|
American Outlaws (2001)
IMDB rating: 5.50
Plot: When a Midwest town learns that a corrupt railroad baron has captured the deeds to their homesteads without their knowledge, a group of young ranchers join forces to take back what is rightfully theirs. In the course of their vendetta, they will become the object of the biggest manhunt in the history of the Old West and, as their fame grows, so will the legend of their leader, a young outlaw by the name of Jesse James.
|
Directors: Mayfield Les
Actors: Farrell Colin,Caan Scott,Macht Gabriel,Smith Gregory,Yulin Harris,Dalton Timothy,McCormack Will,Cox Ronny,O’Quinn Terry,Arcand Nathaniel,O’Neal Ty,Stevens Joe,Tubb Barry,Western,Action,Comedy,
My case FOR same sex marriage, what do you think of this?
In the Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court outlawed the ban on interracial marriage they stated "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival…." The SUPREME COURT decided that marriage was a basic civil right. I live in Michigan where radicals took away gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and the state now forbids employers from giving benefits for same sex couples. If the intention of these extremists was to "preserve marriage", than why did they target civil unions and domestic partnerships in my state and in several other states? This is a personal, malicious attack on the gay community. They don’t want gay people to be together. Period. The backers of these blatantly unconstitutional bans are fueled by hatred and bigotry. Originally, I didn’t care about having marriage rights, but when they took away every legal status possible for my partner and I, It got personal!
If we let the majority vote on interracial marriage and segregation back in 1950, and did it on a state by state basis, you’d better believe that interracial marriages would still be illegal, and segregation would still be fully legal in the South. It’s funny how Americans consistently let history repeat itself. Letting the Majority vote on an issue that applies exclusively to a minority group is highly unethical. It’s called Tyranny of the Majority.
One last thing I wanted to note is marriage is a legal term, not a religious one. If marriage was purely religious, then the US government should not be providing married couples with thoasands of benefits just for getting married. These benefits are crucial and all they have to do is buy a $50 marriage certificate. A gay couple must pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get those same benefits that straight couples pay a mere $50 for. Either give us the right to marry or strip away all federal benefits that come with straight marriage and make it purely a religious institution..then I’ll shut up.
I put a lot of time and reasoning into this so I expect thoughtful answers.
First, you may have noticed that its not "The SUPREME COURT"s opinion that is foremost on any dissenters mind. Its Gods law. You may not agree, but, we have the right to vote our conscience.
Second, WHY WHY WHY must not-approving of someones lifestyle always trigger the word "hate"???
So, if you dont agree with it, you hate it? If something is sinful, you hate the person committing the sin??! Come on. I can see where you are coming from, cant you TRY and see where we are coming from? Even if you wholeheartedly disagree with it? Being faithful to one’s religious beliefs is no small thing.
And third, every law, at its very foundation, is a "majority" instituted thing. Otherwise murder would be legal (oh wait, it is now with abortion since the "majority" decided they can kill someone as long as that someone lives inside them.) See, how laws change with the majority opinion?
You WILL have gay marriage. I dont doubt it. But that doesnt mean that just because its inevitable Im going to vote against my very morals and values. When you have the majority, you can have your marriage, just to spite us because it got "personal". I just hope you have no qualms with openly spiting God as well.
One final thing. Adam and Eve were joined together under God’s law. Which is marriage. So just because laws were eventually made from it, and tax benefits evolved from it, doesnt mean it is civil and not religious.
Tell me about it… | Jan 21, 2010
I agree! I also don’t think that people should be voting on my rights. It’s just plane wrong! I want to get married one day, why does that bother so many people? It’s MY life, not theirs!
???? | Jan 20, 2010
i agree, marriage is more of a legal matter than a religious one when you are talking about government policy.
fatcat | Jan 20, 2010
Well, you’re right on both counts. Marriage is a legal contract and has nothing to do with religion. The church wedding is purely optional. The marriage is not legal without a license from the state. That makes it a basic civil right. Anyone who opposes it is a religious bigot, period.
SheWhoWatches | Jan 20, 2010
*applause*
Josh | Jan 20, 2010
Marriage has always been a state matter, whereas race relations are a national issue predating the Constitution. There are different tiers of protection granted under the 5th and 14th amendments, and race is in the highest tier (meaning that people are most protected from discrimination based upon race). Discrimination based upon sexual orientation is in a lower tier of protection, as is discrimination based upon gender.
I am pleased to see that you acknowledge the distinction between civil and religious marriage, and that you want the tax break. Many of the gay marriage proponents I see only talk of "equality," as if a rubber stamp from a deputy city clerk can provide that. On the other hand, I’m single, so why should I support a tax break for either straight married couples or gay couples? As a matter of fact, why shouldn’t I be as outraged as gay couples that I’m not getting the tax break?
Please don’t just assume that it’s hatred and bigotry that makes people oppose gay marriage. For me, it has nothing to do with that, but I still oppose it.
Kyle | Jan 20, 2010
All homosexuals in all states have the very same right to marry as all other citizens of that state. This is the flaw in your argument. The Supreme Court was striking down a block for one person to marry another based on race – a clear case of **racial** prejudice.
However, all sorts of other limitations that states require for contract signees are applicable in marriage. For example: a state can restrict marriage by age, by sex, by blood relationship, etc. The claim that outlawing marriage between homosexuals is the same as racial discrimination just doesn’t hold water – legally or logically.
Prohibitions against gay marriage do NOT prevent gay people from being together – or straight unmarried people, either. Backers of this prohibition are well aware that laws against gay marriage do nothing whatsoever to reduce the number of homosexual relationships, nor do they support such bans for such a silly reason.
You wrote:
Letting the Majority vote on an issue that applies exclusively to a minority group is highly unethical. It’s called Tyranny of the Majority.
Well, then – only pedophiles and children who are the victims of pedophiles should get to vote on laws prohibiting pedophilia. Only rapists and victims of rape should get to vote on laws prohibiting rape. Only fathers who want to marry their own daughters and those daughters should get to vote on laws prohibiting such things. Etc. etc.
Letting the majority vote on an issue that applies exclusively to a minority is the **opposite** of unethical. If we were to follow your scheme, there is almost nothing that would be illegal. If that’s tyranny, then we need a lot more of it.
The benefits thing is the **primary reason** that people oppose gay marriage. Those benefits are *intended* to encourage the formation of and support the existence of the nuclear family – that is, the raising of children by their parents (those responsible for their existence) to become useful members of society.
To provide those benefits earmarked for a very particular purpose to those who will not provide that service to society is counter-productive. It is a mismanagement of taxpayer money.
The benefits issue is the **primary** reason that gay marriage should be prohibited. You make it sound like its the reason it should be permitted, but it is the most telling argument against gay marriage.
Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com
BibleChooser | Jan 20, 2010
my thoughts exactly. well almost. to answer a few of the nay-sayers i also want to add that it’s not just about benefits, but it is about equal rights. and when gay couples are allowed the same legal rights as heterosexual ones, then we have gotten much closer to equality. so it’s so much more than tax benefits.
Wicked Witch of the Midwest | Jan 21, 2010
I’m not in the US, so I can’t offer a truly informed opinion on the detail of what you have said. But I want to support your reminder to us all that marriage is a civil, legal, term, not a religious one – a fact that some of the opponents of same sex marriage seem unaware of.
I think representative democracy does always have problems trying to hold the balance between referendum-type government, tyranny of the majority in your terms, and dictatorship by the elected. As Churchill said "democracy is the worst system of government ever invented, except for all the others". Nothing is straightforward. As it happens, I totally agree with you that it is great mistake to allow the referendum to determine minority rights, be that racial issues, gender issues or, for that matter, capital punishment (if that had been determined by popular vote in the UK, we’d still have hangings; thank goodness our representatives had the intelligence and research to make it illegal for all but certain cases of treason, which have never been invoked).
Financial benefits for marriage are a sticky matter. We abolished most of them here some time ago and now our Conservative party says they’ll bring them back if they get in in our general election in a few months time, as seems likely. I don’t think tax breaks for marriage are reasonable, as this discriminates against those who are widowed or single parents through no fault of their own, as well as against those who choose not to marry. I would rather see you arguing for civil marriage for straight or gay couples as important public recognition of a relationship, boundaried by law (regarding inheritance and various rights of a financial and property nature).
As you’ll have already seen, not least in the answers to this question, there are some people who are unable to think clearly on this matter and start imagining that being gay is something connected to paedophilia or bestiality. One must assume that something overwhelms their capacity to think, else simple logic would tell them that there is a difference between loving, consensual relationships and the use of self-centred distortion of what relationship means.
I don’t have any quarrel with religious people saying that their religion will not honour gay relationships. I don’t want anything whatsoever to do with their religion and I’m appalled by such inherent prejudice, but they have every right to apply their rules to their members and not permit religious marriage to same sex couples in their institutions. What they have no right to do is to restrict the rights of those who are not of their faith to do something which does not hurt them or restrict their faith.
Ambivalent LAUreate | Jan 21, 2010
I agree wholeheartedly.
In the UK, we have "civil partnerships" for gay couples, which are functionally identical to marriages in all but the official name. In popular parlance they are still referred to as weddings.
While this certainly smacks of "separate but equal", there are many interested parties keeping a watchful eye on events; and the hope is that in time, when legislators are sick of writing "spouse or civil partner", "marriage or civil partnership" and so forth on official documents, the definition of marriage will be extended to include gay civil partnerships.
Good luck with getting your basic civil rights restored.
sparky_dy | Jan 21, 2010
You stated your position eloquently and the case you have
made for due process is, in my untrained mind, a good one.
My personal opinion is that no benefits or any other special
considerations are justified in the case of marriage. Most of
the legal considerations arising from common law do not
provide for special benefits other than those normally
associated with contractual arrangements. A marriage
which is defined by contract is subject only to contract
law. I think that the first target of significance for the
same sex adherents should be to have all laws
which have sexual preference defined as criminal behavior
be declared unconstitutional and repealed and
anyone who is currently serving time in prison released
and all records referencing the original charges be
destroyed. Once this has been accomplished, then it will
possible for same sex relationships to be protected
by virtue of contract law. There are a lot of things about the
legal system that I don’t like and which directly effect
my life. Taxation in any form is one of them. In their
never-ending desire to remain in power they try to satisfy
every ones desires at the expense of the taxpayer.
I support gay rights but I don’t want the Fed reaching into
my pockets to pay for any benefits, much less those
for married partners. I choose to express my support in
ways that suit me. An american in an earlier time in our
history once said "Taxation without representation is
tyranny." I add to that the equally true assessment.
"Taxation with misrepresentation is also tyranny".
Good luck on your quest.
oldmanwithcoyote | Jan 21, 2010
You cannot assume that this is all based on bigotry and hatred, who are you to judge what is in someone elses heart? Isnt that exactly what you accuse them of doing to you? You sound like you are filled with hatred for your opponents but I do not presume to know what is in your heart. Hatred consumes the hater not the hated.
Silver Stallion | Jan 21, 2010
As a Roman Catholic for over half a century, I see marriage as first and foremost a religious institution, since it is one of the Blessed Sacraments. Therefore, your "argument" doesn’t have a leg to stand on, not only for the reason I just stated, but because homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, as clearly stated in the Bible. You can look it up and find it in any Christian Bible. God Bless you.
Mike N | Jan 21, 2010
1. In the U.S. federal tax law severely penalizes married persons. Single persons have it better under the tax law.
2. Thousands of years of human history tell us that the absurdity of "homosexual marriage" is exactly that, an absurdity. If a law is passed that says figures with four equal straight sides and four 90 degree angles may now be called circles, there still will not be any square circles. If a law is passed saying that two people of the same gender can get married, there still will never be a homosexual marriage. The concept is simply absurd.
3. If you want automatic inheritance of someone’s possessions, own those things jointly now.
4. Hatred, bigotry and malice are not what make "homosexual marriage" a repulsive idea to people. Hatred, bigotry and malice are, however, why proponents of "homosexual marriage" are so strongly condescending and disrespectful to Catholics, other Christians, and Orthodox Jews. You hate us all, and that is obvious.
5. Your nonsensical attempts to equate skin color with behavior is an insult to everyone in the human race.
6. A highly politicized vote taken about 40 years ago by the American Psychiatric Association did not change what people have known for thousands of years. Homosexuality is a perversion, a disorder. Self-described homosexuality is about as common as schizophrenia – about 1% of the population. More people than that experiment with same sex behavior, but they are not homosexual. Almost all of them are heterosexuals who made a foolish decision to engage in a perverted sexual act. Genuine homosexual orientation is rare and certainly not normal in ethical or numerical terms.
7. Any suggestion that people known to engage in homosexual behaviors are the victims of society-wide discrimination is contrary to the facts. People who self-report a homosexual orientation have above-average socioeconomic status in the United States.
I am Roman Catholic.
Peace be with you.
Uncle Joe | Jan 21, 2010
.
