No Tips After Dinner For Gays!

Don't vote for Bender though. That whole "destroy all humans" thing isn't what's best for humankind...

Ok, so that covers a way it might affect your life. Except that you and your wife would be receiving the same benefit as the lesbian couple down the street. And the heterosexual mixed-race couple. Oh, and the Muslim married to a Christian.

And you still haven't come close to explaining "accept." I gave you a freebie by adding in the "Does it affect you?" question, but you're the one who keeps saying that acceptance is something relevant without defining or proving it.

Don't forget that his example is already in effect, regardless of a gay couple together or having individual insurance policies, but still in the same grouping.

Even if he is insured in an employer plan, if one of his coworkers (only way his example will work) is gay, he is already in that plan (assuming that his coworker and/or significant other opts to be in the same insurance plan) that he and his wife is, regardless of if the significant other is legally eligible to be on the plan as a spouse or not.

Meh....we had a good run.

You considered it an example? It just shows his complete lack of understanding on how insurance premiums are even calculated...

Need gay marriage to save money back to you Susan.

I fail to see where being grouped with a gay couple as well as thousands of other straight couples would have any impact on your insurance prices or coverage. Am I missing the credible evidence that gay couples cost more to insure? I mean actually cost more, not just "AIDS treatment is expensive" as HIV rates for hetero people is now higher than for gay.

That's not entirely accurate. If you're talking new infections via IV drug use then, I think, yes. That has to do that for a very long time heterosexuals didn't get tested edit: as often.

Also gay men are more likely to contact HIV than heterosexuals via intercourse.

EDIT: Most individuals with HIV/AIDS receive assistance via ADAP and the Ryan White Care Act. So the burden isn't so much on insurances .

I'm talking about contraction/newly discovered. Insurance coverage for HIV/AIDS treatment is patchy, and I don't see how existing costs would effect a pool of buyers that is pre-existing. It would only effect new policies in the states that allow gay marriage. So contraction is a more accurate measure when talking about risk pools. We're also talking about married couples, presumably monogamous.

Ha. Ha ha ha. HA!

Monogamy is... genuinely uncommon. Which is rather upsetting, but people who are cheating are more prone to using protection, at least.

I don't believe that monogamy is any more or less likely in a gay or straight marriage. I would also imagine that infidelity can't realistically be measured, as nobody is entirely honest, and a group size that could actually be monitored would be too small to produce any credible data.

I wasn't suggesting there was a difference in monogamy rates between gay and straight couples, I was merely pointing out that monogamy is something people pay lip service to but, statistically, do not practice very well. More couples these days are being honest about such things, too. Now if only we could eradicate the silly notion of marriage-for-life, we might actually progress towards relationships that don't explode and ruin children's lives.

I agree, I'm just making it clear that there are no significant or measurable differences between the risk pool with and without married gay couples.

I'd really like to see where your getting your numbers because gay whites and blacks are the highest new infections, minus IV drug users.

HIV costs aren't that simple and most plans automatically reject HIV patients. Also starting 2014, at least here in CA you automatically receive a new policy. Your old policy becomes null.

EDIT: but you are correct about the risk pool and costs especially because of ADAP and Ryan White. Those two programs stack on top of insurance policies.

Considering that the CDC shows the rate of infection from an accidental pin p r i c k of any origin with no contributing factors (.13% per exposure) as nearly double the rate of infection of protected sex with any partner (combined calculated risk of 0.8% per exposure), I'd say that the difference between a calculated risk of .05% and .06% per exposure is pretty minimal variance between gay and straight people.

PS: I realize I'm skirting the censor, but I am using that word the way it is intended to be used, not the slang version that censor thinks it is.

Edit: those are worldwide, in the US alone, infection risk between protected male/female per exposure is about half what it is worldwide while infection risk per exposure protected among gay couples is roughly the same.

Yeah I'm not getting what your saying, feel free to PM me


Edit: except many gay men don't have protected sex even in monogamous relations. Also anal intercourse has a higher risk of transmitting infections vs vaginal.

LGBT Health studies are "patchy" especially the ones involving gay men.

That worldwide, the rates of infection aren't significantly different regardless of sexual orientation when using protection.

The issue isn't that gay men are more likely to contract HIV (gay women are far less likely than straight women), it's that protection is under-used across all demographics. And neither of those facts have any measurable effect on having gay married couples in your insurance risk pool.

All my posts were in reference to this:


I would like to add, that historically "marriage" is defined as the recognition of a union (not necessarily sexual or intimate) between 2 individuals by a state, organization, religious institution, or group of peers. It outlines the handling of legal matters relating to their union. Globally, marriage isn't specific to male/female church based marriage, in fact, worldwide many recognize polygamous and same sex marriages in exactly the same context. Outlawing same sex marriage is the actual redefinition of the word.

have you talked to any 20something straight guys lately? they might be more keen on the buttlove than gays!

Correct it's other variables that are more prevalent in gay couples specifically males specifically meth.

Fun fact: heterosexuals have more buttsex than homosexuals. At least on a pure numbers basis, that is, but there are plenty of gay men who don't do anal under any circumstances.

Sounds about the same as straight women.

The statistics are significantly based on variables if you ask anyone who works at an LGBT clinic, some of which are more prevalent in gay men.

Major cities like SF, NYC, and LA had to begin a campaign, several years back, about PNP sex and HIV because it was such a problem with gay men. PNP sex isn't as big of a problem in heterosexuals at least in metropolitan cities.

Now the big one is Hep C and Syphilis posters

But oddly enough they want to tickle the prostate!

LOL! Reminds me of a darts in the garage night where the subject of anal sex came up. The way it was explained to me was it's simply the novelty, "I will because I can!", etc. Something that blows over once they're all domesticated, or so I was told.

EDIT: Of course this was in reference to straight males and anal sex.

That's because the gays have advanced to DP and TP!

I think you are seeing very different woman than I am...

Tis the season ^_^

What kind of weird accent or tilde is that, and why would someone put it over a hyphen with legs?

Let's get a page-and-a-half of grammar, spelling, and punctuation Nazi-ing going!