[quote]maxxbot wrote:
ZEB wrote:maxxbot wrote:
What I don’t agree with is how you take the statistics on disease rates and conclude that homosexuality as a whole is an unhealthy lifestyle and compare it to alcoholism.
That is an unfair comparison, alcoholics, as a group are much healthier and live longer.
Sweet way to ignore everything me and forlife were trying to say and just repond to a tiny part of one of my posts.[/quote]
Look kid, I’ve typed plenty of pages on this topic covering it from almost every angle. If you’d like to read them all you have to do is use the search function. It won’t serve any purpose to trudge through all the facts once again.
[quote]maxxbot wrote:
The biggest problem with your argument is that as I stated before, (and I’m now restating because you glossed over and ignored my post) gays are not some big homogenous group that you can make generalizations about.
[/quote]
Why not? Society currently places high taxes on dangerous/costly activities. For instance there are high taxes on alcohol because of the damage it causes to society. At the same time there there are many people who drink responsibly. These people still have to pay for the idiocy of others.
So if homosexuality as a whole causes problems, like a massive increase in HIV, then the members of the collective group should be the ones to pay for it. At the very least we should be taxing gay people and putting that money into health care and HIV research.
The biggest problem with your argument is that as I stated before, (and I’m now restating because you glossed over and ignored my post) gays are not some big homogenous group that you can make generalizations about.
[quote]maxxbot wrote:
The biggest problem with your argument is that as I stated before, (and I’m now restating because you glossed over and ignored my post) gays are not some big homogenous group that you can make generalizations about.
[/quote]
Why not? Society currently places high taxes on dangerous/costly activities. For instance there are high taxes on alcohol because of the damage it causes to society. At the same time there there are many people who drink responsibly. These people still have to pay for the idiocy of others.
So if homosexuality as a whole causes problems, like a massive increase in HIV, then the members of the collective group should be the ones to pay for it. At the very least we should be taxing gay people and putting that money into health care and HIV research.[/quote]
Your analogy is invalid because people in that case are only taxed when they actually buy alcohol, they aren’t taxed simply for being alcohol users. A valid analogy would be a tax on anal sex, would of course would be absurd.
Many gays don’t have sex, have sex only with protection, don’t have anal sex (which is the thing that spreads HIV far more than anything else), are mongamous, etc. Why should all of these people pay simply because they happen to like men? It’s not homosexuality or “the homosexual lifestyle” or whatever that is associated with the spread of HIV, it’s unprotected anal sex. This is why the CDC uses the acronym “MSM” (men who have sex with men) and doesn’t just say “gays” in general. If you find some way to enforce a tax on unprotected anal sex between untested partners, be my guest.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You just did.
Why can’t we?
[/quote]
Oh ok I guess you’re right we gays are all identical. I guess that means I don’t actually exist.
Oh ok I guess you’re right we gays are all identical. I guess that means I don’t actually exist.[/quote]
I didn’t mean to cause you an existential crisis, just to point out the hypocrisy of your statement.
I always get a kick out of doing that when one person stands up as the spokesperson for a very diverse group.
Reminds me of the argument I had the pleasure of watching as some flamer launched into a tirade directed at a friend of mine, about how he doesn’t understand homosexuality and what a homophobic asshole he is, all while not knowing that the guy he was tearing down is as gay as the sun is shiny.
[quote]maxxbot wrote:
Your analogy is invalid because people in that case are only taxed when they actually buy alcohol, they aren’t taxed simply for being alcohol users. A valid analogy would be a tax on anal sex, would of course would be absurd.
[/quote]
First off analogies don’t need to be exact to make a point.
Secondly they are taxed for being alcohol users. They tax at point of sale because it is easier than to tax at point of consumption. But the idea is to make alcohol users pay the costs associated with drinking. So the analogy certainly holds.
[quote]maxxbot wrote:
Many gays don’t have sex, have sex only with protection, don’t have anal sex (which is the thing that spreads HIV far more than anything else), are mongamous, etc. Why should all of these people pay simply because they happen to like men?
[/quote]
Whoosh Somebody didn’t understand my analogy.
Most people who drink don’t get into fights or end up in hospital because of it. Why should all of these people pay simply because they happen to like a drink every now and then?
Oh ok I guess you’re right we gays are all identical. I guess that means I don’t actually exist.[/quote]
I didn’t mean to cause you an existential crisis, just to point out the hypocrisy of your statement.
I always get a kick out of doing that when one person stands up as the spokesperson for a very diverse group.
Reminds me of the argument I had the pleasure of watching as some flamer launched into a tirade directed at a friend of mine, about how he doesn’t understand homosexuality and what a homophobic asshole he is, all while not knowing that the guy he was tearing down is as gay as the sun is shiny.
[/quote]
What generalization did I make other than simply stating what you just stated, that gays are a very diverse group.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Most people who drink don’t get into fights or end up in hospital because of it. Why should all of these people pay simply because they happen to like a drink every now and then?
[/quote]
Your analogy is silly because I could easily make a better and more accurate one.
people who like to drink - men who enjoy having sex with other men
people who buy alcohol - men who have anal sex with other men
people who engage in reckless behavior because of alcohol - people who spread disease via unprotected anal sex
There, much better. My point is that it makes no sense to tax gays when not all of them even have anal sex. How exactly would it be possible to tax gays anyways? I have no idea how such a thing could even be enforced.
[quote]maxxbot wrote:
Your analogy is silly because I could easily make a better and more accurate one.
people who like to drink - men who enjoy having sex with other men
people who buy alcohol - men who have anal sex with other men
people who engage in reckless behavior because of alcohol - people who spread disease via unprotected anal sex
There, much better. My point is that it makes no sense to tax gays when not all of them even have anal sex. How exactly would it be possible to tax gays anyways? I have no idea how such a thing could even be enforced.
[/quote]
Your analogy changes make no sense. The point remains the same. You have simply added a meaningless layer (or aren’t explaining yourself well).
You are equating “people who engage in reckless behavior because of alcohol” with “people who spread disease via unprotected anal sex” and so am I. The entire point is that all people who consume alcohol have to pay the tax not just those who engage in reckless behavior. Just like all gays should pay the tax and not just those who engage in the risky behavior.
Your core analogy agrees with me.
And no it probably wouldn’t be feasible to tax homosexuals. However, making it a bit of a social taboo does the same thing.
Your analogy changes make no sense. The point remains the same. You have simply added a meaningless layer (or aren’t explaining yourself well).
You are equating “people who engage in reckless behavior because of alcohol” with “people who spread disease via unprotected anal sex” and so am I. The entire point is that all people who consume alcohol have to pay the tax not just those who engage in reckless behavior. Just like all gays should pay the tax and not just those who engage in the risky behavior.
Your core analogy agrees with me.
And no it probably wouldn’t be feasible to tax homosexuals. However, making it a bit of a social taboo does the same thing.[/quote]
The point I am trying to make is that gays that aren’t MSM could be compared to people who don’t drink alcohol at all. They don’t engage in any potentially risky activities so it makes no sense to tax them. Personally I don’t agree with the alcohol tax either but I guess the state needs some way to generate revenue.
As for your suggestion of making it a social taboo, that would be just like making responsible alcohol use a social taboo to continue the analogy, and I think most would agree that would be a silly thing to do. It should be a social taboo to engage in unprotected sex, not get tested on a regular basis, and have sex with shady people that you don’t know.
Making homosexuality a social taboo because of the harmful potential effects of anal sex would be like making it taboo for some dudes to go out to the bar and grab a few drinks because some people who drink do stupid and dangerous shit.
“What specific harmful behavior am I trying to discourage?”
Clearly, it’s unprotected anal sex. Doesn’t matter if it’s with someone of the same or opposite gender.
Of course, most people recognize a sex tax as patently ridiculous. Heteros want the right to have sex as they see fit, including anal sex. It’s not hard to understand that gays feel the same way. People are adults, and the government should stay out of our bedrooms.
Don’t most conservatives believe in less, rather than more, government?