Sick You Tube videos of "coming out" kids.

I just don't see how bringing up your personal sex life and plastering it all over the net and then saying that makes any sense and so far you're the only one here I have seen do so.

Your anecdotal evidence is totally irrelevant to whether or not kids should be free to come out as being gay/bi/lesbian on YouTube and it is also unprovable, not to mention only half the story.

I'm sure it does as you are intetionally instigating people to discuss you and your life rather than stay on the actual topic at hand.

I didn't say anything about name-calling. I just pointed out that we are not supposed to discuss other posters on a personal level as it is against the rules. There is no doubt in my mind though that you put your self on the table for debate on purpose though.

 

Instead, you force it down my throat through legislation for extra rights....

6 of one half...½ a dozen the other

 

Equal rights are not "extra". SSM will not affect your life in anyway, assuming you are straight as you claim to be. You have no standing to object. The fact that you find homosexuals to be icky does not count.

 

How liberated of you. Sounds like someone is gunnin for a mod spot


So where does calling posters ignorant, homophobes for disagreeing?

Or challenging me to come at them and see what happens. Lol

I guess it depends on the politics of the moderator of the individual forums, huh? Lol

- - - Updated - - -

Hatecrime legislation begs to differ

 

Hatecrime legislation and SSM are unrelated. FWIW, I agree with you about hatecrimes. Murder is murder, and if someone does so, clearly they hate their victim. The reason shouldn't change the punishment. Then again, I think most murders should end with the death penalty, so it doesn't get worse than that.

 

What is being forced on you again? Are you going to be forced to marry a person of the same sex?

 

Nobody forces it, you Laid down and allowed the gays to run you over. Now you are whining because you didn't have the fortitude to stop the tiny gay population.

They pushed, you backed down.

If your position was correct you wouldn't be whining about further advancement in equality. Gay people would be forced into dark clubs and the internet.

Now, its not only accepted, its cool. That just sticks in some peoples craw. It really isn't my concern if gay people bother prudish, and up tight people. up tight people inflict their will on the world. They force their beliefs down every one else's thought.

Not really interested in talking to you any more.

 

wait.... can you actually marry right now? bwahahahahaha.... I can.

you throw around that equality word like you believe it's about that. you don't want equality, because if you get appeased with this, you'll still find something to bish about.

you will always feel you are a 2nd class citizen.

- - - Updated - - -

shouldn't you be questioning my sexuality some.... lol

 

One more time- what is being forced on you? Are you going to be forced to marry a person of the same sex? Answer the question.

 

forced to pay more for my health insurance due to covering the increased cost of covering them when they refuse to think they should have to pay more because they are so high risk.

if I had 10 wrecks, and 20 wreckless driving tickets in 5 years of driving, I should pay what my risk group demands. I shouldn't expect the 20 year driver who has had zero wrecks/tickets to pick up the costs just so the bad driver doesn't think it's fair.


Noone should be allowed to deny gays health insurance. But their premiums better reflect the fact they are riskier.... just like it does for smokers.


If I file bankruptcy, have 2 cars repo'd, and try to get another loan, why should I be entitled to 0% financing?


Banks being forced (by govt regulation) to loan at prime rates to high risk people caused the housing bubble issues we have now. Extrapolate from there.

 

Really? Show me a link to illustrate this massive increase in health insurance you are now forced to pay because of gay people. This has already been debunked in Silly's idiotic thread spouses losing health insurance because of Teh Gheys. I'm sure you have proof though, right?

Also, do you somehow think that gay people are not insured right now? What makes you think that just because gay people will be able to get married that insurance costs are going to skyrocket?

 

it hasn't been debunked. Economics 101. Study when rubber meets road with auto insurance.... higher risk groups (based on age in auto insurance case) have to pay more than lower risk groups. 16 y.o. drivers cost insurance companies $$ because of paying out for damages. So they charge 16 y.o.'s more in premiums to absorb that cost increase to them. They DO NOT increase a 35 y.o. driver with no wrecks or tickets more whenever a 16 y.o. wrecks his car just to make sure everyone pays the same amount. I'm sure the 16 y.o. would appreciate that since it means his increased cost is absorbed by the 35 y.o. but that doesn't make it right. The 35 y.o. didn't get in a wreck.


So what the entire health insurance argument boils down to (since noone is denying a gay health insurance) is gays don't want to pay the cost associated with their risk. You are the 16 y.o. driver of healthcare. I realize not every gay has AIDS, just like I realize every 16 y.o. doesn't get into a wreck, and doesn't get tickets....I also realize a middle aged man can get a ticket and wreck.... but the group as a whole, 16 y.o.'s are higher risk and their premiums reflect that. Gays are at a higher risk to getting VERY EXPENSIVE diseases. I also realize straight males can also get STD's and AIDS/HIV..... and if they do, their insurance should also go up, and as a gay successfully proves he doesn't get that expensive disease, then their rates, INDIVIDUALLY, should go down, while gays that can't stay clean, continue to pay the higher rate.


Problem is, noone has shown me that gays want to pay what their risk group warrants, they want to pay what the lower risk group pays. And the ONLY WAY that can happen is if EVERYONE'S rates increase from what is currently the average.



Answer me this.... would you be opposed to the higher risk groups paying higher rates?

I will say this, I'm for EVERYONE paying what their risk group demands..... ie - if a straight male is STD ridden, he should have to pay that higher rate, just like in auto insurance when a middle aged driver has multiple tickets/wrecks has to pay more.

 

I do realize gays get insurance.... that's why I'm perplexed as to what rights you think are being violated. You just don't think you should pay what your risk group commands.


Prove you can stay clean, just like a person proves they are a safe driver, and let premiums reflect that and not affect current policy holders, and you're fine.

 

One more time- prove your claim or admit you have no proof of said claim. Why is this so difficult? Stop dodging.

 

one more time.... pay attention to the world around you. Extrapolate from how auto insurance does it.


Does a 16 y.o. pay more than a clean driving record 35 y.o.? Yes . Common knowledge, or do you need a link to allstate
Why is it so? Because the 16 y.o. is more risky to insure than a clean record 35 y.o.

if 2 people apply for a home loan, one has a 700 credit score and one has a 400, who gets the they lower financing rate? 700 does. Why? because he's proven he is less of a financial risk than the 400 score is? If you average the 24% interest of the high risk with the 2% rate the low risk guy gets.... you get 12% that the lender is on the hook for. Should you make both people pay 12% because the high risk guy doesn't want to pay a what his risk group commands. And why is this? because the rate you pay is dependant on your risk.


This is all common sense and should not need a link any more than demanding links when I claim water is wet and you denying it. I'm 37 y.o.... should I have to post my birth certificate up to make that claim?


Keep trying.


I'm not saying gays shouldn't be covered. If people were denying them coverage because they are gay.... that's a violation I would be on your side about.

but there is a huge difference in saying you are being denied coverage (which you aren't) and being denied a matching rate for a lower risk group.

It's like demanding a 0% financing when you have a 400 credit score because I got 0% financing on my car.


And see, what I'm also suggesting is that you (gays) aren't locked into a fixed, high payment. Just like with safe drivers, rates go down, just like people who fix their credit, their rates get better. And I suggest that gays, as they prove they can not get the diseases they are at most risk for.... their rates should go down.

 

He is just ranting. He isn't even making sense.

What is difficult for him, I will explain.

He wants so desperately for there to be a reason to discriminate against gays, he makes crap up. He wants to rationalize his fear so that he doesn't have to explain it to himself. He knows it makes no sense. So he creates this notion that gay people are not clean. Its a concoction of a broken mind.

best thing to do is pay no attention to him. Just as you drive past the westburough baptist church and just laugh at this clowns that made a career out of being offended. Don't give him the time of day. He is only really here to attempt to (*)(*)(*)(*) of gay people. Such a pathetic existence, but to each their own.

Don't reply to his comments anymore. Just make a thread post, skip over his nonsense and be on your marry way. He delights in thinking he has upset you. Again very pathetic.

 

what right are you being denied? you're already allowed to get health insurance... you just want to pay the same rate that I do, even though you are a higher risk for serious and expensive diseases than I am.

To insurance companies, risk = money lost. If a high risk group comes in, someone has to pay for the increased risk. and since gays don't think they should have to pay the entire amount, EVERYONE'S price goes up.

24% interest for a 400 credit score
2% interest for a 750 credit score


Gays suggest we make everyone pay 12% to make things even. That's because they are the 400 credit score of the healthcare world. How is that fair for the 700 credit score to pay more because the 400 can't balance his checkbook

how is it fair that low risk straights have to pay for high risk gays to make up the difference.



No rights being discriminated against, you just are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about having to pay your fair share.


EDIT - I won't even begin to chuckle at marry/merry, off/of garbage you spew in your rage to try to win a point over me by implying I'm the made up term (homophobe) lol

 

I'll post this here for you as well. Why are you not insisting blacks pay their "fair share" too?

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/hiv-african-americans.aspx

You know who else you pay for? People without insurance. What do you propose to do about that?

 

Which has what, exactly, to do with gay marriage? First, I'm not sure any of your assertions are true. I've changed health insurance plenty of times during my ride on this rock, and not once was I asked if I smoked, was gay, did drugs, or any other health related issues. Second, I would estimate that the number of gay people insured now will be roughly the same then, so your claim has no merit.

 

all I'm basing my opinions on are extrapolations from the real world examples that auto insurance gives, where higher risks pay more than lower risk. Also applies to loans as those with more risk (ie- low credit scores) pay more in interest than low risk (ie- high credit scores)

if they didn't do it that way (reward the low risk, punish the high risk) there is no incentive to correct behavior or not mess up in the first place.

part of the reason I don't speed or drive like an idiot is besides the ticket or wreck, I'll ALSO have to pay more on my insurance.
part of the reason I don't overextend myself financially is it will hurt my credit, and later my pocket book when I get a loan.


if banks just charged a flat rate of 15% for everyone with no mind to credit score, that would cover the high risk on the burden of the low risk. The bank doesn't lose money, but the low risk pays more to average out the high risks burden.



Same in health care. if gays demand they get same pricing as lower risk groups, it will be on the backs of the ALL the coverages going up to that "meet in the middle" rate. Great for high risk gays, bad for low risk everyone else.


How this applies to gay marraige is gays can get coverage now, but it's expensive (reflecting their risk group), they want a cheaper "spouse" rate, which, in essence, makes everyone's rates go up to cover that increased risk. Great for gays, not so great for everyone else who has to burden their risk.


it's not homophobic to point this out, its simple economics. But sometimes, agenda doesn't meet truth, that's when the name calling comes out.



FWIW - this same argument can also apply to black males, who are a higher health risk for a number of reasons. Higher HIV, history of heart disease, etc. It's not racist to point out these facts that have been documented ad-naseum

 

When was the last time you were asked if you were gay when getting health insurance? Because I know I have NEVER been asked that.

 

they should

 

Perhaps. But since they don't, your point is moot.

 

well, you aren't going to get support from the homophobes and ignoramus' until you do..... lol

 

Like all of his points