More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issue

Re: Guns and Perspective

Yes Raul let talk about Dutch issues.
Click to expand...

I wonder how you managed to get my name wrong (twice), since it's spelled out alongside every message I post /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Your reasoning Raul is on account of your instilled upbringing and the schooling and society in which you were raised and influenced by.
Click to expand...

You don't know anything about my upbringing and schooling. I agree that people are influenced by the environment they grew up in. I don't know about your whereabouts, but I think it's safe to say the world around you is just as cruel as the world around me.

As far as I'm concerned this is everyones G-d given right. And that is what makes America American and Holland Holland...
Click to expand...

Since I deny the existance of a god, I hereby also deny you the right to carry a gun
But seriously, as long as it's legal for you to carry a gun in your state I can't blame you for doing so. This is indeed what makes America America and Holland Holland. I don't agree with a lot of things going on in my own country and so do many Americans.

If your going to side with your government maybe you should consider the gun issue verses them openly and freely supplying and handing out drugs with hypodermic needles at every street corner, and living in a society that over promotes sex. The two combined with disease, don't mix well.
Click to expand...

It seems as if the whole world is against Dutch drugpolicy, while in fact it's a big succes! You're a bit misinformed about Dutch drugspolicy though. Drugs are not freely supplied on every streetcorner. Harddrugs are just as illegal as in any other country. The use of softdrugs is condoned, but it's not legal to own more than a certain amount of it. In Amsterdam we have about 300 of what we call Coffeeshops, where softdrugs is sold legally. There are experimental projects in several cities where harddrugaddicts are given methadon. That way they don't have to steal or beg in order to buy drugs. The only thing I'm not so proud of as a Dutch citizen is the fact that Holland is one of the worlds biggest xtc and partydrug supplier.

I don't think sex is overpromoted in Holland. We're just not as uptight as some Americans when a breast is shown on national television. There's a lot of window prostitution in Holland, but I think it's better than having women roaming the streets late at night in unsafe areas. Our city government is even trying to improve the working conditions for prostitutes at the moment.

Like I said, there are undoubtedly issues in Holland that you don't agree with. Just to make things clear: I'm not anti-America. In fact, I like America a lot. I just don't like the gun policy


Roel.
 
I'm sorry Rainman, but I think you're missing something here. This does not debunk John Titor.

Let me start by saying that I'm not a "true beleiver". Although I don't discount the possibility, I do not particularly believe that John Titor really came from the future with a time machine. I read his story as interesting fiction that has some basis in reality. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

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?
Click to expand...

First of all, cities do not act. A city is not a person, or necessarily a living thing, and does not act. The mayor of San Fransisco is acting. The John Titor posts I have read didn't say that people in cities are "bad guys" in such simple terms as you seem to think. He said a division came where people stayed in the cities because they thought they were being protected and people who left the cities did so because they felt their civil rigths were being taken away or violated under the disguise of protection.

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?
Click to expand...

No. I do not see any Waco-like siege in this case. I do remember John alluding to the fact that things like that get started (paraphrase) very near the next presidential election (/paraphrase), which is still more than six months away. A lot can happen in six months.

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?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not a militia-type person, or a John Bircher, by any stretch, but what you are describing is exactly what those types of people are warning about. But that doesn't give them the right to sieze private property by force without due process.

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.
Click to expand...

What part of the constitution gives the government the right to do this anyway? A marriage lisence is nothing more than a tax on marriage. Marriage is something that should be between me, my spouse (same-sex or not), and the god that I/we believe in. If I don't beleive in any god, I should still be able to establish a monogamous, life-long relationship with a willing participant and be able to call it a marriage and I don't think I should have to pay a fee for this. I can understand paying a fee to cover the cost of the county clerk or whatever to record the marriage, but aren't we paying their wages already through property taxes?

If the government was forced to issue one to anyone who wanted one, what would stop us from allowing mature adults to marry juveniles?
Click to expand...

Of course, this is not what most people would consider an ideal situtation. The word that comes to mind here is education. The mature adult should be educated that marrying the juvenile is not a "good" thing and the juvenile should be educated to the same fact. Also, the juvenile's parents should be educated, not only to that fact, but to the fact that this adult wants to marry the juvenile. By the same token, a mature adult should not be allowed to force another mature adult into a marriage the second adult does not willing enter into.

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.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't like the idea of the government sanctioning or not sanctioning any lifestyle, no matter how mainstream. Lifestyle and illegal action are not the same thing, no matter what some people may try to have you believe.

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".
Click to expand...

Yes, well, if they are citizens, they have the same rights to influence those things that you do. There are a large number of celebrities and media figures that could be accused of abusing their positions, but if 100,000 people were listening to what you had to say, wouldn't you want them to see it from your point of view before they dismissed it? That 1st ammendment is a sticky thing and honoring it can be, at times, one of the most difficult responsibilities we have in this country.

Now, to get back on the subject of John Titor's story (time travel forum and all, your know - just keeping things on topic here). I view the story as a sort of wake-up call to those that might listen. The odds are highly in favor of his not being a time traveler from the future. However, Some of the things he said about the destabilization of our government and a coming civil war are a bit chilling. I first found out about him just over a year ago and I haven't spent very much time checking into the story. I remember back when Randy Weaver's compound was stormed though, before Waco and David Koresh, that there were events at that time that led me to think that such a rift was starting to form in this country. I think John was most likely someone like me who could see the writing ont he wall and did what he did instead of going out and joining some militia group. His story is certainly harmless enough as a story.
 
Re: Guns and Perspective

Rainman, I've been reaing through most of this thread and I think both you and Roel make some good points, but neither one of you is right.

Roel, there are reasons for a private citizen to carry a firearm. This is not the place to debate that, however.

Rainman, I take personal exception to your statements about single parent families. I remember an old saying, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics!" You need to look deeper than than the stats. Yes, I have a much easier time raising my children than my mother had raising me, but I can say from personal experience that it is better to have one loving parent that truly cares about the child than to have two parents that don't want to be together and let that overshadow their job of raising a responsible person. I have known too many kids, both when I was growing up and now meeting my childrens' friends, with two parents at home that are not what I would consider to be "well-adjusted" or even decent people. Some of them have been or are in correctional programs of one kind or another. I believe you are a product of your environment and single parent does not make a bad environment. Bad parents (single or dual) are what make a bad environment.

And as for polygamy, you're missing the point there, too. Polygamy in itself is not a problem. When it involves minors that are not allowed to refuse the marriage and when the family becomes a burden on society because the "adults" in the marriage cannot support the family unit as a whole, that's when it is a problem. You point to nature to support a lot of your arguments. What about deer, lions, and other animals that live in groups and raise their young in a community? Most of them engage in what would be considered polygamy.

Of course, I've violated my own statement by opening this up for debate here. This really doesn't seem to be the place to debate these issues.

Time travel... hmmmm

Any ideas on what changes to these social issues you would try to make if you could travel in time?
 
Just chiming in my opinion.


I don't like guns.

Then again, I am moved by the Constitution. But what is exactly intended by the Constitution and how that is applicable to the present is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Let us just hope those are worthy hands.

The Appropriateness of Chance is Astounding
Persephone

"There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers" by Neil Armstrong
 
Wait, hold on a second.... so gay people are going to revolt and destroy America?
Then the Russians are going to bomb America in fear of the homosexual invasion?
No, this is wrong, all wrong, this doesn't make sense at all, no sense at all, all wrong... no,no, no...
 
Re: Guns and Perspective

Ray, sorry to dissagree, although guns are not bad, and there are more 'accidental' wounds and deaths, the amount of 'non accidental' deaths by guns is over 1,500...

I do realize that I'm making 2 seperate posts right next to each other, but i feel that both are strong issues, this one is serious, and theo ther is obviously not.
 
Hi Ken, and thanks for the thoughtful reply:

First of all, cities do not act. A city is not a person, or necessarily a living thing, and does not act. The mayor of San Fransisco is acting. The John Titor posts I have read didn't say that people in cities are "bad guys" in such simple terms as you seem to think. He said a division came where people stayed in the cities because they thought they were being protected and people who left the cities did so because they felt their civil rigths were being taken away or violated under the disguise of protection.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right. You got me on the technicality. But the gist of the point I was trying to make still stands, I believe. With respect to the gay marriage issue, it appears to be (in general) backwards from what Titor implied. The cities (who have the power to issue marriage licenses) are the places that people are flocking to who feel that their civil rights have been abrogated (i.e. to marry who they wish).

What part of the constitution gives the government the right to do this anyway?
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer, but I do write and interpret technical language in engineering specs to cover many different situations. Based on this, I might construe a couple places in the Constitution as giving government (duly elected by the people) such powers. The most likely would be under "promoting the general welfare". Part of promoting the general welfare is to ensure population continuity from generation to generation. Endorsing a heterosexual marriage as different (I did not say "better") than a homosexual marriage could be construed in this manner, as the probability of re-population with heterosexual couples is much higher than homosexual couples. Again, this is not a judgment, just a fact of nature.

Marriage is something that should be between me, my spouse (same-sex or not), and the god that I/we believe in. If I don't beleive in any god, I should still be able to establish a monogamous, life-long relationship with a willing participant and be able to call it a marriage and I don't think I should have to pay a fee for this. I can understand paying a fee to cover the cost of the county clerk or whatever to record the marriage, but aren't we paying their wages already through property taxes?
Click to expand...
You ARE able to establish such a monogamous relationship, and you are even free to call it a marriage. But in trying to force government to also call it a marriage is where the "will of the people" issue comes in. And this is where I make the suggestion for a separate designation (civil union) so that the people, thru their government, can decide what benefits they wish to bestow on either or both types of unions.

And this brings us to the REAL issue of why homosexuals want to force government (of the people) to recognize their unions as equal to marriage: Government-provided, or government-regulated, benefits. Like I say above, no one in government is preventing people from establishing monogamous relationships (same sex or not), and will not even bust you if YOU call it a marriage. But when they want them to act as a "rider policy" so they can open themselves up to the same benefits of conventional marriages, that is where the government (of the people...the majority) has a say in the matter. When it coms to promoting the general welfare, our government does not have to promote all lifestyles and behaviors equally. There are benefits that we, as a country, enjoy by promoting certain lifestyles and behaviors over others. For example: tax credits for farmers, and special preferences for their losses over other people. This benefit makes sense to me, as a good government should want to promote farming, since it supplies a basic need to the populace. Now, I could get my panties in an uproar, and claim that since I work in the engineering field, I am really a "farmer" as well....I "farm" knowledge and information. I tend to it like a farmer tends to his fields, and our economy reaps benefits in the form of my engineered products. Sounds ridiculous, huh? I think so too, because I see that it is in the PEOPLE'S best interest to promote farming moreso than engineering, because if all we had were engineers and no one wanted to take the risks inherent in farming, a lot of people would starve, or food prices would be exhorbitant.

Well, I don't like the idea of the government sanctioning or not sanctioning any lifestyle, no matter how mainstream.
Click to expand...
OK, perhaps "sanction" is not the best word. Perhaps "promote" is the better word, and perhaps why it is in the Constitution as "promote the general welfare" rather than "sanction the general welfare". I certainly don't have a problem with the government "promoting" a drug-free lifestyle. That makes sense. But the part about this type of promotion is that the government does not include alcohol or cigarettes as "drugs", which they clearly are. Of course, this is only because the government coffers get filled from taxes on these legal drugs. It's the money connection. And there is no doubt that if prohibition of marijuana was rescinded, and it became regulated and taxed, like alcohol, not only would this help bring in more tax revenue in a citizen-voluntary manner, but all of a sudden you would see government cease its attack on this, particular drug.

Gee....now I have really wandered! But I hope you can at least see my point, even if you don't fully agree with it. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think John was most likely someone like me who could see the writing ont he wall and did what he did instead of going out and joining some militia group. His story is certainly harmless enough as a story.
Click to expand...
True enough for rational people like you and I who see it as only a story. But we live in a society that is turning out fewer and fewer critical thinkers, and more and more "sheep". Such people will believe things for which there is no logical basis, or evidence, in fact. These people respond from emotion, not rational analysis. And such people who believe/respond based on emotion are also more likely to make irrational decisions.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Re: Guns and Perspective

Hi again, Ken:

Rainman, I take personal exception to your statements about single parent families. I remember an old saying, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics!" You need to look deeper than than the stats. Yes, I have a much easier time raising my children than my mother had raising me, but I can say from personal experience that it is better to have one loving parent that truly cares about the child than to have two parents that don't want to be together and let that overshadow their job of raising a responsible person. I have known too many kids, both when I was growing up and now meeting my childrens' friends, with two parents at home that are not what I would consider to be "well-adjusted" or even decent people.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I did not mean to offend. But let me point out something that is different between my focus on statistics and the issue you bring up: In my case, I am ONLY looking at one variable (single parent vs. two parents). Since this is the only variable of interest, the underlying assumption is that "all else is equal", meaning that we assume the single parent and the two parents are all of the same level of maturity, and stability, and income...etc. In your case, you are clearly considering TWO variables: One being the number of parents, and two being the relative maturity, stability, etc. of all parents. In this aspect, I would agree with you that there ARE single parents who are much more mature, stable, and in general, more capable of raising a healthy, well-balanced child than some two-parent families in which the parents are unstable, or otherwise not concerned with their children.

My point was not intended to address how capable any one person is to be a parent. That is another entire story...and one I feel just as strongly about! We need a license to drive a car in this country, but anyone can procreate, and potentially raise a menace to society! And then the welfare system almost encourages low-income parents to pump out more babies. I'm not saying pass a law that would require a license to have a baby, but it might be good to not promote having babies as a way to get more benefits from the government! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Again....I have strayed! :eek:

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Re: Guns and Perspective

sorry to dissagree, although guns are not bad, and there are more 'accidental' wounds and deaths, the amount of 'non accidental' deaths by guns is over 1,500...
Click to expand...

It's not fair to penalize the majority just because of the few.

Sad one, (and this also goes for everyone), I don't think you would be saying that if someone had a gun pointed at you with the upper hand!

You would be left dumbfounded by your stupidity in not observing and reinforcing the right to protect yourself. Even animals have the instinct to bite back...

If you think your chances are in favor of someone (bad guy) showing you compassion at this particular moment when testosterone and endorphins levels are at peak performance, your dead wrong!

Good luck to everyone who apposes and hopefully you may never find yourself or your family in any detrimental situation.
 
Yes, I see where you are going. I feel I disagree with your application of some of the semantics, but if I continue to debate this I don't see any benefit. You had your say and I had mine and our differences of opinion are still fairly minor. Besides, two long posts about this are enough.

As for your comments about Titor and the "sheep" of this country, you are right on the mark. I've been using the word sheep to describe my view of the general population since I was in high school. That view has not improved, although I am noticing small pockets of critical thinking emerging more now than I did then. Maybe it's just a perception thing. When I watch the news on TV or read stories on the 'net I am often reminded of the line Tommy Lee Jones' character gives in "Men In Black" when he is explaining things to Will Smith's character. Smith says something about how you can't keep something like this a secret because people are too smart. Jones corrects him by saying that a person is smart, people are dumb. As a species, we humans have a tendency to follow the crowd too much when going against the grain seems just too difficult. I can empathize with the "avergae" person when they do that, but I truly blame our leaders, especially those that hold elected positions, when they do the same thing. Voting party lines and the like just doesn't work for me. Conversely, if an elected offical truly knows, not just speculates but knows, that a certain course of action would be a disaster, but still follows that course simply because it is the "will of the people", then they should be held accountable for not educating their constuency to the problem.

I thought Titor's description of how the future looks at the people of this time to be rather accurate. Problems like this start at the top and work their way down through the "ranks".
 
Re: Guns and Perspective

Rainman,

Sorry, I did not mean to offend.
Click to expand...

No worries. I do not offend easily (one of my favorite websites is www.tshirthell.com /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif). That's why I said I take personal exception, not personal offense. You're fine. And I see your point about looking at only one variable. I try to look at as many variables as I am aware of all at once and weigh each of them against each other to create a bigger picture. I wish our elected officials would do that more often. I also wish that the federal government had a line-item veto capability. Perhaps stupid things wouldn't be tacked onto other bills quite so often if the bill could be passed with certain parts of it cancelled. That opens another can of worms that makes my head hurt, though. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

We need a license to drive a car in this country, but anyone can procreate, and potentially raise a menace to society! And then the welfare system almost encourages low-income parents to pump out more babies. I'm not saying pass a law that would require a license to have a baby, but it might be good to not promote having babies as a way to get more benefits from the government! Again....I have strayed!
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm straying right along with you. I think your point is made very well. I personally know a few women who have taken that route. One could almost call them career welfare mothers. They have multiple children with multiple fathers and the ages of the children are spaced just right so that a new one comes along just as the benefits for the last one start running out. These kids are not being given a loving home - and it shows. There are two words that describe what I think could fix some of these problems - education and accountability. And I'm not talking necessarily about formal education or higher education, just paying attention to what is going on and what people are saying and forming an independent opinion that isn't rigid and inflexible. I think too many people want to live in a black and white world, so the choices will be easy for them. I like color!

Sometimes I feel that John Titor's little story about the possibilities of our future may be too little too late. I grew up in southern California and now I live in southern Utah. Ten years ago my wife and I discussed the probablity that Utah will likely try to secede from the union within the next 15-20 years. I don't see it as strongly right now as I remember it then, but my time isn't up yet. It worries me. My wife and I tend to refer to our area as living behind the "Zion Curtain." Diversity is not one of Utah's strong points.
 
Re: Guns and Perspective

I don't think that the gay and lesbian community would take up arms against the country, that would destroy any arguments of mistreatment that they could use to defend their postition.

How would one fight the government? I mean the government is run by hundreads of thousands of people? And we have a democracty so wouldn't you be fighting the whole country?? If you ask Goerge W. what he thinks about the gay marrige issuse once he's no onger the president I'd bet he'd be for it. So arn't they just fighting against the constituion?
 
Back
Top