More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issue

[RainmanTime]

I figured I ought to post on this topic before someone co-opts the truth of what is really going on as somehow validating the story put out in the John Titor Project/Experiment.

1) In this case, the CITY (San Francisco) is acting in such a way to undermine a law that is on the books, and passed by the CA voters as a proposition. John Titor lead us to believe that the "cities" would be the "bad guys" in the purported civil war. So does that mean that the homosexual constituency will be taking over the cities, and launch a war on the heteros who live outside the cities? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

2) Even though the law is clearly being broken (and by a public official, no less!), I don't see any "Waco-style" siege occurring. Does anyone else? However, if someone in public office is willfully breaking a law, I think this warrants someone going in and arresting said person. But let's say hypothetically that law enforcement DOES go in to remove the person/people breaking the law in San Fran. And let's even go further with this story, and let's say a large group of homosexuals "take over" the courthouse, by force, thereby setting up a siege. This would be an escalation of breaking the law. Would you want to live in a country where our government DIDN'T intervene in people breaking the law and taking over public property by force?

3) A license to marry is NOT a "basic freedom" protected by the Constitution. Rather, it is a government document. Inasmuch as it is issued by the government (like a drivers license), the government is not obligated to issue one to anyone who wants one. If the government was forced to issue one to anyone who wanted one, what would stop us from allowing mature adults to marry juveniles?

4) A part of the homosexual constituency is attempting to force their extremist view on others by trying to claim that they are being deprived of one of their rights. Wrong. No one is trying to stop them from living with their significant other "as if" they were married. It is simply a matter of the majority in this democracy (heterosexuals) believing that the term, and license, that comprise marriage is something that we, as a democracy, wish to foster between procreating males and females. If others, in the minority, wish to live a different lifestyle, then they are free to do so. However, there is no obligation for government to "sanction" that lifestyle.

I still haven't seen any "Waco-style" events, but I'll keep watching for them. This post was meant to be a reference point from which to view the continual evolution of the situation going on in San Francisco. If it does happen to turn into a siege, let's all remember the rule of law. Rosie O'Donnell is not a government official, and I don't necessarily want to live in a country where celebrities and media decide "what is right" or even worse "what is law".

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[Keven]

there'd be a Waco event if I could rememeber the combo to my gun locker!! j/k

How would you side if a Waco event happened right now, I mean like one on a koresh incident level,

not just the taking of a courthouse?


Personally, I don't worry much about it, seeing as I live in canada and our government is pretty

easying going, they even wanted to leaglize pot but the communist pig-dogs stopped us. j/k again

I don't think there is much of a chance of the Canadaian government attacking our own people, out

countries population is too spand out theyd never be able to onforce it all. What could get the

government so mad that they'd openly attack there people?

 

[all_you_zombies]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

rainmantime: "A part of the homosexual constituency is attempting to force their extremist view on others by trying to claim that they are being deprived of one of their rights. Wrong. No one is trying to stop them from living with their significant other "as if" they were married."

Wrong. Under law, if one's signifigant other gets sick only "family" are allowed to visit them in the hospital. John Titor aside I feel this is disgusting. My girlfriend was raised by a lesbian couple, and they have provided her w/ a very healthy upbringing, and to see one of them dying while the other is not even allowed in the door is unforgivable.
I see yr point on states rights, and the debunking of John Titor. I have not read the constitution of California, yet Bush's plan to institute a ban on same sex marriage on the federal level goes against everything this country was founded on.
Of course I don't believe in John Titor anymore than I beilive in The Illuminatius Trilogy, but you gotta admit the man's got style. Anyone else here think he's a pro, notice any stylistic similarites to anyone from Analog, Amsimov's, SF&F or the like? My theory's creedo299.

-respectfully, all you zombies

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

Greetings AYZ:

First, let me assure you I am not anti-gay or even homophobic. One of my best friends is gay, and living in the Long Beach area means there is a large cross-cultural mix when it comes to this lifestyle choice. My concern is retaining the distinction of what constitutes "marriage" that has existed for many centuries before this country ever came about.

My girlfriend was raised by a lesbian couple, and they have provided her w/ a very healthy upbringing, and to see one of them dying while the other is not even allowed in the door is unforgivable.

This is something that a civil union could address. I hope you understand that the argument you make here is not exclusive to homosexual unions. If the definition of "family" is tied to a state-sanctioned union, I imagine the same difficulty would occur in the case of a man/woman who had a child and raised that child out of wedlock.

yet Bush's plan to institute a ban on same sex marriage on the federal level goes against everything this country was founded on.

Incorrect. As unpopular as it may be to some, it is a fact that this country was founded upon the principles of Christian morality. If it wasn't, then we might have adopted means of law enforcement along the lines of many Arabic/Muslim countries... you know, the ones that will lop off someone's hand who was caught stealing!

Many of our problems stem from a willingness to forego the principles upon which this country was founded. Freedom and anarchy are NOT the same thing! However, when some folks scream that someone is trying to take away their freedom, what they are often saying in reality is that the government will not sanction allowing them to do whatever they want. Every "system" requires context. If you ignore the context within which a system was crafted, that system will break down. Like it or not, the context within which this country was framed was Christian morality. That does NOT mean I want to force Christianity down everyone's throat. (Far from it, since I renounced my own association with the Catholic Church due to their mixing of politics with the message of Christ.) You can still have religious freedom, but when it comes to making and enforcing laws, we must always refer to the context from which our morality flows. If we ignored our context when it comes to marriage, we could also be heading down the path towards polygamy.

Again, I want to highlight that the concept of marriage as being between ONE man and ONE woman goes WAY back. It is not healthy to change something with that much "inertia" on a whim (and in this case, even a lifestyle that has been openly accepted for 50 years is STILL a whim). What is wrong with defining a civil union, and framing the CONTEXT under which a civil union differs from a "traditional marriage"? If the test of longer periods of time determine that there need be no distinction between a civil union and a marriage, then these two concepts could be integrated at that point. However, by redefining marriage to mean something other than what it has been accepted to mean for many centuries, you open the door to any other alternate concept being FORCED to be considered "equivalent" to marriage. Again, I refer to polygamy. Once you take the first step of "amending" the definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to "any two people", what is to stop polygamists from coming along and forcing YET ANOTHER redefinition.

I cannot find any argument that would say defining a civil union would be "bad". However, there are plenty of valid arguments as to why redefining marriage WOULD be bad.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[creedo299]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

Note, what was the cause of asking for the right to be titled same sex marrieds, was the fact that said couples lived together in domacility, so making their arrangement cohabitation.

Where this reference eventually had legal legislative clout, was on the tax forms, as a said couples.

The states and the federal government probably could not deny this, as one can not have taxation, without representation.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

Once again, Creedo, I'm sorry that I cannot comprehend exactly what point you are making. But I will take a stab at it, and you tell me if I am missing your point:

Where this reference eventually had legal legislative clout, was on the tax forms, as a said couples.

Given that we all know about the "marriage penalty" with regards to tax laws and taxation, I seriously doubt that homosexuals' primary intent is to achieve certain tax benefits of being married...for there really are none! In fact, there is more of a benefit to NOT being married when it comes to taxes.

The states and the federal government probably could not deny this, as one can not have taxation, without representation.

I do not see where there is no representation. The concept of representation does not distinguish between single and married. Representation is addressed at the discrete level of an individual voter. Let's say people who live on one side of my house are married, and people on the other side simply cohabitate. Meanwhile, I am the single guy living with my dog in the middle. There is no distinction, nor discrimination, between us with regard to representation. We are all represented equally, by the same local, state, and federal elected officials. I can go to any/all of them to have my voice heard. In fact, the people on either side of me hold a distinct advantage, since they each have TWO votes, whereas I only have one. But you don't hear me complaining about that!

Hey! Maybe I should start a grass roots movement to redefine marriage to also be able to consist of "a single person and their pet"! Maybe that way I could attempt to "level the playing field" since all those married and cohabitating people have a "2 to 1" advantage against me! :D JOKING!

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[creedo299]

Re: More Titor De// Historical note, rebuttal

You're' "it seems", are trying to put a spin on this?

Couples held in marriage, joint filing status.

Can't be more clear than this?

OTHER BUSINESS ACCORDING TO OFFWORLD NEWS:To offworlders per say, historians and or visitors.

This Earth culture at this time, because of the maelstroms affecting it, did not have a selective birth usage programs, as is inherent with some offworld cultures.

This is to say, that if say only so many scientists or bakers of breads were needed, then this society would plan for this need within that particular society?

Earthlings at this perceived time, seem to be a hostile, backward and at times, a vicious lot, which mistrust many of the governing bodies imposed over them, let alone their collective situations?

So it may be that many centuries would have to pass, if the Earth culture does survive, that selected to be needed people, would be born for certain jobs.

The homosexual and bisexual populations, came out of an after-end of the natural need process, imposed by, (it seems), by nature's process itself; rather than a proclivity derived, from the ethos boss, of society?

Thank you :oops:

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: More Titor De// Historical note, rebuttal

You're' "it seems", are trying to put a spin on this?
Couples held in marriage, joint filing status.
Can't be more clear than this?

No, I am not trying to spin. But it does seem that you are trying to avoid clarifying what you mean. Hence, the majority of your reply launches into some wildly fictional discussions of "off world" cultures. Yes, you CAN be more clear than this! Respond to what I THINK you mean, namely:

If you are talking about joint filing status, what sort of "benefit" of this filing status do you seem to think homosexuals are being deprived of? As I have pointed out, there are more financial benefits associated with being single, or single head of household. And even if it comes down to inheritance of assets upon death, the tax laws impose no greater tariff ("death tax") if you leave your assets to a spouse, or if you leave it to some other person as your beneficiary.

So please....avoid discussions of "off world" and stay with "this world" and "this topic". What are you implying as a benefit for married couples with respect to taxes? Because I sure don't see such a benefit.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[creedo299]

Re: More Titor De// Historical note, rebuttal

Ray' I respect you immensely.Know however, there is the issue of enforced perceived slavery, placed upon gay couples who wish to live illegally state sanctioned relationships.

There might be one gay who is a bread winner, while the other stays home.

If anything should happen to that bread winner, then insurance would have to cover this.

In some termage of this relationship, the statue of legally married is sought, in order to protect and compensate potentially one of these partners.

This is due to the legal language held within insurance and inheritance laws, such as lawfully wedded spouse.

Yes' I can see why some of the gays, now want a legally derived ability to become married in domicile considered couples.

This takes it out of the realm of, "Well you know it's alright honey"?, into, "No' you two have lived legally as a couple and since this was your option, you are now entitled to such and such by law"?

This is not my idea of what I want for them, however what more and more gays, are wanting for themselves.

>What strikes me as even being more funny, than the government's position to gays being married; such as President Bushes and Arnold Swarzanaggers in-California state apparent oppositions; is the fact that both the Reagan's and Bushes do have past royal lineage links.

This to me seems as being funny, in that a great many bisexual lines run within the past to royalty linked families.

Their opsition, is very peculiar at this point, Ray?

Examples had been Richard The Lion Hearted, Richard The Third and so-on.
This is when marrying too close to the family royal line had produced in probability some of these gene pecualtiies.

If anyone should understand about gays and bisexuals, it should be President Bush, due to his royal links.

>My point in the past was, since we did not tranplace populations from Earth to the moon, in mass fashion.Not only this, but by the Steven Greer informational disclosure, so allow fluent offworld travel, the gene archetypes of gay influces on birth, probably became exacerbated?

My encouragement to government was that, yes' by all means please do establish a very rapid series of colonies based on the moon and elsewhere, in order to house overpopulated Earthbased man.

Please, do so quickly and will all due dispatch, as there might be a pressure cooker effect, placed on the birth of new children's formations, by too high of a population, which may effect bio-mass self controls?

I've said this for a long time and look at where our aerospace programs are going?

NASA here is actually culpable in the role of a negligent soalial planner Ray, as they had never allowed a needed social spin-off of near space colonization abilities, which would have releaved this effect.

This is one reason why I feel that this entire Titor time travel story, was all a ruse, in attempting to blame the problems of the said shuttle eras, back on that said times man's laziness.

We could not expand to effect a more regulated growth program, simply because NASA was itself, an oligarchy.

Look at how many had tried to tell NASA that the shuttle tiles were an unsafe attachment?This inspite of the loss of the Shuttle Challenger and only twenty years past that times, Shaun O'Keefe says, "I think we get it"., in reference to the second loss of a shuttle.

No excuse.

I'm not a social planner here for either time travel, or space colonization concerns.I will say, that there defiantly is some negligence in how certain programs that could have effected differing social biological outcomes, were not put into play?

Who is responsible here Ray..?

 

[all_you_zombies]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

Hello RainmanTime.

My post last night came after about five hours of drinking cheap champagne, and I played a little fast and loose w/ what I was trying to get across. I can see now how it could be construed as a diatribe in favor of gay marriage. Basicly it was misdirected drunken rambling (intended to be) on a topic I feel very strongly about: The legal benifits of civil unions and marriages being equal. Frankly, I could care less about gay marriage if it wasn't for the legal issues. I'll get to that in a minute. First, replies.

In reply to:
First, let me assure you I am not anti-gay or even homophobic.

Don't worry, you didn't come off as such.

In reply to:
I hope you understand that the argument you make here is not exclusive to homosexual unions.

Yes I do. Being an atheist,but also wanting to someday settle down w/ one woman for the rest of my life, I plan on having a civil union. Unless of course she wants a church ceremony, or the legal status goes unchanged.

In reply to:
As unpopular as it may be to some, it is a fact that this country was founded upon the principles of Christian morality.

Yes, this country was founded on Christian morality, and my whole "this country was founded on" deal was spoken out of drunken anger, not directed at you, but at the federal government overriding state desicions. That, and the federal government should have no hand in religious matters what so ever.

In reply to:
If it wasn't, then we might have adopted means of law enforcement along the lines of many Arabic/Muslim countries... you know, the ones that will lop off someone's hand who was caught stealing!

Cool, alternate timelines! We're getting back on the topic of time travel sorta! I apologize for posting something so political, but as your post was dealing w/ such a political hot potato, I'm sure it was expected.

In reply to:
Every "system" requires context. If you ignore the context within which a system was crafted, that system will break down. Like it or not, the context within which this country was framed was Christian morality. That does NOT mean I want to force Christianity down everyone's throat. You can still have religious freedom, but when it comes to making and enforcing laws, we must alway refer to the context from which our morality flows. If we ignored our context when it comes to marriage, we could also be heading down the path towards polygamy.

Yes, every system requires context, but is 18th century christian morality stable enough for the purpose of enforcing law? Should pre-marital sex between two consenting adults be outlawed? Oral and anal were outlawed here in oklahoma up until about 2001, though not enforced in years due to the fact that the context of our system is dynamic. A system needs context, but if it's not dynamic enough to deal w/ the variables within the system, it will break down. In a case where the system is a government and the variables are human beings the break down will come in the form of an open revolt. Polygamy? No comment.

In reply to:
What is wrong with defining a civil union, and framing the CONTEXT under which a civil union differs from a "traditional marriage"?

Nothing. That's what needs to happen, and I think this is where we see eye to eye,but it hasn't happened yet. Here are the legal differences between a civil union and a marriage:

A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000. It provides legal
protection to couples at the state law level, but differs from a marriage legally in the following ways:

Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states. The only two (correct me if this is out of date) appellate courts that have addressed the issue, Connecticut and Georgia have disrespected them based on the fact that their states do not grant civil unions themselves.

If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have no way to terminate their legal commitment.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal penalties.

Our constitution requires legal equality for all:
The point of my post is that the same legal rights should be applied to homosexuals, athiests, and others joined in a civil union that traditionally married people enjoy, and in the eyes of the constitution it is the only viable option.

your's truly, all you zombies

p.s. john titor's true idenity: batman, of course.

 

[Roel van Houten]

yet Bush's plan to institute a ban on same sex marriage on the federal level goes against everything this country was founded on.

Definitely, I have to agree on this one. Even though it's probably "technically" incorrect, I do believe it's not along the lines of American civilization throughout the years. Marriage should not be a sole privilige to certain groups in society in my opinion. One can have personal (religion related) reasons to disapprove of a gay marriage, but that can and must never be normative for the mass. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any valid reason whatsoever why gay people shouldn't be able to marry. Religion and marriage are not inextricably linked nowadays. Although I'm not gay myself, I do think gay people should have the same rights as any other citizen. Time to go to get some sleep now. See you all tomorrow.!!!!!

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[creedo299]

leoR"

Im, come on a flash /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.giflight, in awindow see??

Dog inteligence is attached :eek: to the sliver flange, when yoka is bormeo45

Im /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif think a pig johnson for sale at 16&oo$, too!??????????

Can you blap9839387498743-

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

A thoughtful and well-worded response, AYZ. Thank you.

In reply to:
What is wrong with defining a civil union, and framing the CONTEXT under which a civil union differs from a "traditional marriage"?

Nothing. That's what needs to happen, and I think this is where we see eye to eye,but it hasn't happened yet. Here are the legal differences between a civil union and a marriage:

We certainly do agree here. And if there IS a constitutional amendment, I agree it should not just be limited to defining marriage as exclusionary to a group. Rather, I think such an amendment should define the status of civil union, such that all states would be forced to recognize it. Framed in such a context, where the legal status of a civil union is assured, I see no negative reason for also defining a true marriage as one man and one woman....without regard for religious dogma, which is how our country treats marriage today. You only need be a man and a woman of consenting age to get a state-sanctioned marriage today, with no regard for religion.

The point of my post is that the same legal rights should be applied to homosexuals, athiests, and others joined in a civil union that traditionally married people enjoy, and in the eyes of the constitution it is the only viable option.

While I agree that a national norm for a civil union needs to be established, defining whether or not this union has ALL the rights and privileges of a conventional marriage is another question. This is an area where it IS appropriate to seek guidance from the morality of our founding fathers (and the thousands of years before them where marriage was held in hi regard in the Judeo-Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/etc traditions). While our founding fathers were influenced by Christianity, they were also just as influenced by the sanctity of a conventional family or Father, Mother, and Child. This is called "the nuclear family" for a good reason. It is the nucleus of how a country replenishes its most important resource, its people. You realize that if the US had not continued to permit immigration, that our population would be in a net decline right now?

Now, I am in no way implying that certain homosexual couples couldn't be good parents. However, no matter how much one argues, there are certain stabilizing benefits that Nature intended when she set up the whole "male + female yields child" system. It is the natural family unit, and it provides the best balance of masculine and feminine influences to produce stable, productive children. And this is not just a homosexual issue, as I feel the same way about single parent homes....and the stats also show that more children of single parent homes have greater developmental problems than children raised in a stable, nuclear family. And of course, this does not ensure that ALL families with both a mother and father are "stable and nurturing". But I am sure you would find that this is in the majority....and it does align with the balanced morality of our founding fathers, and those traditions that came before them.

Do you understand what I am saying? Do you understand that my point extends beyond homosexual civil unions? I believe it is in the best interest of society to hold the marriage as "the most sacred union" even if you think of it in a Naturist, instead of a Religious, sense. Just as we encourage our children to attend college to better themselves so they can contribute to society, there should also be an "incentive program" to build a nuclear family. One could claim that there is no equality because our government will give grants, aid, and student loans to kids who go on to college....but they don't give equal access to "free money" or government loans to kids who want to avoid college and jump into the workforce as unskilled workers. You want to encourage the former behavior, because it benefits society and the individual more than the latter. I feel a similar thing applies to the difference between a conventional marriage and a civil union. We should want to encourage more conventional marriages, without necessarily penalizing civil unions.

The tricky part is: What protections/incentives do you allow for marriages that you do not allow for civil unions? I do agree it is not fair for marriages to have all the insurance/legal protections and for civil unions to have none. But I do not believe they should be equal in all respects. Just as in the college aid for students example, a society has an obligation to encourage behaviors that will keep it prosperous, well-educated, and balanced... and at the same time provide basic protections for less-than-conventional arrangements.

Thank you for the sane and thoughtful discussion.
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[all_you_zombies]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

creedo:
I know I haven't been posting on this forum long, but I've been lurking for awhile. Trust me when I say I'm not trying to take a jab, but unless you're faking it, or are a dedicated surrealist/dadaist, you really should be taking medication. You usually don't make much sense, but your last post is well beyond incoherent. No, offense, just a little worried.

your's truly, all you zombies

 

[creedo299]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

Note, on past poster:

Anyone can use an alternate computer, so forging a new i.p. idenity.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

certain stabilizing benefits that Nature intended

Mmmh, you're assuming that Nature has a conscience. Nature didn't intend anything in anyway, because nature is not an entity, nor can it think autonomically.

I see no negative reason for also defining a true marriage as one man and one woman....without regard for religious dogma, which is how our country treats marriage today. You only need be a man and a woman of consenting age to get a state-sanctioned marriage today, with no regard for religion.

Well, I do see a negative reason here. You're denying gay people the ability to marry. I don't see why people could have anything against a gay marriage. I mean, people don't have to watch them get married or anything. It's an oldfashioned and narrowminded way of thinking.

It is the natural family unit, and it provides the best balance of masculine and feminine influences to produce stable, productive children. And this is not just a homosexual issue, as I feel the same way about single parent homes....and the stats also show that more children of single parent homes have greater developmental problems than children raised in a stable, nuclear family.

That's a load of crap. In fact, statistically, childabuse is more common in traditional families than it is among gay couples. Also, single parent homes are just as capable of raising a good, intelligent and healthy child as "normal" families.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not all that rosy. The thing that bothers me most about certain gay people is that while they want to be accepted in society, they act exactly the opposite. So instead of blending in with the crowd, they act differently in a way that deters other people.

You realize that if the US had not continued to permit immigration, that our population would be in a net decline right now?

So? Now you have immigration. Which allows you to get in touch with different cultures. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

Mmmh, you're assuming that Nature has a conscience. Nature didn't intend anything in anyway, because nature is not an entity, nor can it think autonomically.

OK, fair enough. Remove the thought of Nature being sentient (although there are some that feel Nature could be the result of a higher level of consciousness). Let me make my point in a much more blunt manner: Nature is set up in such a way that male-female pairings have a MUCH higher chance of propagating our species than male-male or female-female pairings. Terribly obvious, but the point is that Nature (however you define it) DOES show a strong, inherent bias towards male-female pairings. Therefore, I do not ever believe it is a "sin" for any human culture to hold-out conventional male-female pairings as something "more special" than other forms of pairing. It is the same argument I use against vegatarians who tell me I sin because I eat meat. I point to Nature and the fact that there are other carnivores. So tell me how I am sinning.....?

Well, I do see a negative reason here. You're denying gay people the ability to marry. I don't see why people could have anything against a gay marriage. I mean, people don't have to watch them get married or anything. It's an oldfashioned and narrowminded way of thinking.

Again, I have nothing against establishing a legal form of union and calling it a civil union. It is not about me being afraid to watch them get married, or even being afraid of homosexuals at all. Like I mentioned, one of my best friends is gay, and as we got to know each other he told me he was attracted to me. I understand that homophobics would've cut-and-run at that point, being terribly scared. I just told him I am happily hetero, but I enjoy his friendship. You can call me oldfashioned and narrow-minded. But you know that I like to examine analogies to see how such branding of thought patterns plays out. Let's try it, OK?

One could also call it "old fashioned and narrow minded" in that the majority of our world societies do not believe it is right for mature adults to marry juveniles. Will there come a day where society should be FORCED to allow this to be a sanctioned marriage just because someone thinks their rights are being infringed upon? Or let's try an analogy that is not even associated with marriage: Gun ownership. We in the US have a basic right to bear arms. Some countries vehemently disagree with this right, and we could make that a topic unto itself. But do we just allow ANYONE to purchase a gun? No. So are we "wrong" to deny certain people the "right" to own a gun? Some could claim this is true, and yet our society is far from throwing open the doors and allowing anyone to become a gun owner. Society has set norms, and while these norms do not prevent guns from getting into the hands of all ill-intentioned people, as a general rule the screening restrictions make sense to the majority. Interesting enough, some of the same people who are screaming for gay marriages to be sanctioned are the SAME people who are also screaming to FURTHER restrict rights of gun owners (such as myself) who have never used a gun in an improper manner. This exposes such people as hypocrits, because it shows they are interested in SELECTIVE RIGHTS being granted for their own special interests.

Also, single parent homes are just as capable of raising a good, intelligent and healthy child as "normal" families.

Untrue as far as US crime statistics go. A national study on criminal statistics by our FBI revealed that OVER 70% of all people convicted of felonies came from single parent homes. Beyond that, the mathematics and economics do not add-up. In general, a family with 50% fewer parents cannot be expected to provide the same level of care/nurturing as a family with two parents (be they male-female or mixed). I say in general, but of course if a single parent is wealthy, they can hire people to help in the caregiving....but then this would only prove my point, as they would be bringing one (or more) other people into the situation to aid in caregiving!

The thing that bothers me most about certain gay people is that while they want to be accepted in society, they act exactly the opposite. So instead of blending in with the crowd, they act differently in a way that deters other people.

Here is an area we agree on. I do not really like gay people who INSIST on parading (literally) their sexual choice in front of me, as if they are FORCING me to take notice and treat them with some form of dignity that I would only bestow upon a person (homo or hetero) based on me knowing their personality. Do we ever see "straight pride parades"? No, and I wouldn't attend or view one of those either! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I even wonder if someone DID organize such a parade, if the "socially active" gay constituency would somehow boycott it as being derisive of their events?

Now let me get on my soapbox about the argument about "security blankets" that should be extended to homosexuals in the form of marriage that is also extended to heterosexual marriages. I am single, and by choice. I get JUST AS SHAFTED in this regard as gay couples! Do I have a "security blanket" if I get terribly ill and cannot work? WHO is going to take care of me? Should *I* get some sort of tax/insurance benefits....I mean, if we are talking EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, then I deserve some of that same equal protection! Why stop at demanding such protections just for any TWO people who happen to cohabitate? Why not extend the SAME protection to ALL taxpaying family units...whether they be 1, 2, or 10??? If gays achieve the same legal protections as conventional married couples, then there is NO REASON why I, as a single person by choice, should not be afforded the same protections! Fair is fair!

Instead, I work my ass off. I save money. I invest. I pay for extra insurance for myself in case I have a long term disability. I am also not even thinking there will be social security available to help me when I reach retirement age. I don't rely on a spouse, or a lover, or a wife, or a government. I rely on ONE person. Me. In reality, this is the only person ANY of us can really trust and rely upon. Gay or straight, your partner could leave you for someone else in a heartbeat.

IMHO, a MAJOR problem with our society is increased reliance on government handouts, and expecting such handouts to be provided as entitlements. I am entitled to NOTHING from my fellow man. However, I am grateful in anything my fellow man does for me. I pay into our tax system WAY WAY WAY more than I get out in terms of "value". Do I bitch and moan? Well, at tax time I do a bit, but who doesn't? But in the big picture, I obey the laws, pay my taxes, and rather than battling for some publicly-funded entitlements that I feel someone "owes" me, I instead would rather focus on enjoying my freedoms.

Over & Out,
RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

Hehe, I don't think you're narrowminded or oldfashinoned. However, I do think it's kind of reservative to deny gay couples a traditional marriage. I don't see how it could hurt anyone?!

About the gun ownership... This is irrelevant in my opinion. I think that's a perfect example of a right that doesn't belong in the constitutions. Even though I cherish constitutional rights, I would scrap this one in a heartbeat. Civilians shouldn't carry guns, since they have no use for them.

I point to Nature and the fact that there are other carnivores. So tell me how I am sinning.....?

Actually I do exactly the same. If we weren't meant to eat flesh, why would we have canine teeth?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

Civilians shouldn't carry guns, since they have no use for them.

Ahhh...another area where we disagree. There are two very good reasons for civilians to be armed. One is at the personal level and one is at the national level. Allow me to share....

The reality of police "protection" is that well over 90% of the time they cannot actually "protect" you from a violent crime being committed against you. It is again just a mathematical fact, since they cannot be everywhere and protect everyone. At best, what they are good at (and this even remains questionable) is in collecting facts AFTER the fact (provided you are still alive) and possibly hunting down the perptrator and bringing them to justice. And as I imply, if the perpetrator kills you, the police have done no good at all. And so, personal protection is a very good reason for civilians to own guns. Furthermore, while the media is not fond of popularizing such stories, you can access public records of crime and police reports here in the US. If you were to do this, you might be surprised at how often an armed civilian was able to thwart the commission of a crime with a gun. And in the majority of these cases, the gun never even needed to be fired, only brandished in view. And this brings us to the national reason for civilian gun ownership: Deterrence.

Not too many people focus on the fact that the US has NEVER been invaded by a foreign power. And prior to our official "coming out" as a nation, we made an example of the British. Now, some may come up with "other" reasons why this has never happened. Most of these reasons don't make sense. Yes, we have "the bomb"...but no one is dumb enough to think we are going to use a nuclear bomb on our own soil as a means to prevent an invasion. Furthermore, the argument that "we have a strong military" does not wash either. In reality, it is not strong enough to defend all of our massive borders. The one reason that DOES make sense is the very reason that we turned the British away and established our own indepdendence......we were all ARMED!

Personally, I actually relish the thought that some countries may consider us to be "a bunch of crazy cowboys who are all armed to the teeth." True or not, the more any potential adversary thinks this is true, the more they are going to think twice about trying to invade the US. If you ask me, THIS is the real reason that no one has tried to invade the US. Several advisors to Japanese Emperor Hirohito told him NOT to attack the US in WW II. When he ignored them, and Pearl Harbor was a smoldering part of history, those same advisors were afraid that they had "awakened the sleeping giant". Truer words were never spoken. And the exact same sentiment applies to Al Qaeda and the events of 9/11.

So while we may disagree, I did want to at least share some reasons why it may be a very good idea for citizens to be armed.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu

I see your point, but I don't agree. Although the fact that "you're all armed" makes people think twice before they "invade" America, it also means that the biggest danger lies within your own country. True, people can use the guns they own to defend themselves. However, they can also use them to kill another in cold blood. It's quite ironic really. In many states you're not allowed to drink until you're 21, yet it's legal to own a gun at age 18. A whole nation is turned upside down when Janet Jackson shows one breast, yet it's considered normal to own a gun. That's just plain silly in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong... I like the US. It's just that I think the world is much better off with a democrat in charge of your country.

Kind regards,

Roel "damn, I wish I could vote for the next US president" van Houten