Really?
Per Del. Robert G. Marshall (Virginia state delegate),
He wrote this to protest the Federal Reserve building displaying the gay pride flag. Now, I don’t know if the Fed is the place for such a flag (don’t know their policies on this regarding interest groups), but I was really shocked to learn that homosexuals are one of the reasons Social Security & Medicare are running out of money! How irresponsible of them not to reproduce!
Is this a debate? Seriously, do you think anyone here is going to defend that?
You’re right – it should be perhaps in another forum. 
Mods, feel free to relocate – sorry!
Maybe; there’s people here who defend the claim that dark skinned people are inferior and a drain on the economy. Why not people who say the same thing against homosexuals?
I say a story about them putting up the flag last week. Basically a bunch of staff at the VA Fed office wanted to put up the flag, it being gay pride month supported by the Obama White house no one with any say on it had objection.
I thought it was kinda like flipping the bird at VA and saying nah nah nothing you biggots can do this time.
My only surprise this week is it wasn’t Cuccinelli leading the charge to get it taken down. Maybe he has some other rights to suppress this week.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Maybe; there’s people here who defend the claim that dark skinned people are inferior and a drain on the economy. Why not people who say the same thing against homosexuals?
[/QUOTE]
True, but I don’t know any 'dopers who post in GD who are anti-gay enough to try and take this one on. Even if some ridiculously high number of homosexuals have healthcare problems (say 50%), they make up such a small percentage of the population that wrt some supposed drain on our healthcare system they will be overwhelmed by the sheer number of straight Americans. Hell, I’d say that the cheeseburger and fries (with an extra large diet coke to cut the calories and wash out the cholesterol) is several orders of magnitude more costly to America, healthcare cost wise, than all the homosexuals in the country combined.
-XT
I don’t know what the Federal Reserve has to do with gays as I found the flag thing rather odd, but…birth control may have more to do with population numbers than gay people. Not that we need to worry about slowing birth rates.
Hmmm, maybe. But IIRC there have been posters who have spoken out against same sex marriage using the claim that allowing it would cost more.
Also, in the absence of federal law, many federal agencies have federal regulations prohibiting discrimination against lesbians, gays, etc., in employment and accessing government services.
But, the Federal Reserve ain’t exactly a government agency.
If homosexuals are so ill, wouldn’t that benefit Social Security? They’ll die off from some gay disease and not live to collect decades of pension checks.
>>But, the Federal Reserve ain’t exactly a government agency. <<
?? The Fed is the national government’s central bank. It was created by statute, regulated by statute. Without statutory authority and regulation, it wouldn’t exist.
It’s an independent government agency, but a government agency nonetheless.
Somebody’s ill.
Hmmm… interesting that this is the exact same argument used by the tobacco industry to argue that the costs to society of smoking were calculated incorrectly. All those people dying early of lung diseases were a net benefit to society – no retirement or long term medical care costs.
What an embarassment. What an utter maroon.
I’m guessing he means the evil homosexuals will not be having any kids, and therefore will not have any kids to pay into SS and Medicare during their working lives, so they are a net drain on both programs. The same would be true for childless people period, let alone childless straight couples, so he’s really reaching here.
I also didn’t know the homosexual agenda had a platform for promoting venereal diseases. Good to know.
I think this is actually true in a literal sense, in that smokers cost less to Medicare over their lifetimes due to their increased mortality. Of course, that kind of misses the point re: the negative effects of smoking.
This sounds like perfectly valid science. Just do the math. If any homosexuals contribute to health care costs and don’t have children at the same rate as the rest of the population, and they all were disappeared* tomorrow, there would be a significant drop in health care costs, and an increase in the birth rate. Of course the effect would be much larger if all the conservapublicans disappeared* tomorrow instead.
*By disappeared I mean transported to a magical utopia where no harm will come to any homosexuals or conservapublicans.
You do realize that the vast majority of people who have died from AIDS are heterosexual, right?
What about suffering, as distinct from harm? 