http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU09J18&f=RF07B06



...wow. I got nothing.

Does anyone support this or even condone it? Anyone?

Edit: That was immature of me

Wait, lemme make sure I've got this right. They don't think that groups who are at risk for early death should be assisted in getting treatment to prevent early deaths?

It is the Family Research Council. You only have human rights to them if you subscribe to their worldview.

Lesbians are at far less a risk of contracting AIDS (I assume that health risk they are referring to) than heterosexuals.

But it's the Family Research Council. They must be researching families. Who are we to question their valiant efforts? Are you anti-family?

HEY GUYS BIGWOODY HATES CHILDREN

I can't say I know of them (until now, that is). I assume they are some kind of pseudo-faith based conservative advocacy group. But their logic is just breaking my mind. It seems like they're saying "these people shouldn't get care because they might be sick". O_o

So we should only treat Lesbians?

Hmm, sounds about right.

*ding*

And well chosen words with pseudo-faith, can't imagine anyone who promotes this kind of intolerance and judgment can honestly consider themselves "of the good book".

God loves lesbians.

Sounds good to me.

Such a lifestyle choice is not reason enough to deny one coverage, if we're talking about the public option here. I mean, we're not denying hemophiliacs, are we?

I'd be interested to see actual statistics, though, for lifespans of homosexual males vs heteros.

Also, lesbian hype is lame.

Chances are that, Police Officers, Fire Fighters, Over weights, Military soldiers are going to die before they reach an old age, we should just cut them out of the health care system.

Before I really read what you said in your post I was thinking "Why the hell would Woody use such a craptastic link?" Then I read your post, and I can't emphasize this enough. This idiocy has to be rooted out in society.

You don't have this right.

I'm not fan of the FRC, but, in the interests of accuracy, I think we ought to clarify their objection.

What they are objecting to is the creation of a program specifically targeted to LGBT senior citizens. The objection is that 1) the official number of gay senior citizens is essentially fabricated, because they grew up at a time when many of them didn't "come out" and 2) that we shouldn't specifically spend money on a group that is statistically less likely to exist.

Make what you will of either claim, but their idea (at least in that article) isn't that we need to deprive homosexuals of health care; but that we shouldn't have special programs for senior citizens of a group not as likely to have senior citizens.

Paul Cameron, a former University of Nebraska assistant professor who now heads a group called the Family Research Institute, claims that gay men have an average life expectancy of 43 years.1 He and his co-authors calculated that figure by checking urban gay newspapers for obituaries and news stories about deaths. But as Walter Olson pointed out in Slate last December, this method produces an unrepresentative sample that includes only those who die; gay men of the same generation who live longer aren't in the sample at all! The sample also is biased toward urban gays who have AIDS and have come out of the closet.


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.3/ross.html

Fair point.


Although I am a bigot....

If your point is attacking the methodology of their claim, fair enough.

My only point was that the hysterics on here about how the FRC wants to ban all health care from homosexuals is not borne out by the article linked to (they may believe that, I don't know, but that's not what they're complaining about).

Technically, those who die early are the only people who should be covered, because it's the health nuts who live to 90 that cost the most.

I am in no way surprised that this group of people, who claims to support a culture of life, says hypocritical things like this. I would love to punch Tony Perkins in the face.

I lol'd at calling Kevin Jennings out on "hate-filled rhetoric", while, in the article above they talk about how homosexuality is a danger to society and should never be affirmed.

Fundies say the darnedest things!