Quinn: "Gay sex produces AIDS"; "They should charge homosexuals more for their ... health insurance"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Discussing the passage of a California ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, radio host Jim Quinn asserted: "[G]ay marriage doesn't produce anything that the state has an interest in. Gay sex produces AIDS, which the state doesn't have -- or should have an interest in. They should charge homosexuals more for their -- for their health insurance than they charge the rest of us."
On the November 6 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Jim Quinn said: "The only thing that -- the only thing that gay marriage produce -- well, gay marriage doesn't produce anything that the state has an interest in. Gay sex produces AIDS, which the state doesn't have -- or should have an interest in. They should charge homosexuals more for their -- for their health insurance than they charge the rest of us." Quinn made the comment while discussing the passage of a California ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
Quinn continued:
I mean, just like they charge -- look, if I'm a tobacco smoker, I pay more, right? Why? Because I'm risking my life, and the insurance company has an interest in that, because the chances were more likely they're gonna have to pay off on me than somebody else. So why don't they charge gay men, especially, higher premiums? Because they're engaged in an activity that will have an impact on that - on the health care system."
From the November 6 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:
QUINN: Let me ask you a question. You're hanging out with some -- some woman that you picked up in a bar and, you know, you two are out there; maybe you decided at the last minute to go to Las Vegas, rent a hotel room, and make a little whoopee for the weekend. What is that called? Does society have a strict definition for that? I mean, yeah, I mean, there's a lot of people who different definitions for it, different names for it. But, I mean, is there one thing that we can all agree on? Is there a name for it? And no, there is no one name for it, because society has no interest in it. But there is a name for a man and a woman who commit to each other, it's called marriage. Why does it have a name? Because we seek to define it. Why do we seek to define it? Because society has an interest in the outcome, and the outcome is the next generation of citizens in that society, and the assurance that those citizens will have a proper upbringing.
That's why we name things. That's why we have words to define things. We are under no obligation to change the definition of things to include some demand from some special-interest group who suddenly decides that their union ought to be called a marriage to make them feel better about it, and to force the rest of us to look at it as equivalent to a man and a woman having a marriage that produces something that the state has an interest in. The only thing that -- the only thing that gay marriage produce -- well, gay marriage doesn't produce anything that the state has an interest in. Gay sex produces AIDS, which the state doesn't have -- or should have an interest in. They should charge homosexuals more for their -- for their health insurance than they charge the rest of us. I mean, just like they charge -- look, if I'm a tobacco smoker, I pay more, right? Why? Because I'm risking my life, and the insurance company has an interest in that, because the chances were more likely they're gonna have to pay off on me than somebody else. So why don't they charge gay men, especially, higher premiums? Because they're engaged in an activity that will have an impact on that -- on the health care system. That's -- I don't know, is there something wrong with that?
Anyway, the people of -- of California, you know, maybe they didn't articulate it quite that way, but somehow they understood. And they voted against gay marriage. And the mayor of San Francisco is just beside himself over this. But they did the right thing. Look, if you're gay and you want to have a relationship, and you want to have it -- you know, you want to have it legalized and sign a contract, I have no problem with that. Go ahead. I'm not gonna come knock on your door, it's not a problem for me. Just don't -- don't try to muddy the waters by calling it a marriage -- it's not. What else here this morning?
Risky, unprotected sex is what spreads disease, not gay sex.
Seems to me that by condoning and legalizing gay marriage you encourage and sanction committed relationships, which may lead to far less risky and unprotected sex. But I know, that's just crazy talk.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with the statement, "Mad skillz, you has them. "
Lotta street parties in California last two nights I hear.
I wonder how many of those in "committed relationships" were there sharing there friendliness? So much for committed relationships.
What a strange world you live in. As comittment is a hard thing for many reasons. Regardless of sexual ID. It'd be easy to push your thought along to say as these things happen in social settlings, then social settings are the problem.
Why don't you ask Larry Craig. You voted for him.
Tommy, how much does it cost to treat someone with AIDS? Is the insurance company supposed to pick up the tab on that cost and not expect to be re-imbursed by someone? Or is the insurance company supposed to take a loss on all claims simply because the person doesn't want to pay higher premiums? I don't think insurance companies would stay in business very long if they take a loss on all there claims, do you? Would you rather pay those higher premiums for the gays? And how about higher premiums for smokers? Are you going to pay that cost, too and not expect the smoker to pitch in their share for what they expect to happen for the habit they choose to continue?
Did you know that people don't chose to be gay but they do chose to smoke, eat a lot, drink a lot, etc.....If people chose to smoke then they should be paying more on their insurance. Just because someone is gay does not mean that they get AIDS nor does it mean that they are having sex. There are PLENTY of heterosexual people that are doing the nasty every day with different partners, with prostitues so then by what you are saying then is that you will help pay their insurance premiuns?! There are plenty of responsible gay people just like heterosexual people. There are WAY too many people that assume if you are gay you are just out there having sex with anything that moves! Ever heard of David Duchovny? He is definitely hetero and having sex and putting himself and his other partners at risk; that is OK though since he is a herero and that is manly and very cavalier of him.
Its not all one way. An early death means you never draw your social security funds. So it can go to someone else.
Who uses up more medical services young folks or old folks. You use up more social resources the older you get.
And bad news on the various mental degeneration/age related deseases. Some work with grape seed extract is showing some good effect on mediating their actions.
And if you don't understand what swiftian humor is, your possible response should be interesting
Amazing, isn't it? I believe there should be a new law that restricts gay sex to indoors only, then AIDS can't get out and spread across the land.
I also learned something today - that teh gay is like smoking. After repeated usage, you'll find yourself addicted.
I know there are a lot of kids who do teh gay because "it's cool". But they need to realize that it's not cool to risk your health for an image. Back when I was in school, they had a special "gaying section" outside the cafeteria behind the high school. That's where all the "cool kids" hung out. All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't fall in with that crowd, or I might not be here today to write this.
I also applaud all the restaurants in CA for getting rid of their antiquated gaying and non-gaying sections. I can finally enjoy my food without teh gay wafting over from the couple at the next table. If someone wants to enjoy some gay after a meal, that's their right. But do it somewhere else, please. I shouldn't be subjected to the risks of second-hand gay. And how many of us have gone home after an evening at a bar, and noticed how the gay has permeated our clothes?
I know I'm not popular with the gay industry for my views, but so be it. They've been getting fabulously wealthy by preying on other people's health. To those around me with the courtesy to not impose on my personal space, I say "thank you for not gaying".
I'm trying to quit, Neon. The patch is really uncomfortable, and I still really crave one after a good meal. After 2 or 3 drinks, all bets are off.
Have you tried the gum?
I have friends who are gay, and they say the gum works pretty well. It helps alleviate the oral fixation whereas the patch does not...
I don't even want to know where one would place teh gay patch...
This is absolutely disgusting and counter-productive to American goals. First, gay sex doesn't produce AIDS -- unprotected sex with any gender can lead to STI's and STD's, provided at least one person is already infected. HIV doesn't just materialize out of thin air. To be gay is not to be infected with HIV. It's not a gay issue, and the topic was marriage, not sex.
Second, Jim Quinn refers to a child as being something a state has interest in, basically referring to a human life as property to be managed. At the same time as Quinn suggests gay people have higher health insurance premiums, he neglects to realize that the pregnancy and birth of children, or should I say "things the states have interest in," causes enormous costs of preparation, hospitalization, etc. Why aren't women charged more in health insurance costs in case they get pregnant? Because it's absurd and against American values, just as much as Quinn's suggestion that gay people pay more.
All of that aside, it's gross to suggest that one group pay more for health insurance than another group when there is no health issue at stake. In America, we should be trying to procure more affordable health insurance for everyone, which will actually drive costs down. When you look at the whole picture, which Quinn obviously is unable to do, the economy and the health care system is really a big cycle. Not having health insurance costs hospitals to lose money, procedure and drug costs to skyrocket, people to suffer from bad credit, homes to be foreclosed on, and banks that fail. That impacts everyone.
I can tell you one thing that doesn't impact Quinn: a gay couple getting married.
Maybe we should charge morons more for health insurance because they do stupid things that can hurt them. By this standard, Quinn would be paying millions of dollars a month.
California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is "Gay Disease"
By Gudrun Schultz
LOS ANGELES, California, October 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease.”
According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the Center is trying to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population by rallying the gay community to increasing vigilance against exposure to the disease. Activists for the homosexual lifestyle have, until this current development, strongly, and sometimes vehemently refused to admit that the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men.
The ad campaign, which is also running in magazines, is in part a response to the findings of public health officials, who have noted that three out of four cases of HIV infections are found in men who engage in homosexual activity, the United Press International reported.
In 2005 US health officials reported an alarming eight percent increase in HIV infection rates in one year alone among homosexual and bisexual men. The Center for Disease Control also warned that a survey of 15-29 year old men who engaged in homosexual activity “reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77 %.”
A report by the Public Health Agency of Canada, released in August 2006, revealed a sharp increase in HIV/AIDS infections, with 51 percent of infections found in men engaging in homosexual activity.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/oct/06100404.html
AA,
You're way too smart to even remotely condone or agree with what Quinn said here, that gay sex produces AIDS?
I was curious and checked out your link, AA. In the top "news" story, was this gem:
In the face of Obama's expected onslaught against Life what can we do?
So tell us, AA - what are you gonna do to stop Obama's assault against life itself?
And here's another:
"Obama Solidifies Pro-Abortion Agenda with "Attack Dog" Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff"
AA, do you have any information from a non-Troglodyte website?
I did a simple search of homosexual aids hiv and this was one of the first websites that popped up.
The article quoted the LA Times, The Unite Press International, the Center for Disease Control and the Public Health Agency of Canada.
If anyone can find prove any of the facts are misleading, please do so.
As for your question Fog, I guess I'll continue to support pro-life causes. Thanks for asking.
What are "pro-life" causes? Are you referring to the bombing of abortion clinics of the planned murder of their doctors? Or the less violent method of harassing of people visiting Planned Parenthood?
No. I simply avail myself of my first amendment rights like I suppose you also do. I am 100% opposed to violence against abortion clinics and abortion practitioners.
You're rhetoric is extreme.
You're grammar is as ignorant as you're posts.
I assume your use of the contraction "you're" is done purposefully.
Let me see if I get this right. Arguements are made that show the gay lifestyle and illness's caused by it will cost nearly as much to treat as illness's caused by smoking. The topic is about how gays should pay higher insurance rates because of this (just like smokers do). And the responses are to call each poster a racist or to correct his spelling.
My how the liberals have grown up since the election. Can none of you actually discuss the topic of higher insurance rates for a lifestyle that would cost more to treat when diagnosed with an illness that is prevalent in the gay community? Or, are you all simply going to call anyone who says hiv/aids is expensive to treat a racist?!?
So you oppose all wars, and the death penalty too then correct? Or are you just trying to tell women what to do again with their bodies?
What does killing of the guilty have to do with killing of the innocent?
Or... so you support allowing all criminals out of jail and letting Hitler take over Europe? At least we know where each other stands on the death issue. You would like to see Hitler alive and in control and I would like to see murderers face equal punishment for their crime.
Tommy,
I didn't write anything that remotely condones or agrees with Quinn. Personally I think Quinn is way over the top. I simply presented some facts about AIDS that I thought would give perspective to the discussion.
What gays do in their relationships are their business. However it is apparent that HIV and aids are found that three out of four cases of HIV are foun in men who engage in homosexual activity. That cannot be denied.
I disagree with redefining marriage, but that is a completely different issue.
Those other prersonal attacks against me do not mean a thing to me or anyone else. Some people here get off on ad hominum attacks rather than discuss the issues. Personally, I prefer discussing the issues. If we all agreed on everything, life would be boring.
Have a great weekend everyone.
May God bless our country and our President-elect.
three out of four cases of HIV are foun in men who engage in homosexual activity
Wrong again, AA.
Cumulative number of AIDS cases among adults and adolescents by exposure category Men who have sex with men 368,971 Injection drug users 201,326 Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 51,293 Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 5,292 Heterosexual contact 90,131 Recipient of blood transfusion, blood components, or tissue 8,971 Risk not reported or identified 81,091
source?
He has no source. Simply makes stuff up.
You failed to mention that 24% of the cases are undiagnosed (as reported by your source). So he may be more correct than you are. Another stat from YOUR source link has completely different numbers than YOU use. Are you making this stuff up or are you interested in facts? If you're going to lie to make it seem being gay is safe from illness, at least bring some links that support your theory.
Transmission CategoryEstimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2006* Adult and Adolescent MaleAdult and Adolescent FemaleTotal Male-to-male sexual contact 465,965 - 465,965 Injection drug use 170,171 74,718 244,889 Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 68,516 - 68,516 High-risk heterosexual contact** 65,241 108,252 173,493 Other*** 13,893 6,596 20,489
*Includes persons with a diagnosis of AIDS from the beginning of the epidemic through 2006.**Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
Sorry. I don't know how to paste a picture, like some of you do and my copy/paste job didn't do so well. I'll try to re-organize so that it is legible. The important thing to remember is this is from the link provided by foghorn.
Transmission CategoryEstimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2006
Male-to-male sexual contact 465,965
Injection drug use 244,889
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 68,516
High-risk heterosexual contact 173,493
Other 20,489
Which add up to gay: 534,481 non-gay: 370355 for a total of: 904836. With 60% being included as from the gay lifestyle. Making AnotherAmerica and foghorn both incorrect (using foghorn's link from the cdc that he graciously provided).
Oh look it's AA back up to his usual misleading tricks.
Gudrun Schultz is a conservaitve opinion writer and lifesitenews is a "social conservative" opinion based website.
You stay classy AA.
Please explain which part of my post contains misleading tricks?
Let's start with the part where you present agenda driven opinion pieces as if they were factual and neutral reporting. From there we can look at how the article itself conflates being in a high risk category with being the sole causes and victims of the disease. How about that real scientific claim that "the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men"? Generated?
Your article is disgusting. It takes a recognition that AIDS is indeed a bigger problem for gay men because of the way it is transmitted and an attempt to spread awareness and control that problem and turns it into a barely masked indictment of homosexuals as disease creators who are getting what they deserve because of their "lifestyle."
Moon,
I presented the source and the link. No attempt at misleading on my part. If you have issues with the article or the wording that is your perogative.
You are ignoring the fact that many men are dying while you are in denial that homosexual activity is a leading cause of hiv and aids. I did not notice any judgement expressed against gays by the article. It only talked about the the activities that caused hiv and aids.
Your contention that I am saying gay men are getting what they deserve because of their lifestyle is totally without foundation. Anyone who contracts this disease has my sympathy and my prayers that as best they can, they lead a long and healthy life while battling this deadly disease.
AA you are an intellectually dishonest, passive-agressive coward. Feel free to complain that you are being attacked unfairly, I hear all the conservatives are running out to buy new martyr jackets.
You decided to post a highly opinionated article written by people who believe that homosexuality is a choice and that it is a sin. How exactly is one not supposed to read an intent in that? But good for you, after the thousandth time or so you got caught leaving out the sources you've given up trying that.
The article did not only talk about the activities that spread HIV and AIDS. (BTW, that word is spread, not cause. 2 monogamous gay men who are not carriers can have as much unprotected sex with each other as the day as long and they will never get HIV from it.) The article talked about 1 group and 1 activity in a high risk category.
Denial? I wrote this: "AIDS is indeed a bigger problem for gay men because of the way it is transmitted ." Sadly, a younger generation of gay men has grown up with less awareness of AIDS and they need to be taught that it is still a problem. Being gay is not what puts them at risk though, unprotected, promiscuous anal intercourse is what puts them at risk. The article you posted twists a public service program intended to help with that lack of awareness and uses it as an attack on gay men. It's not baffling that you can't see that. It's baffling that you defend it.
You want a real statistic?
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
Around 67% of people living with HIV are in sub-Saharan Africa.
"written by people who believe that homosexuality is a choice"
What else could it be? Do you have proof of anyone being 'born' gay?
Do you have proof of anyone being born straight?
If homosexuality is a choice that would mean that heterosexuality must also be a choice. If that's true then there is no natural sexuality, just a predominant choice. So why should we be concerned at all with making laws against a choice that only affects those who make it?
At what age did you choose to be heterosexual? Did you spend a lot of time thinking about other boys when making this huge decision?
My apologies. That was supposed to be a reply to Philib, of course.
No problem, I got that pretty easy. But it brings up an interesting point. Most people who argue the choice thing have never really been in a situation where they question their own sexual identity. To them somehow it's like picking chicken or steak for dinner.
I guess our bi-sexual friends just or Surf and Turf.
AA-
Shame on you, I am embarrased to say I have defended you before.
Why are you shaming me?
AA, that was lower than lower, even for your standards.
Standards?
AA?
True. There was a time where he was far more tolerable. Now? He's about as irrational and senseless as the usual wingnut trolls that pollute this site. Even conservative posters like Oscar, Tommy, Bruce, Jeter, Wesley, etc., aren't as brainwashed and myopic with their opinions as AA. At least they argue their opinions with a sense of principle, refusing to resort to copying and pasting far right opinion pieces to support their arguments.
AA has now turned into a caricature of himself.
He's the last of a dying breed on this site, an unretentant Con troll. There used to be a lot of them. Old-schoolers like LeatherHelmet realized that copy-and-paste talking points and mangled logic doesn't cut it around here. They've moved on to more friendly water somewhere.
By the way, I stopped viewing this site for a couple years. It was taking up too much of my time. In that time I visited other blogs such as Huffington Post, DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo. I quickly found out that these other sources have nowhere near the quality of posters as does this site. I found out that MMFA had spoiled me.
Do you mind if I ask who you were before?
I know........ :) And you didn't burn any bridges with me, but we did have our go-rounds, that's for sure.
Each post ought to stand on it's own. I personally do not have any time or inclination to prejudge any post by who happened to write it.
Your posts stand on quicksand, and usually sink of the weight of their own ignorance.
Leaving YOU to post 5 times on this thread-- 1-wanting to know where to put a 'gay patch', 2-bringing grammer correction demands, 3-namecalling, 4-belittleing, 5-namecalling. You certainly bring a lot of insight to this conversation, don't you?
Why is it you won't discuss higher insurance rates for people who cause expensive diseases?
What did I post that was supposedly so low?
I agree that gays should be allowed to have 'gay marriage' and legal rights similar to those heterosexuals who marry. As we all know, monogomy comes from commitment. The commitment is there or not regardless of a piece of paper. It doesn't matter if you are gay or straight.
I do believe we, as a society, are doing something about Aids.
I am not sure what you mean by "can't have it both ways".
Will encouraging monogomy reduce the COST to treat HIV/AIDS? There are tons of stop-smoking programs out there, does that reduce the cost that smokers cause? Has the insurance rates gone down because of these stop-smoking programs that have reduced the incidences of new smokers?
If you reduce the number of cases, then of course you'll reduce the overall cost of the treatments. Stop-smoking programs do that without reducing "the incidences of new smokers", they do it by cutting down on the number of established smokers. You're setting up a standard that doesn't need to be met.
California, October 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease.”
The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, which paid for the billboards, has declared war on the fact that populations of homosexual men are slacking off in their vigilance against HIV and AIDS.
Who Produces LifeSiteNews?
The service was originally started by Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), a Canadian national pro-life organization headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, was one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a few other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.
So what is your point?
If you don't know, all the explanations in the world won't teach you.
That the source that you used are a bunch of crack pots who will make up anything to justify their little twisted worldview. That's all. And if you said you just Googled it, and posted the first link, you should read what sources you're using before using them, because most of the time, they're not going to be saying what you think that they're saying.
Actually the first link one gets on Google from a search as AA described it is a gay Adventist writing on how describing AIDS as a "gay disease" is a bad idea. The second is a ravingly homophobic "Traditional Values" group. The third is a gay activist very much against the way in which the LA Gay and Lesbian Center is conducting its campaign.
But AA just posted some random thing that he came across, not something he consciously chose because of its specific content. Yeah, sure.
AA, as usual, you totally missed the point!
I guess the Troglodytes need something to keep them busy now that they've lost control of the U.S. Government. Look for them to revive their "Culture War" and take over as many local governments as they can.
And look for Barney Fife to keep copy & pasting irrelevant wingnut propaganda in an attempt to "educate" those who are about a century ahead of him in their thinking.
Remember, this is the same troll who says the Nazi Party was liberal, and the choice of Sarah Palin for VP was genius.
I have a feeling Barney's going to be busy in the upcoming months. We have all that organizing to do for this years war on x-mas, and you know darn well that Barney and his ilk (first use of the word today!) will be working like mad attempting to pre-emptively gather counter-intelligence. I expect they'll be busy at LGF, Freepercentral, Hannity.com, etc.
Like you, I expect to see him dumping his huge stores of counter-intelligence here.
You mean "counter-intelligence" in the same sense as "counter-intuitive" or "counter-point", meaning the opposite of intelligence, right?
I look forward to his countering MMFA points he doesn't understand with right wing opinion pieces that he's to thick to understand are crap.
"Gay" must now become an abstract noun in common use. As in: "there's a lot of gay in here." "How much gay should we expect?" "This area contains gay, beware."
I'll say it again: these right wing hate radio fonts who froth at the mouth whenever they talk about homosexuality? Dude -- they're queer. If you aren't queer, you don't give a hoot either way, because it doesn't affect you. But if you are a secret fag and believe deep down that you'll go to hell if you admit it, all sorts of demons come crawling out of your head and into the microphone. But sit in that studio -- you can smell the gay.
Someone should tell them, by the way, that gay doesn't cause or spread AIDS; anal sex spreads it. Rips and tears and stuff, don't think about it but there it is. And not that I'd know or anything, but a friend told me that he'd read somewhere that about 70% of the straight hetero porn out there today features anal sex, dudes putting up a chicks bum for fun and profit.
I wonder what's in the host's video collection?
Ultra, this Quinn creature likes to sexual harrass women at their jobs.
As usual, Gomer here is wrong again. I wrote that the Nazi's fascism came from the left, but that was a different discussion and irrelevent to this discussion. There is enough room for disagreement on the issues without the Col. making stuff up or continually attempting to derail the thread.
The childish insults and name calling mean nothing to me. I simply ignore.
I wrote that the Nazi's fascism came from the left
And that statement alone would be laughable if you didn't actually believe it. Because you believe it, it isn't laughable, it's pitiful.
CSL,
There is no logical refutation for what this guy says. It is pure bigotry, cloaked in some silliness he has created in a pathetic attempt to hide that bigotry.
What I find stunning is why don't these people, like Quinn, just come out and say what they really mean, or what they really want to say. Why hide it, it's not a crime, he can be a bigot if he wants. But to be a cowardly bigot is even worse, in my opinion.
Stop being a wimp, Quinn.
'check here if you're gay'
LOL !!
It's not unknown that engaging in homosexual relations increases your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. If you refute that, then we cannot have an intelligent discussion. So, knowing this, who's responsibility is it to cover the potential costs of treatment should a person engaging in such behavior contract HIV/AIDS? Is it the responsibility of other policy holders in the insurance companies to pay higher premiums to cover costs? Is it the insurance company's responsibility to simply absorb the blow? Who foots the cost? I realize you pay premiums knowing that you may make fewer claims than other policy holders. On the other hand, you may end up making more claims based on your medical condition. Who pays for the lifestyle you choose to lead and the consequences that come from it?
It's not unknown that engaging in homosexual relations increases your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.
Risk Factors for HIV Transmission
You may be at increased risk for infection if you have:
1. injected drugs or steroids, during which equipment (such as needles, syringes, cotton, water) and blood were shared with others.
2. had unprotected vaginal, anal, or oral sex (that is, sex without using condoms) with men who have sex with men, multiple partners, or anonymous partners.
3. exchanged sex for drugs or money.
4. been given a diagnosis of, or been treated for, hepatitis, tuberculosis (TB), or a sexually transmitted disease (STD) such as syphilis,
5. received a blood transfusion or clotting factor during 1978–1985.
6. had unprotected sex with someone who has any of the risk factors listed above.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/
I'm not sure if you're trying to disprove what I said, or reinforce what I said. My statement was that your chances of contracting increases when engaging in homosexual sex (as stated in #2 of your list).
Yes, what other types of sex were included in #2? Its the leading cause in africa too. Though the majoriy there is from hetrosexual sex. There were figures shown on this thread of rates and types of infection. Did you happen to see them? Pretty much any casual unprotected sex increases your chance of infection. Oral causes are pretty rare. Unless an open wound is present.
2. had unprotected vaginal, anal, or oral sex (that is, sex without using condoms)
UNPROTECTED sex, whether VAGINAL, anal or oral! UNPROTECTED!
And last time I checked, two gay men would have a really hard time having unprotected vaginal sex. But if smittymatt16 has a vagina, he may want to go see his doctor.
"Who pays for the lifestyle you choose to lead and the consequences that come from it? "
I've heard that heterosexuality causes death in every instance, at least no heterosexuals have gotten out of life alive yet. So who pays for the heterosexual lifestyle you've "chosen"? Or did you actually sit down and choose to be straight? Where does one begin trying to show the absurdity of these misanthropic bigots' attacks on minority groups they don't like? Interesting that 35 other countries have better health care than the United States and they all have gays and lesbians in them! How do they manage to care for everybody?! And NO CHARGE AT THE OFFICE in many of those better systems!
BTW...is it true that the fastest growing group of AIDS infections in America are straight black females?
Gay sex does not "produce" AIDS. Gay sex tends to spread AIDS more than hetero sex in the West. However, in Africa (and probably other parts of the world) gay or hetero has nothing to do with it.
When the government provides health care, which it will eventually, the government will tell people what to eat and how to behave. Most people won't cooperate. It will be interesting to see how fascist the government will become to enforce rules of behavior set up to keep health care costs down.
I am a Pittsburgh native and grew up with Jim Quinn and Banana Don on B94 in the 1980s. Jim Quinn left the morning zoo-type shows behind when Liz Randolph, the weather reader for their show, sued the two for sexual harrassment and won a 6 figure settlement. After this embarrassing trial, Jim Quinn developed his schtick to reinvent himself on the radio.
He has said a number of ridiculous things and is trying to be like a shocking, Howard Stern-esque version of Rush Limbaugh.
He has guides and rules for his show listed on the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Quinn.
I will highlight two briefly to show how ridiculous they are.
"1. We believe the solution to the human condition is Liberty. Three hundred years of the most successful country the globe has ever seen is proof enough. No government program created this country, free people created this country. " Apparently, african slaves worth 3/5 of a person with no rights (including the right to vote) who built the homes and tilled the soil of the south, immigrants working with NO union protection who may or may not fall into vats of steel or factory machinery, women who built homes and raised children with no pay or vote, asians who built the railroads - had nothing to do with building this country. Cause it was only the free.
"26. You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didn't create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage." Who created marriage? God? Because as Jesus teaches on divorce, marriage is not a mutual exchange of love, but a device to provide women a place to live, since they could not legally own property. There is love in in marriage, but children are to produce kids and be TAKEN CARE OF because they had no other option. Liberals and feminists created the kind of society only the last 200 years where a woman doesn't need to take a huge cut of her husband's salary if they get divorced because she can work for herself and legally own property. So conservative men's rights advocates or whatever, who hate feminists, can thank them for establishing the gender equality that allows them to feel bitterness when they lose money in a divorce.
OK - one more.
"16. There is such a thing as Evil, and you cannot negotiate with it." Theologically, this is complex, but as Lord of the Rings demonstrates in the simplest terms, evil is generally a perversion of the good, not an entity to itself, as this would lead to polytheism (a no-no for all good Christians). Furthermore, as the Bible points out, for those who accept it at all, all humans beings supposedly share evil in them. So shall we all be destroyed? Oh wait, Jesus makes us perfect. Sanctification is a process in religion that is NEGOTIATING and OVERCOMING evil.
Okay, I'll stop there.
How about women? Let's charge them more too, because after all, men don't get breast cancer, right?
Gay male sex is a huge causitvie factor for HIV transmission. (That's a fact, even if that peer educator in your dorm forgot to tell you.) On the other hand lesbian sex presents a near-zero HIV risk.
So, if gay males should pay more for insurance for this reason, then lesbians should pay less.
I think anyone who is the least bit informed on the populations that actually contract HIV/AIDS currently understands this is just ignorant hate-mongering and small-minded talk. Sad it's given airtime. Heterosexual women are the fastest growing group to contract HIV currently, and often from their two-timing husbands who entered this 'sacred contract' called marriage. Hatred is toxic, so perhaps Mr. Quinn needs to pay for the clean up of the hazardous waste that seems to spew out of his mouth. I find most men that are so anti-gay are usually quite insecure in their own sexuality, desire to control women's, but fear their own sexual natures. You're quite transparent Mr. Quinn, and rather dull in your thought process. I am always shocked at how 'Christian' these people consider themselves...try again, Mr. Quinn, and go back to Jesus kindergarten, but try to take notes this time. I cannot waste another word responding to such sewage.
Hey Mr. Quinn...I have some gay acquaintances, a couple together more than 20 years. One partner is sick with AIDS and one healthy as a horse, uninfected with anything. As they have no spousal recognition, they have no spousal health insurance benefits. So the sick partner's healthcare is on the public's tab through Medicare-Medicaid. Just think how your tax dollars might be better spent (more weapons! More War!) if you had voted to grant that couple spousal rights and the healthy partner's benefits extended to cover the other partner!
But of course I'm sure monsters such as this guy Quinn would have an answer for that...just simply deny sick gays any medical care at all. After they have all died off then maybe we can target other high risk groups, like the elderly (big medical costs there!) and children (all those damned childhood illnesses!) and smokers and people who eat red meat, or go skiing, or ...
Perhaps if they were constantly disparaged, attacked even bashed and murdered so often, such as Mathew Shepard, they might improve psychologically and we'd see a drop in rates of illness? Just a thought.)
Make that WEREN'T constantly attacked!