Yes, there are other groups of selfish shits who cause economic harm to the country. As much as you might like it to be this thread isn't about them. Even if it were you're implying that homosexuals do not belong to these groups as much as heterosexuals, which is the only way these comparisons would be relevant.
The comparisons are relevant because if other groups commit the same offence then they ought to be treated the same to whatever degree they violated the principle that, according to you, makes homosexuality unacceptable.
Presumably you think the state ought to stop participating in the treatment of STDs in gay populations. By that logic it ought to also stop treating people with heart disease and stop sending ambulances to the scene of vehicular collisions.
The major cause of HIV infection in gay men is bareback fucking. Which unlike having heart disease or being in a car crash, with the obvious exception of male-male rape and split condoms, is entirely optional.
Your comparison fails. Or rather your excuse for why homosexuals automatically have the right to be treated for HIV fails.
You're shifting goalposts now. You started with a supposed argument on why homosexuality was unacceptable, now you're trying to change it to why we shouldn't offer healthcare people who got HIV from unprotected sex (a population which, again, is not exclusively gay). Incidentally I disagree with you on that issue as well, but that's besides the point for the moment at least.
You can't even get a reliable poll as to who
is gay. The numbers fluctuate wildly. 1% 5% 15%. No one knows. They lie. So expecting gay men to honestly say how many times, and by whom, they been buttfucked without protection in the last 12 months is a sexual-disease statistican's fantasy. All you are left with is the fact that HIV-transmission rates, amongst several other STDs, are grossly higher in those that do identify as gay. That, unfortunately, is why I would treat the gay community as a homogenous block is terms of how 'permissable' I think it should be regarded.
Gay men seem largely incapable of grasping this concept. Welcome to the mainstream.
Lol, I'm sure we all appreciate your analysis of the thought process of gay men. I'm sure you have some keen insights on that particular subject.
Ah, the desperate 'I'll imply you're an undercover homosexual' card. I was wondering how long it would take.
As I referenced, many fast food workers are often poor people (clearly that doesn't make disadvantaged enough for you) who take on low paid, unskilled work in order to survive. They are not doing it for shits and fucking giggles.
With the possible exception of being a rentboy, taking raw loads in your ass is not required for survival of any kind. Shit n' giggles all the way.
I never denied that fast food workers were generally low income and disadvantaged. That's clearly not why we abstain from holding them accountable for the damage to societal health they facilitate. Do their actions become wrong if they had an opportunity to take a job at a call center instead but opted for the fast food job? Because that would invalidate the "gotta make fast food to survive" argument.
Again you are directly equating having a
tax-paying job, working for a
tax paying corporation to engaging in unprotected gay male sex.
Is bareback ass-fucking a tax paying job?
No.
Oh, and maybe you could confirm for me that I've understood correctly how your smoker comparison works too? That unlike smokers, unprotected butt-fucking homo's don't directly pay a single penny for their potentially self-inflicted harmful activities. You appear to have avoided commenting on it, so I assume the answer is yes.
Smokers generally fail to cover the cost of their habit. In cases where smokers really do cover the full cost of smoking then perhaps the analogy fails but English smokers don't seem particularly more villainous than those in a country with higher smoking taxes.
Did I say smokers entirely cover the costs of their habit? No.
Did I say, unlike smokers, homosexuals pay
no taxes for barebacking? Yes.
Does your post invalidate either of the above statements? No.
Getting HIV from unprotected sex doesn't make you a victim of anything other than your own stupidity.
That's not how we use the term "victim" in common usage but it doesn't matter since I was never talking about homosexuals being victims of HIV.
I never said it was. I said the homosexual community is far more diseased than the hetrosexual community due to lifestyle choices which are far more prevalent in the homo-group. Of course you'd like to talk in terms of "the group of people who engage in unprotected sex" and acquire STDs as a result, because that would allow to to avoid talking about the fact that they are very disproportionately homosexual. Don't cry to me about individual cases, they are irrelevant when talking about populations.
And I never said there isn't a disproportionate rate of HIV in gay populations. I freely admit that is an issue in the gay community and something that we need to do something about. That does not make homosexuality unacceptable however. Homosexuality does not imply risky behaviours. All you've done it criticize unsafe sexual practices, we can trivially imagine both being homosexual and not engaging in any unsafe sexual practices.
You're ignoring reality by treating gay anal sex as if it takes place in a sanitized vacuum, rather than taking place within the context of homo-cultural sexual practices; for the disease occurence I've already posted some stats, but will do so again
1,2,3. Those correlations are very significant. They do not occur by magic or by the actions of a small handful.
And for the record I wouldn't treat
anyone who's got HIV. Isolate and quarantine with pallative care. Morphine is cheap. I wouldn't let HIV carriers into the country (HIV figures in the UK are largely a consequence of the joys of African immigration). Obviously this will disportionately affect the gay and African community, because the gay and African community is disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS. And if you seriously think this wouldn't result if a wave of 'muh gay rights, you closet gay homophobic racist' cries you are deluded. Shit,
you've already played two of those cards. Gay rights campaigners would not treat HIV-gays as being fundamentally distinct from the rest of the gay community. In fact they've been embracing them, excuse the pun, since the 80s.
1)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/68938972)
http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/3)
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm 
