Smokers are forced to pay higher taxes on the product they choose to consume. Society has deemed it risky behavior and has decided smokers should pay now for the healthcare they will probably need later.
HIV/AIDS drug cocktails have come a long way and are also very expensive. We tax payers often foot the bill.
If one risky choice of behavior that cost tax dollars is bad, why isn't the other?
2007-10-29 11:06:48 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sure are a lot of heterophobes on this site.
Stop hating
2007-10-29 11:21:33 · update #1
Good point.
2007-10-29 11:11:15 · answer #1 · answered by jd4640 4 · 5⤊ 16⤋
"If one risky choice of behavior that cost tax dollars is bad, why isn't the other?"
but is homosexuality a "choice", that certainly hasn't been established, homosexuality is probably no more a choice than heterosexuality is the majority of the time
2007-10-29 18:17:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Maybe only the ones with aids. Those with aids are only a small portion of the gay community just as smokers are now a small portion of the overall community. Not all who engage in whatever it is the gays do get aids but nearly everyone who smokes has some sort of health issue brought on by the smoking.
2007-10-29 18:27:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Homosexual sex has no more risk than heterosexual sex. It' only when either one has multiple partners that the risk increases.
Now on average, (guessing) homosexuals may have more partners than heterosexuals. But, considering homosexuals are a tiny, tiny minority of the population, then shouldn't heterosexuals and/or bisexuals also have to pay? Where would one stop? Should we all sign in to have sex? Take a number? Report who you laid and when????
DUMB
But that's not all!!! How about people with a family history of cancer? Should we put a surcharge on them as soon as they are born? Why not just kill everybody who does not meet some predetermined 'health' quotient????
GO READ THE BOOK '1984'.....
2007-10-29 18:15:07 · answer #4 · answered by spay&neuter-all-republicans 3 · 11⤊ 3⤋
HIV/AIDS is not just a gay disease. perhaps you'd like to join us here in the 21st century?
homosexuals tend to have fewer kids, but they still pay taxes for schools. it all evens out.
homosexuality is not a behavior. there are celibate gays, monogamous gays, and polyamorous gays, just like straights.
and gay sex does not have to be risky behavior is done properly.
you are way off base, and you sound like an ignorant bigot. no offense.
2007-10-29 18:33:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Heterosexuals can have AIDS, too. I suggest you to stop believing in myths.
2007-10-29 18:56:05 · answer #6 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is absolutely no reason why they should. What a stupid question. No one can make a valid argument to support your suggestion.
2007-10-29 18:19:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
no,lets tax them on whom they are dating. isn't that up the alley of the house of representatives?
2007-10-29 18:47:40 · answer #8 · answered by howardbeales 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
what about people who acquire the disease through drugs and needles?
what is a AIDS cocktail?
2007-10-29 18:14:03 · answer #9 · answered by Random Black Woman 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I just wonder how you prove you are homosexual. Is there some sort of test involved?
2007-10-29 18:16:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
So, you want gay repression? Why are you afraid of gay people? Let them live as fabulously as they want. They make your property value go up when they move in. That's a well known fact. They also increase your chances of dating someone of the opposite sex who is disproportionately more attractive than you. Gay people rock.
2007-10-29 18:15:57 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 4⤋