3 ms·

I'm gay, how does my having sex create babies? But that's all beside the point, none of this is something the government should be acting to coerce. Abstinence

I'm gay, how does my having sex create babies? But that's all beside the point, none of this is something the government should be acting to coerce. Abstinence is fine as a personal choice.

pseudo0 2y ago
I fully agree with that logic, and further think that the government should also not be subsidizing risky behavior through funding for STD treatment and prevention. People should get private insurance based on a lifestyle questionnaire to ensure that all costs are being appropriately allocated based on one's risk profile. If it turns out that it's significantly cheaper to be in a long-term monogamous relationship, well, then that's just the invisible hand of the market at work!
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Risky behavior... of having sex? Do you think anyone getting cancer should just pay for it themselves instead of society working to treat everyone of cancer? Do you think we should have taken premiums on our insurance to get COVID Boosters?\ >If it turns out that it's significantly cheaper to be in a long-term monogamous relationship 1. Why are we applying the invisible market to our bodies? Do you understand how dehumanizing that is? 2. monagamous relationships can still get STDs. Despite the name, some can also be spread by simple skin contact. So don't shake the wrong person's hand, I guess.
  - AStonesThrow 2y ago
    > anyone getting cancer should just pay for it themselves instead of society working to treat everyone of cancer? False dichotomy. Furthermore, “treat” is a creepy term that tends to conjure up images of sticky lollipops and Hallowe’en bandits with loaded diapers. Some of us prefer not to subsidize immoral behaviors and activity on group health plans. But in a hypothetical parallel utopia where chemotherapy is 100% out-of-pocket, my people would welcome fewer deaths from chemotherapy, far fewer invasive biopsies & “spelunking” diagnostics, and perhaps increasing incentives to produce cures, rather than Kevorkians.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
SauciestGNU 2y ago
Hey pal I don't want to alarm you but the people opposed to STD treatment think you are a disease and want to eradicate you. They think LGBTQIA+ identities are a social contagion that must be protected from. Project 2025 wants to criminalize queerness as obscenity so that existing in public will be a sex crime. Coincidentally, they have a criminal law plan that calls for the execution of sex criminals.

I'm gay, how does my having sex create babies? But that's all beside the point, none of this is something the government should be acting to coerce. Abstinence is fine as a personal choice.

pseudo0 2y ago

I fully agree with that logic, and further think that the government should also not be subsidizing risky behavior through funding for STD treatment and prevention. People should get private insurance based on a lifestyle questionnaire to ensure that all costs are being appropriately allocated based on one's risk profile. If it turns out that it's significantly cheaper to be in a long-term monogamous relationship, well, then that's just the invisible hand of the market at work!

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Risky behavior... of having sex? Do you think anyone getting cancer should just pay for it themselves instead of society working to treat everyone of cancer? Do you think we should have taken premiums on our insurance to get COVID Boosters?\ >If it turns out that it's significantly cheaper to be in a long-term monogamous relationship 1. Why are we applying the invisible market to our bodies? Do you understand how dehumanizing that is? 2. monagamous relationships can still get STDs. Despite the name, some can also be spread by simple skin contact. So don't shake the wrong person's hand, I guess.
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  > anyone getting cancer should just pay for it themselves instead of society working to treat everyone of cancer? False dichotomy. Furthermore, “treat” is a creepy term that tends to conjure up images of sticky lollipops and Hallowe’en bandits with loaded diapers. Some of us prefer not to subsidize immoral behaviors and activity on group health plans. But in a hypothetical parallel utopia where chemotherapy is 100% out-of-pocket, my people would welcome fewer deaths from chemotherapy, far fewer invasive biopsies & “spelunking” diagnostics, and perhaps increasing incentives to produce cures, rather than Kevorkians.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

SauciestGNU 2y ago

Hey pal I don't want to alarm you but the people opposed to STD treatment think you are a disease and want to eradicate you. They think LGBTQIA+ identities are a social contagion that must be protected from. Project 2025 wants to criminalize queerness as obscenity so that existing in public will be a sex crime. Coincidentally, they have a criminal law plan that calls for the execution of sex criminals.