123Macmini.com
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   GalleryPhoto Gallery   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Obama or McCain?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    123Macmini.com - Forums Forum Index -> Member Polls
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Obama or McCain?
Obama
72%
 72%  [ 36 ]
McCain
28%
 28%  [ 14 ]
Total Votes : 50

Author Message
hackersmovie
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 3173
Location: Maryland, U.S.A

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ClunkClunk wrote:
No one's taking anything away from the majority heterosexual group by offering legal marriages to the minority homosexual groups. No one's taking away the majority Christians' rights to practice their religion by removing references to a deity from currency.

It's not about minority rule. It's far from it. It's about establishing equal rights for all that are citizens of this country.


Ahh... but it's a tangled web my friend. By allowing the minority the legal benefits of marriage, it directly goes against the religious beliefs of the majority. Now what? Now who do you please? And in the same way the "under God" is offensive or oppressive to some, removing it is the same for others.

I think we agree on most things but, these few, we must agree to disagree. . .
_________________
Digital Marketing For Small Business
Digital Marketing Forum
Mac Repairs & Upgrades
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Pleiades
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 3237
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hackersmovie wrote:
Ahh... but it's a tangled web my friend. By allowing the minority the legal benefits of marriage, it directly goes against the religious beliefs of the majority. Now what? Now who do you please?

I am an atheist, I am legally allowed to get married. Would you not have me allowed to do so since it goes against the religious beliefs of the majority?
How about Christians who believe in a less literal sense of the Bible as you do, and do not believe homosexual marriage is a sin? They view themselves just as much a Christian as you do. How about non-Christians? The list goes on.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution, that some choose to express in a religious way. Allowing non heterosexual couples to get married is not eroding the legality or meaning of anyone else's marriages. You may not agree with it religiously, but there's lots of things in our society that people don't agree with religiously.

Who is to determine what civil rights are extended to each group? The ones in control, in power, with the most money, with the most citizens?
_________________
MacBook Pro 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 250GB HD, Dell 802.11n card, 1.4TB external
MacBook 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 60GB HD
iMac 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 160GB HD, 1TB external, EyeTV Hybrid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hackersmovie
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 3173
Location: Maryland, U.S.A

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ClunkClunk wrote:
Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution, that some choose to express in a religious way.


Are you serious!?!?! When did the government establish marriage? Please sir, tell me, enlighten me. I've never heard of such a thing!

So if the concept of marriage is not one of religion, what is it's purpose? Why even get married? Why not just live together with the one you love the rest of your days? Is it not because in the Bible it says you shall part from your parents and become one with someone of the opposite sex? If not, where else is it written, the purpose of marriage.

Is that not the reason millions of people get married in a church rather than, say, a farm?

If the concept of marriage was not conceived of and by religion, please sir, direct me in the right direction. And as far as that goes, if I am correct, the government shouldn't have any say what so ever in marriage. As you've pointed out, government and religion have no purpose together. And also, if I am correct, then it would be up to the churches to establish whom can and can not get married.

Clunk, you are certainly free to have or not any religion you wish. I do not judge nor criticize anyone for what they do or do not believe. I am a "matter of fact" kind of guy.
_________________
Digital Marketing For Small Business
Digital Marketing Forum
Mac Repairs & Upgrades
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Pleiades
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 3237
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hackersmovie wrote:
Are you serious!?!?! When did the government establish marriage? Please sir, tell me, enlighten me. I've never heard of such a thing!

Government did not establish marriage, it simply laid down regulations for legal recognition of them. It's not an issue of history, it's an issue of how it is currently recognized in our country from a legal standpoint.

hackersmovie wrote:
So if the concept of marriage is not one of religion, what is it's purpose? Why even get married? Why not just live together with the one you love the rest of your days?

Many do choose not to get married and just live together. However, in our culture (which is influenced, but not defined by western religions), a relationship is not considered permanent until marriage. Combine that with many of the financial and lawful benefits one gains from being in a marriage, it's perfectly understandable why people who are sans religion, choose to get married.

hackersmovie wrote:
Is it not because in the Bible it says you shall part from your parents and become one with someone of the opposite sex? If not, where else is it written, the purpose of marriage.

No, it is not. Marriage has existed for thousands of years before Christianity existed. It is not defined by religion, nor is it necessary to have a religion to be married.

hackersmovie wrote:
Is that not the reason millions of people get married in a church rather than, say, a farm?

Again, it's a legal institution for all (hence, marriage license is required). Some choose to have a religious component as part of their marriage, but it is not required by the law.

hackersmovie wrote:
If the concept of marriage was not conceived of and by religion, please sir, direct me in the right direction.

I never said it wasn't conceived in a society that had a religion. I merely meant that in our society the religious component of marriage is completely optional, while the legal component is not.

hackersmovie wrote:
And as far as that goes, if I am correct, the government shouldn't have any say what so ever in marriage. As you've pointed out, government and religion have no purpose together. And also, if I am correct, then it would be up to the churches to establish whom can and can not get married.

You're still equating marriage to religion. In this country, based on our laws, you do not have to be any particular race, creed, social standing, or
religion to be married. It's not a paradox because marriage does not have to involve religion. You do however, have to be of a certain sexuality. I do not agree that that particular restraint provides for equal rights within our society. Marriage is a civil right, and to not admit it to all, in my opinion, is not equal treatment under the law.

Granting marriage rights to same sex couples will in no way dissolve or diminish the meaning and impact of opposite sex marriages performed in a religious ceremony. Your place of worship can still choose whom to grant marriages to, and exclude whomever they wish. You can equate it to those, like myself, who get married in a non-religious setting. It has zero impact on the practice of your religion, and simply extends the same rights granted to opposite sex couples to all couples.

hackersmovie wrote:
Clunk, you are certainly free to have or not any religion you wish. I do not judge nor criticize anyone for what they do or do not believe. I am a "matter of fact" kind of guy.

I thank you for keeping civil. As you probably know, it's difficult for these types of discussions to not get personal and end up in insults.
_________________
MacBook Pro 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 250GB HD, Dell 802.11n card, 1.4TB external
MacBook 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 60GB HD
iMac 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 160GB HD, 1TB external, EyeTV Hybrid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hackersmovie
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 3173
Location: Maryland, U.S.A

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ClunkClunk wrote:
Government did not establish marriage, it simply laid down regulations for legal recognition of them.


So my question goes unanswered. Your statement implies marriage was around before government. That being the case, why is the government allowed any jusidiction over it? And the unanswered question:

Who then, conceived of marriage?

ClunkClunk wrote:
a relationship is not considered permanent until marriage.


And why do you suppose that is? Remember, marriage is older than government. . .

ClunkClunk wrote:
No, it is not. Marriage has existed for thousands of years before Christianity existed. It is not defined by religion, nor is it necessary to have a religion to be married.


Right, it was called Judeaism then. Same beliefs, differnt name. Again, marriage is older than government. . .

ClunkClunk wrote:
Again, it's a legal institution for all (hence, marriage license is required). Some choose to have a religious component as part of their marriage, but it is not required by the law.


Really? You truely believe that? Why then, my guess, do the majority of people, WorldWide, get married in their religious institutions?

ClunkClunk wrote:
. . .in our society the religious component of marriage is completely optional, while the legal component is not.


No, even the legalities can be side stepped. Hence, common law marriage. No rings, no papers, just live with someone for 7 yrs or longer. Of course only the government acknowledges that, a church never would, marriage has a bit more deeper meaning with the "religous component".

ClunkClunk wrote:
You're still equating marriage to religion. . . Marriage is a civil right. . .


That's because the ideal of marriage was conceived by religion, until you show me different. And your sentence should have read:

Marriage has become a civil right. . .

ClunkClunk wrote:
I thank you for keeping civil. As you probably know, it's difficult for these types of discussions to not get personal and end up in insults.


Certainly! I think of you as my online little brother! LOL! And likewise, it certainly is nice to actually, debate a topic and not get all flustered!

Keep it coming!
_________________
Digital Marketing For Small Business
Digital Marketing Forum
Mac Repairs & Upgrades
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Pleiades
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 3237
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hackersmovie wrote:
So my question goes unanswered. Your statement implies marriage was around before government. That being the case, why is the government allowed any jusidiction over it? And the unanswered question:

Who then, conceived of marriage?

Does it really matter who wins the chicken/egg argument? In the here and now is what matters. Government is allowed jurisdiction over many things that religion once had precedence over. Particularly in our country, because we have a clear delineation between divine kingship government and our republic.

Who conceived of it? I'm not sure. I am certain that it predates most modern religions, as there is evidence of it predating written history. Does it really matter where it stems from? Many sciences stemmed from religious contexts as well. Should they continue there because their locus was there?

hackersmovie wrote:
And why do you suppose that is? Remember, marriage is older than government. . .

Because our society is socialized to believe that. Wether that's through religion, laws, peer or parents, it's ingrained in our society.

hackersmovie wrote:
Right, it was called Judeaism then. Same beliefs, differnt name. Again, marriage is older than government. . .

It certainly is older, though I'm going to venture that it predates Judaism and virtually all modern religions.

hackersmovie wrote:
Really? You truely believe that? Why then, my guess, do the majority of people, WorldWide, get married in their religious institutions?

Of course I truly believe it. It's fact. I can get a marriage license right now without any religious implications about it whatsoever. The law in the US does not require any religious affiliation to be married.

Just because "most" people do things a certain way doesn't mean that all should be forced to. "Most" people use Windows. Is that the only way everyone should act? No, we should have choice. One's choice to not be married in a religious context should be as valid as one's choice to marry a partner of the same sex.

hackersmovie wrote:
No, even the legalities can be side stepped. Hence, common law marriage. No rings, no papers, just live with someone for 7 yrs or longer. Of course only the government acknowledges that, a church never would, marriage has a bit more deeper meaning with the "religous component".

While common law marriage is quite rare lately (only 11 states grant them), the recognition of the church doesn't matter a bit in a legal sense.

You can have all the "deeper meaning" you want, from whatever religious views you hold. All same sex couples are looking for is the legal right to be married, and have the same benefits allowed to them that opposite sex couples have. They're not looking to force you and your church to perform or recognize ceremonies. They're simply looking for a legal method to get married and have the same rights as everyone else.

hackersmovie wrote:
That's because the ideal of marriage was conceived by religion, until you show me different. And your sentence should have read:

Marriage has become a civil right. . .

Fair enough, it has become a civil right over time. Does it really matter where the concept stemmed from? Addressing the here and now is important. We extend some rights to some citizens, and we do not extend those same rights to everyone.

You keep picking apart my definitions, while avoiding the issue of equal rights. Do you think same sex couples should not be afforded the same civil marriage rights and benefits as opposite sex couples? This has nothing to do with religion, as they're not going to be performing any ceremonies in any places they are not wanted or accepted. It's simply a matter of what groups of people are full citizens of the United States with full rights.

hackersmovie wrote:
Certainly! I think of you as my online little brother! LOL! And likewise, it certainly is nice to actually, debate a topic and not get all flustered!

Post counts would indicate you're my little brother Smile
_________________
MacBook Pro 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 250GB HD, Dell 802.11n card, 1.4TB external
MacBook 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 60GB HD
iMac 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 160GB HD, 1TB external, EyeTV Hybrid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hackersmovie
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 3173
Location: Maryland, U.S.A

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ClunkClunk wrote:
Does it really matter who wins the chicken/egg argument? . . .Who conceived of it? I'm not sure.


I think it does matter. Here's why:

Most of these "taboo" topics stem from a difference in opinions, granted. What most people don't include is why they believe what it is they believe. Take this topic for instance. I beleive marriage is a covenant with God moreso than I veiw it as a legal or civil right. I beleive this based on my religion so, for me, the importance of how someone opposing me, views the creation of marriage is important. If you don't know why or how marriage came about, and only view it as a civil or legal right then, to me, it seems selfish. Your only looking at it as an advantage or disadvantage in regards to what you will receive, legally, not spirtiually.

Now, knowing your an athiest, my question still stands. For what purpose would you get married? I got married because I made a commitment to my wife and to God. It drastically increases the stakes in all areas.

To answer your question:

I already said, I could care less about same sex marriage as it doesn't affect me. I wouldn't vote on it either way. If they get it fine, if not, fine. As far as my church and I are concerned the marriage isn't legit anyway.

hackersmovie wrote:
Certainly! I think of you as my online little brother! LOL! And likewise, it certainly is nice to actually, debate a topic and not get all flustered!

ClunkClunk wrote:
Post counts would indicate you're my little brother Smile


Ha Ha! Wink I meant in age, not posts! Touche' Laughing
_________________
Digital Marketing For Small Business
Digital Marketing Forum
Mac Repairs & Upgrades
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Pleiades
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 3237
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hackersmovie wrote:
Most of these "taboo" topics stem from a difference in opinions, granted. What most people don't include is why they believe what it is they believe. Take this topic for instance. I beleive marriage is a covenant with God moreso than I veiw it as a legal or civil right. I beleive this based on my religion so, for me, the importance of how someone opposing me, views the creation of marriage is important. If you don't know why or how marriage came about, and only view it as a civil or legal right then, to me, it seems selfish. Your only looking at it as an advantage or disadvantage in regards to what you will receive, legally, not spirtiually.

While you're certainly within your rights to view marriage however you want in your own personal life and your own personal commitments to whomever, the issue of civil rights stands. We're talking legal definitions of marriage, not your personal religious beliefs about it.

You're venturing on the border of saying marriage doesn't mean as much when there's no religion involved. What about same sex couples who get married in a religious ceremony? Is that marriage valid to you? What about people who are Christians by name only, not by belief or actions? What about non Christians?

Also be careful of the border between spirituality and religion. They are not mutually dependent. One can have one without the other. They often go together, but one does not require the other.

hackersmovie wrote:
Now, knowing your an athiest, my question still stands. For what purpose would you get married? I got married because I made a commitment to my wife and to God. It drastically increases the stakes in all areas.

I am going to get married because I'm making a commitment to my wife, and our marriage is a symbol of our commitment to each other. We choose to recognize no deities in our proceedings, but that does not invalidate our marriage in the eyes of the law. Have your own personal thoughts on it, I don't really care. It doesn't affect the love I share with my partner, nor does it affect the legal benefits all married couples enjoy.

hackersmovie wrote:
I already said, I could care less about same sex marriage as it doesn't affect me. I wouldn't vote on it either way. If they get it fine, if not, fine. As far as my church and I are concerned the marriage isn't legit anyway.

Fair enough.
_________________
MacBook Pro 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 250GB HD, Dell 802.11n card, 1.4TB external
MacBook 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 60GB HD
iMac 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 160GB HD, 1TB external, EyeTV Hybrid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hackersmovie
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 3173
Location: Maryland, U.S.A

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ClunkClunk wrote:
While you're certainly within your rights to view marriage however you want in your own personal life and your own personal commitments to whomever, the issue of civil rights stands. We're talking legal definitions of marriage, not your personal religious beliefs about it.


ClunkClunk wrote:
You're venturing on the border of saying marriage doesn't mean as much when there's no religion involved.

I'm not venturing, I'm well planted there. Again, because by belief in marriage is soley based on my religion. Not just on a commitment to/for a loved one.
ClunkClunk wrote:
What about same sex couples who get married in a religious ceremony? Is that marriage valid to you?


Nope.
ClunkClunk wrote:
What about people who are Christians by name only, not by belief or actions? What about non Christians?


Nope and nope.

ClunkClunk wrote:
Also be careful of the border between spirituality and religion. They are not mutually dependent. One can have one without the other. They often go together, but one does not require the other.


Agreed and fair enough.


ClunkClunk wrote:
I am going to get married because I'm making a commitment to my wife, and our marriage is a symbol of our commitment to each other. We choose to recognize no deities in our proceedings, but that does not invalidate our marriage in the eyes of the law.

Right you are.
ClunkClunk wrote:
Have your own personal thoughts on it, I don't really care. It doesn't affect the love I share with my partner, nor does it affect the legal benefits all married couples enjoy.


Good for you and again, correct!

Did you notice the source of our differences? I would venture a guess it is similar worldwide and we may just be poster children for the differences in views on this topic.

While I agree with you, mostly, on the civil rights portion of it, I have to disagree, based on my beliefs for the reason for marriage, for the same sex marriage.

If I base my decisions based on my religious beliefs and you base yours on legalities and rights we'll almost never see eye to eye. I believe this is one of the biggest oversights in government and generally speaking, in the U.S.A. today and days past. . .

Great debate Clunk, I did it smiling all the while!
_________________
Digital Marketing For Small Business
Digital Marketing Forum
Mac Repairs & Upgrades
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
JohnnyBoy
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 3954
Location: West Sussex, South-East England

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hackersmovie wrote:
Great debate Clunk, I did it smiling all the while!

Sorry to go 'off-topic' fellas, but what do you think about Obama and McCain? Wink Laughing Razz
_________________
Intel Mini 2.0GHz C2D (4GB/120GB/SuperDrive/10.5.8 ), 120GB WD Passport, Logitech ergo k/b
iPod Touch (32GB, 3rd gen), iPod Shuffle (512MB, 1st gen)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hackersmovie
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 3173
Location: Maryland, U.S.A

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JohnnyBoy wrote:
hackersmovie wrote:
Great debate Clunk, I did it smiling all the while!

Sorry to go 'off-topic' fellas, but what do you think about Obama and McCain? Wink Laughing Razz



Wink
_________________
Digital Marketing For Small Business
Digital Marketing Forum
Mac Repairs & Upgrades
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Chris..S
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 25 Feb 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JohnnyBoy wrote:
hackersmovie wrote:
Great debate Clunk, I did it smiling all the while!

Sorry to go 'off-topic' fellas, but what do you think about Obama and McCain? Wink Laughing Razz


Sheesh is that STILL going on. Someone should start a poll, which will happen first, democrat nominee or updated mac mini. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ghostdawg
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 1413
Location: STLMO (usa)

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is written, two things you don't discuss, Politics and Religion, it don't mix well... Laughing
_________________
G4 Mac Mini | 1.25ghz | 1gb | 40gb | OS X 10.4.11 | 37" Westinghouse HDTV
AAOne | 1.6ghz | 1gb | 160gb | Mageia 2 & Win XP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
JohnnyBoy
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 3954
Location: West Sussex, South-East England

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ghostdawg wrote:
It is written, two things you don't discuss, Politics and Religion

Yes, I've heard that before GhostDawg...

Can I just ask a non-partisan question? Can Obama win the Democrat nomination without the 'super-delegates' getting involved? Or does the close competition between Hillary and Obama mean that they have to act as the deciders?
_________________
Intel Mini 2.0GHz C2D (4GB/120GB/SuperDrive/10.5.8 ), 120GB WD Passport, Logitech ergo k/b
iPod Touch (32GB, 3rd gen), iPod Shuffle (512MB, 1st gen)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pleiades
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 3237
Location: California

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JohnnyBoy wrote:
Can I just ask a non-partisan question? Can Obama win the Democrat nomination without the 'super-delegates' getting involved? Or does the close competition between Hillary and Obama mean that they have to act as the deciders?

At this point, according to NPR's website, Obama has 1653 pledged delegates, and Clinton has 1499. 154 separate them, so the superdelegates are going to be the deciding factor. The superdelegates are never not involved, however normally the primaries aren't so close, so they're not as much of a tie-breaking factor as they are this time around.

I believe there's only 2 more states(?) left to do their primary, so it's still too close to call 100%, but it's looking up for Obama.
_________________
MacBook Pro 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 250GB HD, Dell 802.11n card, 1.4TB external
MacBook 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 60GB HD
iMac 1.83GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 160GB HD, 1TB external, EyeTV Hybrid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    123Macmini.com - Forums Forum Index -> Member Polls All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 9 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



      

Shop:  Apple Store  |  Refurbished Macs  |  Refurbished iPads  |  MacConnection  |  Mac Mini Vault  |  Other World Computing

MK 1 Studio Mac mini Racks  |  Crucial Mac Memory  |  Top Free Mac Apps  |  Top Paid Mac Apps



123Macmini.com is an independent publication and has not been authorized, sponsored, or approved by Apple Computer, Inc.
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2011 123Macmini.com. All Rights Reserved.