New Jersey Gay Marriage: State Senate Passes Bill Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

Not when we are being held to, inconvenienced and over taxed for standards which seem to not apply to other segments.

Smoking? unhealthy...tax them.
Large Drinks? Unhealthy...ban and tax large cups.

Gay Lifestyles and climbing AIDS rates? Heck we need this, force it through legislation upon a nation that doesnt want it.

Inconsistancy, and penalizing the choices of some while promoting the choices of others will always bring out this "limited government segment" you speak of.

 

Likewise, if you arent fat....I dont know why you'd care of people choose to over eat or drink. Mind your business.

If you don't smoke, why would you care of others do. Again, mind your business.

It's called consistancy. Now maybe you aren't one of those who champion the smoke taxes, or the drink bans, so dont take those examples as a shot at you directly, they arent. This entire thread shows the utter inconsistancy we are bieng forced to live under, and how some segments are squeezed while some are promoted for their indulgences.

 

Not relevant. It's still none of your business who anyone marries. And it's hypocritical, but you knew that.

You want an AIDS tax?

 

Of course, and it's also noones business if I smoke, or drink a 32 oz coke...but here we are. im being targeted for MY chosen pleasures. Do you disagree with thsoe as well? Noone elses business right? Inconsistant application of rulesets and punishments is ALWAYS relevant.

No, and I dont want a "Fat Tax" or a "Lung Cancer tax"...and you know that. If the precedent is to tax or ban the pleasures that LEAD to these ends(as IS the practice right now), then it must be consistant. So tax Gay, as it's well documented where this segment is going with regards to health.

Perhaps you dont support the soda/tobacco taxes and such anyway and Im barking up the wrong tree? I dont recall where you stand on those, but I had to chime in on this thread as the OP, who is openly Gay..HAs chimed in that he thinks people need to be forced to have their large cups taken away, and has no issue with targeting smokers either...because it's unhealthy. He sees it as the Governments job to now target these people because education has not worked.

But...dont mention the health hazards of HIS chosen pleasures. Its hypocrisy, and I'll always call it out where I see it.

 

Of course it's no one's business what you do. I will note, however, that you remain free to smoke, drink or have as much coke as you want. Sure, two of those things are a bit more expensive given the "sin" taxes, but you are not prohibited from having them.

I'm a Libertarian who is militant on personal liberty. I think sin taxes are stupid, but they have to get their money from somewhere. If they did not tax beer they would tax something else, so it's a zero sum game at the end of the day.

 

Because we and NJ are in the US where over 60% of HIV cases are among men who have sex with men.

 

Then don't have sex with other men. Seems simple enough.

 

Why was that simple soution not enough for the Sugary Drink crowd, or the Cigarette crowd???


Drink water.....quit smoking...seems simple enough right?

 

No, just the gays.

 

Why are you asking me?

But it's true that if you want to avoid smoking related health issue you should not smoke! Can't really argue that one.

 

Why is this being revisited 7 months after it was posted?

 

And you have no issue with Government arbitrarilly deciding whos "sins" get treated differently? Who decides, and the "criteria" they are using to do so is what is suspicious to me when you read the documented health reports.

Oh sure, I understand a need for taxes...but my issue is that they are adding additional burdon onto select segments that they feel they can get away with without uproar. We have crossed a line of penalizing people for their enjoyments, and we are selectively applying it to some, while completely avoiding and promoting it in other equally unhealthy segments.

I dont see how a guy who likes to smoke Cigs should be forced to pay more money than a guy who likes to smoke Penis. Why it is ok to trample on one, on the ground of "health concerns"...while promoting the other is a big bother with me.
Documentation shows both to be risky choices in regards to health.

 

Only because you seemed to present it as a valid solution. no taxes necessary.
As a smoker, I wonder why this angle simply wasnt enough. Why did Government feel it needed to exploit me, and penalize me.

oh no, of course. No argument on that.

It is the ability for me to choose to use a legal product and run the risk without penalty and scorn that I am railing about. The same treatment that is being afforded, and promoted with regards to other unhealthy pleasures...like in this story..is what I would expect.

Unhealthy lifestyles are unhealthy lifestyles...we cant simply demonize the ones we dont take part in or like personally, and promote the ones we like. If we are going to pay more for liking things that are unhealthy I would epect everyone to fall under the same ruleset.

The smoker, the gay guy, the heavy drinker, the over eater, the fast driver...whatever ones you can think of...etc

I dont find it fair or consistant at all that the Smokers and Sugary Drinkers are going to foot the bill, (for now, others WILL be added. noone can ever have enough money when they feel a free source is still open to a deeper reach in the pocket), while other segments skate away with state approval.

 

I never said that. I was merely pointing out that if they need $1,000 in tax revenue they are going to get your portion from you one way or the other. As I clearly stated, I think sin taxes are stupid.

That's how you stay in office! You can claim the tax is entirely voluntary, all the while knowing drinkers and smokers will pony up.

I have never seen the govenrment promoting gay sex. But regardless, I agree that picking and choosing is not the government's job.

 

Im sure it was an awesome idea not to let the people of the state decide such an issue....

Remember, Jersey voters... You can eliminate these representatives in november.

 

That's because it destroys your argument.

this is a fallicious argument, since the majority of aids cases are among heterosexuals.

it has nothing to do with liking "facts". your facts are simply incorrect, which is why your argument is fallicious.

still leaving heterosexuals with the majority of aids cases. this isn't helping you.

what choice?

nope, it's a fallacy.

still remains a fallacy.

of course I'm not.

actually you haven't.

.
we are part of it.

there is no national ban on soda. non sequitor.

you seem to be fond of fallacies.


The OP on this article is a gay person who cries of you talk about Gay peoples habits, but is on record in other threads saying education has failed and people need to be made to give up THEIR unhealthy habits. Thats whats "icky" Rahl, and whats worse is when you see States slamming Gay marriage in against the will of the people...this is exactly whats happening.

Some peoples wants are held to a lower standard than other peoples, and they are being victimized, and pilfered for it.

THATS icky

 

Because they can. Simple as that! People do not like smokers. So VIOLA! Get cash from them. Not saying I support it, but that's the reason.

Like a fat tax? I agree that the government need not take sides in such things.

It's not fair or consistent. But it's the government. I happen to like fair and consistent. That is why I support gay marriage.

 

irrelevant

 

nope, any non related same sex couple. sexuality is irrelevant.

 

Yes, I know you did state that. My apologies if my response was misplaced. We agree on the sin tax.

All people like myself who see the hypocrisy and discrimination in action can do is keep being the squeaky wheel about it. IMO there definitely is a list of acceptable segments to fleece, and some golden geese you dare not touch. If I squeak enough, and others feel the same way and squeak themselves..perhaps some of this unfair targetted taxation will be repealed...or at least spread around morew fairly to ALL unhealthy segments.

Well, my opinion is that by overriding the known wishes o fthe people, and installing SSM against their wishes...this is what they are doing. Seems like promoting it to me. Perhaps Im wrong in my word choice, but it sure seems ike it.

We do have some common ground in regards to picking and choosing, so thanks for the honest discourse Stekim. Appreciate it.

 

No, it really doesn't. It's a crutch. Although I did include a link for you with regards to the world rates you wanted to talk about. Rising AIDS in the gay segment worldwide Rahl.

Your entire rebuttal has been shown to be fallacious. For example, we arent talking about "People who have AIDS" as you want to smokescreen. That might include people who got it 20 years ago, through no fault of their own..when education was not at the levels it is now.

What i am making a case of is that government is forcing upon the people, the validation of a lifestyle which is STILL GETTING AIDS TODAY at the highest rates of any segment. The AIDS epidemic is still GROWING TODAY in the Gay Population. Under the same "health concerns" that allows them to tax the smoker, and ban large cups...this should NOT be a lifestyle which is getting preferential treatment, and validation.It's proving itself to be unhealthy. It exposes their inconsistancy, and the fact that Health concerns are simply the cover story for targeted, discriminatory taxation.

This is in 2012 Rahl, new infections. Despits a decade or more of education. Stop trying to smokescreen.

I've posted documentation backing up my claims. it's going to take more than "Rahl said so" to contradict that I'm afraid. You dont have to read the links, or like the data...but your opinion on it holds 0 weight.

The line you quoted was perfectly readable. Go back and read it again.

LOL...because Rahl said so. Sorry you arent that special. I brought links and examples we all know.

If you prefer to call it "not being right" knock yourself out. it's all the same at the end of the day.

 

LOL....known statistics that you dont favor....irrelevant. You're a hoot Rahl, I'll give you that.

 

of course it does. And the majority of aids cases still rremain among heterosexuals.

lol, nonsense.

the majority of NEW aids cases remain among heterosexuals.

the govn't isn't forcing anything. merely recognizing equal rights.

as well as the straight population. your point is moot.

I think sin taxes are stupid. your point is still moot.

I'm not trying to smokescreen. I'm simply correcting you.

I'

your claim is irrelevant. the reality is, the majority of NEW aids cases remain among heterosexuals.

I read it just fine. I'll ask again, what choice?

which was shown to be a fallacy.

and at the end of the day, I remain right.

 

a segment of the population who's aids cases are rising is irrelevant. the majority of new aids cases remain among heterosexuals. which is why both your points are moot.

 

Like the OP said, it's just a matter of time before all laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying are struck down.

As I say in every one of these threads, if the government is going to be involved then you can't discriminate. If the religious right were smart, they'd be arguing to get the state out of marriage.... but apparently they aren't.