Let's all feel sorry for the poor oppressed homo's...

[S. L'Gree]

That's not hard to figure. Most gays don't marry and work. Therefore,
they have more income at their disposle, especially when they live
together. They also don't have children and so don't have to spend a
couple of million dollars keeping rugrats alive.

And since the fudgepackers are rolling in dough, they can pay for their own
damned AIDS research. "Hetero" taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab.

[Vita Sackville-West]

Post by S. L'Gree

That's not hard to figure. Most gays don't marry and work. Therefore,
they have more income at their disposle, especially when they live
together. They also don't have children and so don't have to spend a
couple of million dollars keeping rugrats alive.

And since the fudgepackers are rolling in dough, they can pay for their own
damned AIDS research. "Hetero" taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab.

In nearly every other part of the world , heteros make up the largest
number of aids victims, and the worldwide total emphasizes heterosexual
and inter-utero speads; perhaps gays ought not pay for the research on
that basis, only straights should?

As far as ecomomics, gays tend to be better educated based upon studies
in the US alone. That might well be why the income fugures are
higher....

[James Riske]

Post by Vita Sackville-West

Post by S. L'Gree

That's not hard to figure. Most gays don't marry and work. Therefore,
they have more income at their disposle, especially when they live
together. They also don't have children and so don't have to spend a
couple of million dollars keeping rugrats alive.

And since the fudgepackers are rolling in dough, they can pay for their own
damned AIDS research. "Hetero" taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab.

In nearly every other part of the world , heteros make up the largest
number of aids victims, and the worldwide total emphasizes heterosexual
and inter-utero speads; perhaps gays ought not pay for the research on
that basis, only straights should?

Filthy faggots represent the *majority* of hiv infections in America, in
this country they should pay for their own aids research since they seem
to be unable to control their own unbridled promiscuity.

<snip>
Unsupported faggot babble.

[Vita Sackville-West]

Post by James Riske

Post by Vita Sackville-West

Post by S. L'Gree

That's not hard to figure. Most gays don't marry and work. Therefore,
they have more income at their disposle, especially when they live
together. They also don't have children and so don't have to spend a
couple of million dollars keeping rugrats alive.

And since the fudgepackers are rolling in dough, they can pay for their own
damned AIDS research. "Hetero" taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab.

In nearly every other part of the world , heteros make up the largest
number of aids victims, and the worldwide total emphasizes heterosexual
and inter-utero speads; perhaps gays ought not pay for the research on
that basis, only straights should?

Filthy faggots represent the *majority* of hiv infections in America, in
this country they should pay for their own aids research since they seem
to be unable to control their own unbridled promiscuity.
<snip>
Unsupported faggot babble.

Lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV infection of any group. Perhaps
Lesbians are the chosen people?

Post by James Riske
--
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing."--Edmund Burke

[Joel Edge]

Post by Vita Sackville-West

Post by S. L'Gree

That's not hard to figure. Most gays don't marry and work. Therefore,
they have more income at their disposle, especially when they live
together. They also don't have children and so don't have to spend a
couple of million dollars keeping rugrats alive.

And since the fudgepackers are rolling in dough, they can pay for their own
damned AIDS research. "Hetero" taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab.

In nearly every other part of the world , heteros make up the largest
number of aids victims, and the worldwide total emphasizes heterosexual
and inter-utero speads; perhaps gays ought not pay for the research on
that basis, only straights should?
As far as ecomomics, gays tend to be better educated based upon studies
in the US alone. That might well be why the income fugures are
higher....

I'd have to go with the no kids reason. I raised three of them. Them little
rascal are expensive.

[Karl]

Post by Joel Edge

Post by Vita Sackville-West

Post by S. L'Gree

That's not hard to figure. Most gays don't marry and work. Therefore,
they have more income at their disposle, especially when they live
together. They also don't have children and so don't have to spend a
couple of million dollars keeping rugrats alive.

And since the fudgepackers are rolling in dough, they can pay for their own
damned AIDS research. "Hetero" taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab.

In nearly every other part of the world , heteros make up the largest
number of aids victims, and the worldwide total emphasizes heterosexual
and inter-utero speads; perhaps gays ought not pay for the research on
that basis, only straights should?
As far as ecomomics, gays tend to be better educated based upon studies
in the US alone. That might well be why the income fugures are
higher....

I'd have to go with the no kids reason. I raised three of them. Them little
rascal are expensive.

VERY expensive. Add to that, guys tend to earn more than women on
average, so a household with two men, no women and no kids = lotsa money.

More controversially perhaps, women tend to be more socially ambitious
than men. Imagine the money saved by not needing the latest car, buying
a new kitchen/bathroom/bedroom every couple of years and those other
schemes that are needed to keep up with the neighbours.

It's almost worth turning gay.

[Joel Edge]

Post by Karl

Post by Joel Edge

Post by Vita Sackville-West

Post by S. L'Gree

That's not hard to figure. Most gays don't marry and work. Therefore,
they have more income at their disposle, especially when they live
together. They also don't have children and so don't have to spend a
couple of million dollars keeping rugrats alive.

And since the fudgepackers are rolling in dough, they can pay for their own
damned AIDS research. "Hetero" taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab.

In nearly every other part of the world , heteros make up the largest
number of aids victims, and the worldwide total emphasizes heterosexual
and inter-utero speads; perhaps gays ought not pay for the research on
that basis, only straights should?
As far as ecomomics, gays tend to be better educated based upon studies
in the US alone. That might well be why the income fugures are
higher....

I'd have to go with the no kids reason. I raised three of them. Them little
rascal are expensive.

VERY expensive. Add to that, guys tend to earn more than women on
average, so a household with two men, no women and no kids = lotsa money.

Exactly!

Post by Karl
More controversially perhaps, women tend to be more socially ambitious
than men. Imagine the money saved by not needing the latest car, buying
a new kitchen/bathroom/bedroom every couple of years and those other
schemes that are needed to keep up with the neighbours.
It's almost worth turning gay.

I wouldn't go that far.

[Chucky]

Post by Joel Edge

Post by Vita Sackville-West

Post by S. L'Gree

That's not hard to figure. Most gays don't marry and work. Therefore,
they have more income at their disposle, especially when they live
together. They also don't have children and so don't have to spend a
couple of million dollars keeping rugrats alive.

And since the fudgepackers are rolling in dough, they can pay for their own
damned AIDS research. "Hetero" taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab.

In nearly every other part of the world , heteros make up the largest
number of aids victims, and the worldwide total emphasizes heterosexual
and inter-utero speads; perhaps gays ought not pay for the research on
that basis, only straights should?
As far as ecomomics, gays tend to be better educated based upon studies
in the US alone. That might well be why the income fugures are
higher....

I'd have to go with the no kids reason. I raised three of them. Them little
rascal are expensive.

Let's take this logic a little further. As a homosexual I have no kids,
yet am surrounded by large numbers of poor heterosexuals who breed like
bunny rabbits, lack health insurance, and overwhelm the public hospital
emergency rooms every time one or more of their kids get sick, thus
footing the taxpayers (including me and my fellow homosexuals) with the
cost of treating THEIR children. I might reasonably ask why we should
pay the cost of their irresponsible reproductive choices. Perhaps some
sort of tax could be levied on children to provide for the cost of
their public health care, so that breeding heterosexuals pay a greater
share of the expense than responsible homosexuals.

[Joel Edge]

Post by Chucky

Post by Joel Edge

Post by Vita Sackville-West

Post by S. L'Gree

That's not hard to figure. Most gays don't marry and work. Therefore,
they have more income at their disposle, especially when they live
together. They also don't have children and so don't have to spend a
couple of million dollars keeping rugrats alive.

And since the fudgepackers are rolling in dough, they can pay for their own
damned AIDS research. "Hetero" taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab.

In nearly every other part of the world , heteros make up the largest
number of aids victims, and the worldwide total emphasizes heterosexual
and inter-utero speads; perhaps gays ought not pay for the research on
that basis, only straights should?
As far as ecomomics, gays tend to be better educated based upon studies
in the US alone. That might well be why the income fugures are
higher....

I'd have to go with the no kids reason. I raised three of them. Them little
rascal are expensive.

Let's take this logic a little further. As a homosexual I have no kids,
yet am surrounded by large numbers of poor heterosexuals who breed like
bunny rabbits, lack health insurance, and overwhelm the public hospital
emergency rooms every time one or more of their kids get sick, thus
footing the taxpayers (including me and my fellow homosexuals) with the
cost of treating THEIR children. I might reasonably ask why we should
pay the cost of their irresponsible reproductive choices. Perhaps some
sort of tax could be levied on children to provide for the cost of
their public health care, so that breeding heterosexuals pay a greater
share of the expense than responsible homosexuals.

Not having kids doesn't mean that you are more responsible. Wages haven't
kept track with the cost of living. Your heterosexual neighbors are having
raise kids and feed them. You don't have that problem. Your health insurance
is (probably) also cheaper. Auto also probably don't cost as much. Is your
car insurance as a single? When you married your car insurance skyrockets.
When your kids get old enough to drive, get a second or part time job.
I am recently divorced. My kids are pretty much grown. My expenses are lot
cheaper now.

[Chucky]

Post by Joel Edge
Not having kids doesn't mean that you are more responsible. Wages haven't
kept track with the cost of living. Your heterosexual neighbors are having
raise kids and feed them. You don't have that problem. Your health insurance
is (probably) also cheaper. Auto also probably don't cost as much. Is your
car insurance as a single? When you married your car insurance skyrockets.
When your kids get old enough to drive, get a second or part time job.
I am recently divorced. My kids are pretty much grown. My expenses are lot
cheaper now.

I was just following the logic of the original writer who suggested that
homosexuals pay for the cost of treating AIDS because they account for
most of of the total cost of public AIDS treatment in the U.S. My
reasoning is that if we do this, then since poor heterosexuals with too
many children make up most of the total cost of public emergency room
treatment in the U.S., that they somehow be required to pay for it, and
I suggested a tax on children.

I actually got the idea from a local newspaper article I read last week.
The columnist was discussing the recent scandals surrounding Texas'
child protective services in which overloaded caseworkers failed to
protect children under their review who later died from abuse. He was
arguing for increased funding of the child protective services agency,
and he suggested increasing the cigarette tax to pay for it. I thought
that was just ludicrous, while I hate tobacco and smokers I don't see
why they should be forced to pay for child protection. Taxes are often
collected in a way so that they are somewhat related to the services
they pay for. So gasoline taxes pay for road maintenance, cigarette
taxes for health care of smokers, alcohol taxes might be used to fund
DWI enforcement, etc. Since child protective services protect all
children from abuse, it seems reasonable that some sort of tax be
levied on children to pay for their protection.

Also, the more children a person has, the more the government has to
pay for their public education. Yet a person with 10 kids pays the
same school district property tax as his homosexual neighbor with no
kids at all. Or in your case, you paid taxes to educate your kids
who are now out of school, and you are still paying taxes to educate
other people's kids.

[Joel Edge]

Post by Chucky

Post by Joel Edge
Not having kids doesn't mean that you are more responsible. Wages haven't
kept track with the cost of living. Your heterosexual neighbors are having
raise kids and feed them. You don't have that problem. Your health insurance
is (probably) also cheaper. Auto also probably don't cost as much. Is your
car insurance as a single? When you married your car insurance skyrockets.
When your kids get old enough to drive, get a second or part time job.
I am recently divorced. My kids are pretty much grown. My expenses are lot
cheaper now.

I was just following the logic of the original writer who suggested that
homosexuals pay for the cost of treating AIDS because they account for
most of of the total cost of public AIDS treatment in the U.S. My
reasoning is that if we do this, then since poor heterosexuals with too
many children make up most of the total cost of public emergency room
treatment in the U.S., that they somehow be required to pay for it, and
I suggested a tax on children.
I actually got the idea from a local newspaper article I read last week.
The columnist was discussing the recent scandals surrounding Texas'
child protective services in which overloaded caseworkers failed to
protect children under their review who later died from abuse. He was
arguing for increased funding of the child protective services agency,
and he suggested increasing the cigarette tax to pay for it. I thought
that was just ludicrous, while I hate tobacco and smokers I don't see
why they should be forced to pay for child protection. Taxes are often
collected in a way so that they are somewhat related to the services
they pay for. So gasoline taxes pay for road maintenance, cigarette
taxes for health care of smokers, alcohol taxes might be used to fund
DWI enforcement, etc. Since child protective services protect all
children from abuse, it seems reasonable that some sort of tax be
levied on children to pay for their protection.
Also, the more children a person has, the more the government has to
pay for their public education. Yet a person with 10 kids pays the
same school district property tax as his homosexual neighbor with no
kids at all. Or in your case, you paid taxes to educate your kids
who are now out of school, and you are still paying taxes to educate
other people's kids.

I don't mind the paying taxes to educate other peoples kids, other people
paid taxes to educate me.
Any extra taxes would only make the problem worse. A tax on kids would hurt
the people that have the least to spare. Besides, the DFACs doesn't usually
do such a hot job in protecting kids. It's another government agency that is
there to collect a paycheck. It would be a good way to shake he public down
for more money.
Speaking of shaking down people for money, what ever happened to all that
money the tobacco companies payed. Lining someone's pocket I suspect.

[X]

Post by Vita Sackville-West

Post by S. L'Gree

That's not hard to figure. Most gays don't marry and work. Therefore,
they have more income at their disposle, especially when they live
together. They also don't have children and so don't have to spend a
couple of million dollars keeping rugrats alive.

And since the fudgepackers are rolling in dough, they can pay for their own
damned AIDS research. "Hetero" taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab.

In nearly every other part of the world , heteros make up the largest
number of aids victims, and the worldwide total emphasizes heterosexual
and inter-utero speads; perhaps gays ought not pay for the research on
that basis, only straights should?
As far as ecomomics, gays tend to be better educated based upon studies
in the US alone. That might well be why the income fugures are
higher....

Oh wow, where are your statistics and facts from? LOL

That's pure bullshit. Maybe she make the blacks pay for the aids researched.
Since they are the highest carries of it.