Let the Joyous news be spread: New Jersey votes yes on Gay civil union!

[Carlene 12]

For the most part, inter-family marriages are prohibited due to genetic malformations double each time family memebers inter-marry. (i.e., the "blue people" in Kentucky and hemophiliacs in the royal family) Its fact and very easy to trace. I will agree that prohibiting people from getting married JUST based on the possiblities that genetic malformations is wrong. Why? As a woman ages, her eggs get old and the increase of Downs skyrockets. Should two people from differnt families who both have the sickle cell trait be barred from being married? No, that is an infringements of the right to pursue happiness.

"Give me liberty or give me death"

I agree. I would HOPE that people would have enough sense not to marry their sisters, or at least not to have children with them, but to legislate stupidity is....well, a losing battle. Are we going to legally prohibit drug addicted, alcoholic women from marrying and delivering brain-damaged babies? I doubt it. My oldest son and his wife are not related, yet their first child was born with Hirschsprung's Disease, a rare birth defect that is genetic, and which never shows up unless both parents carry the recessive gene for HD. Should they have been denied by law the right to choose to have more children? (They had a second child, by the way, and he does not have HD.)

People should be entitled to choose their marital status, and that includes WHO they marry, as long as both are consenting adults.

Every state in the union allows convicted criminals to marry, even though the marriage will never be consumated. That does not fit the mold of "traditional marriage", yet it's not illegal. I think it's a shame that violent offenders are given more consideration than productive, tax-paying citizens.

[Betsyjane 2]

It depends whose rights you are wanting to emphasize. If siblings marry and have children knowing the risks, and then my insurance premiums go up to cover the cost of their children's medical care, and my property taxes go up to cover the extra care needed in schools, and so on, then the parents have taken money from me, violating my rights. Do I want to legislate against bikers who don't wear helmets, people who smoke, and anyone who eats trans fats? No. But by advocating freedom, I am subsidizing people who have the freedom to do risky things.... Freed om at any cost can mean the freedom to do things that impinge on other people.

[Wheetsin 714]

By advocating for freedom of choice, you're necessarily advocating for people who choose differently than you do. It's a great paradox.

[Betsyjane 2]

So theoretically I have the freedom to stand toe to toe with you and say I am taking money out of your pocket legally.

The fact that I can do that and that you will subsidize my risky behavior means that to have a free society there must be a socialist underpinning. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need...."

I'mm OK with that. Just adds to the paradox.

[green 6]

It depends whose rights you are wanting to emphasize. If siblings marry and have children knowing the risks, and then my insurance premiums go up to cover the cost of their children's medical care, and my property taxes go up to cover the extra care needed in schools, and so on, then the parents have taken money from me, violating my rights. Do I want to legislate against bikers who don't wear helmets, people who smoke, and anyone who eats trans fats? No. But by advocating freedom, I am subsidizing people who have the freedom to do risky things.... Freedom at any cost can mean the freedom to do things that impinge on other people.

You raise an interesting set of questions in this post, ones that would merit a lengthy thread of their own. How far should the state go? Should the state become a "nanny state" by enacting laws for our protection? There was the time of Prohibition when alcohol was banned because it was deemed bad for us.

Now we see laws which infringe upon the rights of smokers. Should there be anti-obesity laws as well, and if so, what kind? Should fast food restaurants be banned. Should we have the right to sue them? Should the obese individual be required to pay for his or her own health costs?

For that matter there is the tricky matter of medical technology outstripping itself. Let me explain. Though it is now possible to save extremely premature infants, the chances are high that these poor kids will have ongoing developmental problems; they are more likely to have medical problems throughout their lives. This means that from their birth on they will be a greater charge on the health system, whether it is private or not. How do you feel about your insurance premiums going up when it concerns the care of one of these infants?

Or should the state adopt a hands-off approach? Where does one person's right end and the next person's right begin? I think that this is an interesting question.

[Carlene 12]

It depends whose rights you are wanting to emphasize. If siblings marry and have children knowing the risks, and then my insurance premiums go up to cover the cost of their children's medical care, and my property taxes go up to cover the extra care needed in schools, and so on, then the parents have taken money from me, violating my rights. Do I want to legislate against bikers who don't wear helmets, people who smoke, and anyone who eats trans fats? No. But by advocating freedom, I am subsidizing people who have the freedom to do risky things.... Freed om at any cost can mean the freedom to do things that impinge on other people.

Why wouldn't you want to legislate against bikers who don't wear helmets? If they spread their brains all over the pavement and end up at the county hospital, you will have to pick up the tab.

Same with people who smoke, drink, are MO, use drugs, don't wear seat belts, ride skateboards, play football, Water ski, snow ski, participate in rodeos and motocross, play ice hockey and a thousand other things. Though perhaps small as individuals groups, these people's aggregate injuries increase health care costs in general, across the board.

And you are absolutely right....freedom means the freedom to make bad choices and engage in risky behavior. And we all pick up the tab. It's not socialism...it's democracy. Remember that someone besides yourself has most likely picked up part of the tab for you, too. None of us are totally above "risky behavior".

[Wheetsin 714]

It's way beyond theoretical, it happens all the time.

Maybe it's you, maybe it's some other stranger I don't know. Every time I pay a tax someome is legally taking money out of my pocket. Every time I go the grocery store and pay more than I did last week because the owner had to raise prices to cover losses due to shoplifting, someone is legally taking money out of my pockets. Every time my premiums increase because my insurance company has to cover the 3 billion in insurance fraud... you get the idea. It happens every day. I can't think of too many places we put our money that aren't effected by someone else's actions.

Communism actually advocates receipt based on need. Socialism is based more on quantity & quality of work done within a classless (other than working class) society.

Is me having to pay higher grocery bills because someone else got a rush from shoplifting a form of communism?

[Betsyjane 2]

What if I want to do something illegal that would enhance the rights of others to keep their money? If I were, say 90 years old, and on lots of meds and in and out of the hospital, and I chose to kill myself to stop using up our Medicare benefits that others might need, should I have the right to do so?

(I am not anti-old people. This was from a discussion between old people recently.)

[cindy110 0]

sorry ladies and gentlemen I think its wrong...period.if you think its right go ahead to each his own. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve get with the good book...by law a man and woman have to be married to get benefits or loan for a home now days...and everyone wonders why divorce rates are so high...come on be real here..If you want to live with the same sex go ahead do it. But let me say this. I know gay men and woman and I will tell ya they know I dont like it but yet they dont go around and throw it in your face. In public they are decent and dont hang on each other and kiss each other that is what they do in the privacy of thier own home and I respect them for doing it that way. They say they respect straight couples and straight couples respect them back they both work and have thier own ins. They also can buy a house without being married because they call it a partner ship...

[green 6]

Theft, like prostitution, will always be with us. Theft happens at all levels of society. There are the little guys who practise welfare fraud or steal from your local supermarket, practices which the rest of us find abhorent, and there are the big fish, such as those behind Enron. Corruption on this scale may harm the middle class as much for we see people's savings' plans suddenly seriously compromised or even wiped out. This may make a difference when it comes to retirement or to sending a child or two off to university.

The United States has always, unlike Europe, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, avoided any policies that have smacked of socialism. By doing so, it may be argued that you have left the middle class in a vulnerable position. The rich are rich and will always be unaffected by the dysfunctional behaviour of the poor. They will not have their homes broken into, nor will they be mugged. Neither will the collapse of an Enron stop them from sending their kids to the right schools and, well, interfere with the quality of their lives. It strikes me that it is the middle class, and it is the middle class that is the backbone of any modern nation, is occupying a precarious position. You are one serious disease away from financial stress, and if that doesn't get you, another Enron could, and you have to deal with the violence of disenfranchised, under-educated, drug-addled poor people who might car-jack you or break into your houses.

[barbara465 2]

Cindy,

You said that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. What does that have to do with the "government" recognizing civil unions? We have civil marriages, but I guess that's OK? Why is religion making the laws for all? What about all the people that don't believe in the "good book"? Is it all right for them, just not the ones that believe?

Oh and public displays of affection. That's OK as long as its between a man and a woman? A boy and and a girl? I've watched too many suck face in front of me in public places. I don't care who it is or what sex they are, if its in my face I don't like it. So its OK for man/woman to walk holding hands, but its not for two men or two women? Mother/daughter walk hand in hand. How would you know? Or two sisters? Again how would you know?

[lisah25 3]

sorry ladies and gentlemen I think its wrong...period.if you think its right go ahead to each his own. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve get with the good book...by law a man and woman have to be married to get benefits or loan for a home now days...and everyone wonders why divorce rates are so high...come on be real here..If you want to live with the same sex go ahead do it. But let me say this. I know gay men and woman and I will tell ya they know I dont like it but yet they dont go around and throw it in your face. In public they are decent and dont hang on each other and kiss each other that is what they do in the privacy of thier own home and I respect them for doing it that way. They say they respect straight couples and straight couples respect them back they both work and have thier own ins. They also can buy a house without being married because they call it a partner ship...

You have every right in the world to think it's wrong. But there are MANY rights we straights get by simply signing a marriage license that can not be legally duplicated in any other way.

So, what rational do you have for denying them those rights?

[Wheetsin 714]

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve get with the good book...by law a man and woman have to be married to get benefits or loan for a home now days...and everyone wonders why divorce rates are so high...come on be real here..If you want to live with the same sex go ahead do it.

"Get with the good book" doesn't apply to everyone. To me "the good book" right now is "Follow" - fantastic read! Are you going to get with it? Or should I just have to get with the book you think is good?

I'm not sure how my unwed neighbors got their joint home loan if marriage is required for a mortgage these days, I will have to ask them.

Divorce rates are so high because heterosexual couples only stay together about 50% of the time. Are you seriously suggesting that a natioanlly high divorce rate is caused by homosexuals? Don't you have to be married in order to get divorced?

[green 6]

God or nature made Adam and Eve but that same power also made Steve.

[Betsyjane 2]

I want freedom from rude cell phone users.

Although I have a good one. I was in a store and a teenage girl was flouncing around next to me talking loudly to her firend on the phone. She said "I'm gonna dump him. I'm too God D... F...ing classy for him." I fell out.