I dunno if you guys have already been there or not, but what about the money fat people are costing you? Seems like a logical next step for your conversation. Dunno about where you guys live, but in my country the number one cause of death is heart disease, with diabetes being somewhere up there too. These aren't inexpensive ways to die, and generally the cause is poor diet, lack of exercise and extreme apathy. We don't place "sin taxes" on fast food or potato chips, but I'd be very surprised if HIV/AIDs treatment was costing us anywhere near the amount that junk food addicts do.
Well then more fool you.
Cancer is another big one. You know the best way to treat cancer on the societal level? Preventative care. If you take care of yourself, don't eat processed foods, exercise, stay away from radioactive material (I know a guy who used to handle nuclear fuel rods with his bare hands- he's in a bad way) and all that good stuff you're much less likely to get cancer. This sensible nutrition and treating your body well thing goes far. If you're really talking about "unnecessary" medical costs due to "lifestyle choices" this is THE big one.
That's hilarious, albeit highly irrelevant for the vast majority of the population. I hope Mr Simpson dies quickly.
As for the rest of your comments
some cancers are strongly linked with the lifestyle choices you mention. In contrast denying cancer patients treatment where there is no clear carcinogenic factor(s) in their lifestyle, but just because you believe they might not have done enough star jumps 35 years ago, is moronic.
But this is all a bit silly. Why does it matter if certain people are costing us more than others? We're all people, and we all deserve quality and compassionate care regardless of what health issues we have. Right? Otherwise why would such systems even exist? When we want to pick and choose who deserves medical care we're in a dangerous place, as evidenced by Slave's discriminatory attitude toward a particular group.
Wrong, Tinkerbell, unless you have an orchard of money trees at the end of that rainbow coming out of your arsehole. The problem with socialist systems of healthcare is that they are particularly open to gross abuse by the self indulgent, greedy and stupid. Unless you want such systems to either collapse or offer a shit service to
everyone, because of the number of idiots abusing the system, you'll be needing horrible people like me discriminating against those who absolve themselves of responsibility and expect others to pick up the tab.
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.
]It didn't take you long to reach for your professionally tear-stained Gay Victim Card.
"derp derp, didn't take you long to play the gay supremacy movement card, derp", try being a little less passive aggressive, it'll make you a lot more pleasant.
Pleasant? This is B&M. The box of tissues is behind you.
At least you didn't deny your move.
Homosexuals are increasingly becoming part of the mainstream. Despite this they are many instances of them showing no sign of wishing to surrender the permanent victim status, which you so helpfully and swiftly demonstrate in the face of valid criticism of gay culture.
The reason homosexuals have a "victim status" is, surprise, because homosexuals are statistically more frequently victims than the mainstream.
Getting HIV from unprotected sex doesn't make you a victim of anything other than your own stupidity. Gay men seem largely incapable of grasping this concept. Welcome to the mainstream.
To the absurd extent you're prepared to use a fast food worker as a meaningful counter example to a HIV-infected homosexual spreading the disease. Shitting on other disadvantaged groups is all part of victim privilege.
lol, please point out where I was shitting on any disadvantaged group. Maybe you didn't figure out how that fastfood worker comparison works. Fastfood workers are part of the process that puts a burden on society (the sale of unhealthy food) yet most reasonable people, including myself, don't think they're culpable for that burden. Likewise people with AIDS and the section of the gay population that's at increased risk of contracting AIDS puts a burden on society, but that alone does not make their sexual preference impermissible (just as heat disease and obesity along does not make working in the fast food industry impermissible)
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.
And smokers, gay/bi or straight, whilst more likely to need medical care at some point in their lives due to their addiction, pay for that addiction in the form of heavy taxation3,4. Homosexuals don't pay a bean into the system every time they get a raw cornholing from a new piece of fresh meat, even with all the medical risks that it involves.
From a social perspective it is an irredeemably selfish act. And all you can do is whine about being persecuted.
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.
explain why a shit-tier job typically unwillingly take by the economically disadvantaged, uneducated or young first-time employee2 is comparable to to a lifestyle choice re: promiscuous unprotected sex in the first place.
Promiscuous unprotected sex is neither descriptive of the entire gay community nor is it exclusive to that community. If we want to start making criticisms of "the group of people who engage in unprotected sex" then sweet, I'm right there with you. I'm not sure "let them die out from STDs and the burden of unplanned pregnancies" is going to be the optimal solution...
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.
...maybe sex ed and programs to make protection available would be a better fix.
In the UK we're knee-deep in condoms and fucking sex ed', the problem is there's nothing to teach homosexuals about barebacking that a 30 year AIDS epidemic hasn't.
Apart from the fact that 95%+ hetero society will foot the bill for you when it all goes to shit.
