Sorry, referring to a quote from Tony Perkins on the last page:
"At every opportunity, the people of California have voted to protect marriage because they recognize the far-reaching consequences that redefining marriage will have for children, the family, religious liberties, businesses and every facet of American society," Perkins said. "Today's decision should encourage pro-family activists not only in California but across the country."
The biggest effect on businesses would be the increase in health insurance costs for the spouses of gay employees. Not really far reaching, but costly as AIDS treatments are quite expensive. Not that all gays have aids, but IIRC male - male couplings account for the majority of AIDs transmission.
second, tell me why you think gay men who are getting married are likely to be at high risk of HIV transmission
third, tell me why you think the actual use of the medical plan makes a difference to the cost the employer pays in insurance premiums for individual employees
1. I fixed to appropriate table
2. Gay men have gay sex, they are a higher risk for HIV.
3. Insurance companies will offset the increased cost to businesses.
I am not using the increased costs to business as a reason for being against gay marriage. I am just pointing out how this does have an effect on business.
Jigrah on
0
Options
Kovakdid a lot of drugsmarried cher?Registered Userregular
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
1: M2M Sexual contact in 2007 (according to that chart) accounted for 253,804 of 551,932 confirmed, name-by-name infections in only 34 polled states. 253,804/551,932=0.46%, which isn't a "majority"
2: Married gay couples generally only have sex with each other, making them much less prone to infection than the general population of gay men (and possibly straight singles if they're not prone to infidelity)
3: Anyone not already insured and receiving treatment regularly for their HIV infection is relying on emergency care, which is much more expensive than regular treatment and is driving up costs of healthcare for everybody already. Extending insurance to them gets preventative treatment out that reduces the cost of their disease to the healthcare system.
1: M2M Sexual contact in 2007 (according to that chart) accounted for 253,804 of 551,932 confirmed, name-by-name infections in only 34 polled states. 253,804/551,932=0.46%, which isn't a "majority"
2: Married gay couples generally only have sex with each other, making them much less prone to infection than the general population of gay men (and possibly straight singles if they're not prone to infidelity)
3: Anyone not already insured and receiving treatment regularly for their HIV infection is relying on emergency care, which is much more expensive than regular treatment and is driving up costs of healthcare for everybody already. Extending insurance to them gets preventative treatment out that reduces the cost of their disease to the healthcare system.
but really it's cheaper to just get rid of healthcare altogether
unless you're a CEO
and white
well, that's pretty much a given if you're a CEO
Druhim on
0
Options
Kovakdid a lot of drugsmarried cher?Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
my father admitted that maybe healthcare reform would help the country yesterday
but obama is still an evil devil socialist liberal jew destroying america
Kovak on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
1: M2M Sexual contact in 2007 (according to that chart) accounted for 253,804 of 551,932 confirmed, name-by-name infections in only 34 polled states. 253,804/551,932=0.46%, which isn't a "majority"
2: Married gay couples generally only have sex with each other, making them much less prone to infection than the general population of gay men (and possibly straight singles if they're not prone to infidelity)
3: Anyone not already insured and receiving treatment regularly for their HIV infection is relying on emergency care, which is much more expensive than regular treatment and is driving up costs of healthcare for everybody already. Extending insurance to them gets preventative treatment out that reduces the cost of their disease to the healthcare system.
1. I don't have the statistics background to put all those into tables and find the correlation of male-male sex and acquiring HIV. Based on the high 100,000 of woman acquiring HIV through high risk hetero sex I would make the argument that a good percentage of that came from a man who had sex with another man.
2. If HIV or AIDS were easy to spot and noticeable within a year then I would agree that they would be less prone to infection. Because of how long it takes to act up though you could have it and not know it for a long time, definitely within the span of meeting a new partner and getting married.
3. What kind of preventative treatment? Condoms?
Jigrah on
0
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
I am not even stating an opinion on this, it is fact that the legalization of gay marriages would open up increased costs to both businesses and insurance providers.
You fuckers act like legalizing has no effect on the world and that everyone against it is just bigoted and hateful towards gays.
Jigrah on
0
Options
ZeroFillFeeling much better.A nice, green leaf.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
next thing you know Jigrah's going to be saying rape isn't painful for women
I am not even stating an opinion on this, it is fact that the legalization of gay marriages would open up increased costs to both businesses and insurance providers.
You fuckers act like legalizing has no effect on the world and that everyone against it is just bigoted and hateful towards gays.
But several people have stated that it would in fact, bring down costs based off of the arguments you were providing.
Shut the fuck up. I don't care whether or not you are a bigot, you are retarded either way.
1: M2M Sexual contact in 2007 (according to that chart) accounted for 253,804 of 551,932 confirmed, name-by-name infections in only 34 polled states. 253,804/551,932=0.46%, which isn't a "majority"
2: Married gay couples generally only have sex with each other, making them much less prone to infection than the general population of gay men (and possibly straight singles if they're not prone to infidelity)
3: Anyone not already insured and receiving treatment regularly for their HIV infection is relying on emergency care, which is much more expensive than regular treatment and is driving up costs of healthcare for everybody already. Extending insurance to them gets preventative treatment out that reduces the cost of their disease to the healthcare system.
1. I don't have the statistics background to put all those into tables and find the correlation of male-male sex and acquiring HIV. Based on the high 100,000 of woman acquiring HIV through high risk hetero sex I would make the argument that a good percentage of that came from a man who had sex with another man.
2. If HIV or AIDS were easy to spot and noticeable within a year then I would agree that they would be less prone to infection. Because of how long it takes to act up though you could have it and not know it for a long time, definitely within the span of meeting a new partner and getting married.
3. What kind of preventative treatment? Condoms?
See that bolded part? That's where you're admitting that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about but you're going to go ahead and comment on those stats anyway in spite of not knowing how to fucking interpret them.
Good job idiot.
It's like when my mom gets angry with me for bringing up evidence that supports evolution by just saying, "I don't understand all that science and you know it! I just know you're wrong though."
I have never been given a satisfactory, non-bigoted reason against gay marriage. Every single reason eventually comes down to 'I don't like the idea of gays marrying', whether it's for religious or moral reasons.
I am not even stating an opinion on this, it is fact that the legalization of gay marriages would open up increased costs to both businesses and insurance providers.
You fuckers act like legalizing has no effect on the world and that everyone against it is just bigoted and hateful towards gays.
But several people have stated that it would in fact, bring down costs based off of the arguments you were providing.
Shut the fuck up. I don't care whether or not you are a bigot, you are retarded either way.
Several people? You mean McMonroe? His argument about how with spousal health insurance granted to gay couples they could afford to get preventative care?
Can you even think? I mean seriously, that would have do nothing as far as preventive care. Nothing at all.
At this point in the game the government needs to figure out why it has marriage in the first place, then devise a system around that.
I have never been given a satisfactory, non-bigoted reason against gay marriage. Every single reason eventually comes down to 'I don't like the idea of gays marrying', whether it's for religious or moral reasons.
1: M2M Sexual contact in 2007 (according to that chart) accounted for 253,804 of 551,932 confirmed, name-by-name infections in only 34 polled states. 253,804/551,932=0.46%, which isn't a "majority"
2: Married gay couples generally only have sex with each other, making them much less prone to infection than the general population of gay men (and possibly straight singles if they're not prone to infidelity)
3: Anyone not already insured and receiving treatment regularly for their HIV infection is relying on emergency care, which is much more expensive than regular treatment and is driving up costs of healthcare for everybody already. Extending insurance to them gets preventative treatment out that reduces the cost of their disease to the healthcare system.
1. I don't have the statistics background to put all those into tables and find the correlation of male-male sex and acquiring HIV. Based on the high 100,000 of woman acquiring HIV through high risk hetero sex I would make the argument that a good percentage of that came from a man who had sex with another man.
2. If HIV or AIDS were easy to spot and noticeable within a year then I would agree that they would be less prone to infection. Because of how long it takes to act up though you could have it and not know it for a long time, definitely within the span of meeting a new partner and getting married.
3. What kind of preventative treatment? Condoms?
See that bolded part? That's where you're admitting that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about but you're going to go ahead and comment on those stats anyway in spite of not knowing how to fucking interpret them.
Good job idiot.
It's like when my mom gets angry with me for bringing up evidence that supports evolution by just saying, "I don't understand all that science and you know it! I just know you're wrong though."
Oh fuck off Dru, I know enough about statistics to feel comfortable that based on those numbers the majority of HIV transmission comes from male to male sex, and then women having sex with bisexual men, then straight men having sex with those women.
I just can't prove it to you, even if I could though you are to fucking thick to believe it.
Posts
Anyway, I just found out about this.
1. I fixed to appropriate table
2. Gay men have gay sex, they are a higher risk for HIV.
3. Insurance companies will offset the increased cost to businesses.
may actually have to pay
to take care of people's health
this might blow your socks off
Wait, so they don't have to wait until marriage?
Don't they know pre-marital sex is a sin?
the rainbow coalition
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
2: Married gay couples generally only have sex with each other, making them much less prone to infection than the general population of gay men (and possibly straight singles if they're not prone to infidelity)
3: Anyone not already insured and receiving treatment regularly for their HIV infection is relying on emergency care, which is much more expensive than regular treatment and is driving up costs of healthcare for everybody already. Extending insurance to them gets preventative treatment out that reduces the cost of their disease to the healthcare system.
:whistle:
unless you're a CEO
and white
well, that's pretty much a given if you're a CEO
but obama is still an evil devil socialist liberal jew destroying america
if you really wanted to save money, you'd just fire all the doctors and nurses and just burn down all the hospitals
I wish they'd all die by lightning
I couldn't remember if 'gaming the system' was the correct term, so I took a stab in the dark.
likely, if they sit out in that storm much longer
you forgot muslim, and communist
evil communist socialist muslim-jew
love you
1. I don't have the statistics background to put all those into tables and find the correlation of male-male sex and acquiring HIV. Based on the high 100,000 of woman acquiring HIV through high risk hetero sex I would make the argument that a good percentage of that came from a man who had sex with another man.
2. If HIV or AIDS were easy to spot and noticeable within a year then I would agree that they would be less prone to infection. Because of how long it takes to act up though you could have it and not know it for a long time, definitely within the span of meeting a new partner and getting married.
3. What kind of preventative treatment? Condoms?
2. Up
3. Jigrah
I am not even stating an opinion on this, it is fact that the legalization of gay marriages would open up increased costs to both businesses and insurance providers.
You fuckers act like legalizing has no effect on the world and that everyone against it is just bigoted and hateful towards gays.
What's a septum pierce. What month is he in and what program?
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
But several people have stated that it would in fact, bring down costs based off of the arguments you were providing.
Shut the fuck up. I don't care whether or not you are a bigot, you are retarded either way.
Nobody says that, do they. Of course it will have an effect. But it is the right thing to to, as was the civil rights movement
this IS true however
Good job idiot.
It's like when my mom gets angry with me for bringing up evidence that supports evolution by just saying, "I don't understand all that science and you know it! I just know you're wrong though."
MY QUESTIONS SHALL NEVER BE BOTP
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
Several people? You mean McMonroe? His argument about how with spousal health insurance granted to gay couples they could afford to get preventative care?
Can you even think? I mean seriously, that would have do nothing as far as preventive care. Nothing at all.
At this point in the game the government needs to figure out why it has marriage in the first place, then devise a system around that.
because there is, of course, NONE
Oh fuck off Dru, I know enough about statistics to feel comfortable that based on those numbers the majority of HIV transmission comes from male to male sex, and then women having sex with bisexual men, then straight men having sex with those women.
I just can't prove it to you, even if I could though you are to fucking thick to believe it.
monkey booty?