalf" means basically working as a representative. The military is working in behalf of the president, our commander and chief. "On my behalf" does mean that he will benefit from the military. Maybe his mistake will give everyone an English lesson and make my 7th grade English teacher proud (she drilled the above into us).

As far as Obama, he knows that he can not win the argument with the the economy. So I am looking at this as a campaign speech. He is trying to make a stand that he has been wish-washy hoping to persuade voters to forget about the economy. He is also throwing in the fact that he is in charge and under him we got Osama and the ending of the war in Iraq. I think that is going to come out as his biggest accomplishment.

As far as marriage, it is a religious institution. However, the government has already adopted policies for married people: you go to the government to get a marriage license, you pay taxes as a married person, and you get certain legal protections and benefits from being married to name a few. So to deny two consenting adults from getting married and expressing their religious rite, you are taking away peoples rights. A gay couple wants to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple in "marriage" where the term marriage is a government term that your religious beliefs may not allow certain couples to be married.
It is what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
flamo
  •  flamo
  • 87.94% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman Topic Starter
Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:54:32 PM
He should have said on behalf of the the country or America...........

Marriage started as being religious belief. It was intended for man and a woman. Then maybe the govt should rename what it wants to something different and get out of the marriage game.
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
Bowler Roller
Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:00:37 PM
Marriage is only a religious institution for religious people. For others, it's a meaningless, unenforceable contract that can be broken at any time, without consequence. It now only serves to screw the person who has the most going into the relationship.

It's time for the government to stop recognizing anyone's marriage.
Every crowd has a silver lining - PT Barnum
Benjibear
Friday, May 11, 2012 3:29:26 PM
I agree that maybe the government shouldn't have taken a religous institution and made a a legal term. However, I don't think it is worth the time and the effort to go back through our history and try to change the name in the government. I keep hearing different names. Civil Union, domestic partnership, and others too that I can't think of right now. If a politician came out and said, "The governement will no longer reconize marriage, and it will be called ________", you would hear all kind of screaming that the governement is trying to take away their religion and freedoms.

Marriage means different things to different people. To some it is between a man and woman as a lifelong commitment. To some it means between a man and a woman just as it is conveniant for them. To some it is between two men or two woman. To some it is between a man and many woman. I don't see why it is a big deel to have the government define it between any two consinting people. Gay people want the same rights and benifits as two married people have. Just give it to them because it isn't taking away anything from us. Our country has alot bigger problems then this to worry about.
It is what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
tjscarnivaloflights
Saturday, May 12, 2012 11:26:56 AM
Originally Posted by: Benjibear 

I agree that maybe the government shouldn't have taken a religous institution and made a a legal term. However, I don't think it is worth the time and the effort to go back through our history and try to change the name in the government. I keep hearing different names. Civil Union, domestic partnership, and others too that I can't think of right now. If a politician came out and said, "The governement will no longer reconize marriage, and it will be called ________", you would hear all kind of screaming that the governement is trying to take away their religion and freedoms.

Marriage means different things to different people. To some it is between a man and woman as a lifelong commitment. To some it means between a man and a woman just as it is conveniant for them. To some it is between two men or two woman. To some it is between a man and many woman. I don't see why it is a big deel to have the government define it between any two consinting people. Gay people want the same rights and benifits as two married people have. Just give it to them because it isn't taking away anything from us. Our country has alot bigger problems then this to worry about.



AMEN

Tim J., Owner/Builder
TJ's Carnival of Lights
www.tjscarnivaloflights.com 
No carnival is complete without the extravaganza of lights!
FriedPhil
Friday, June 29, 2012 8:23:17 PM
I have no problem with gay "marriage" by whatever name you call it.

Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
Please do not exit the ride until it comes to a complete stop.
bigjlh
Friday, June 29, 2012 9:06:03 PM
myself i think i will stick with the king james version. marriage is between man and women.my opinion is not in any way meant to offend anyone.being raised and born in dc.most of all goverment building have some type of religious overtones on them 10 commandments on them etc. etc.so there is some conflict some have progressed on issue some have not.what is the real truth behind it. they receive the same benefits if divorced.was told it not politial. correct to ask such questions. the country is going in a direction i thought i would never see. thnx bigjlh
FriedPhil
Sunday, July 1, 2012 4:44:37 PM
This thread should be named "The arrogance of flamo"....
Please do not exit the ride until it comes to a complete stop.
flamo
  •  flamo
  • 87.94% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman Topic Starter
Sunday, July 1, 2012 4:54:52 PM
Originally Posted by: FriedPhil 

This thread should be named "The arrogance of flamo"....



He went to the supreme court, called it a tax, the SC agreed and now says its not. That is arrogant. I hate liars he is just that. If you need a list of the lies I'll post them. Its all about him, not the people he is supposed to serve. Ever notice, I, Me, my??? That is arrogance.
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
Users browsing this topic
  • OceanSpiders 2.0