I always thought that heterosexual women had a higher HIV/AIDS rate than homosexual men. I remember hearing that in my Gender Roles class during college but I could be wrong.

As you've already said, gay men have a higher NEW infection rate than any other group currently. Except for maybe African Americans. The last data I checked out was from '00. But gays still had far and away the highest infection rate then (something in the neighborhood of 3-1 over everyone else).

I didn't say it was a GOOD argument. It's just the only logical one I can come up with against gay marriage.

And like I said, in the long run, it'll probably mean more business for me if I am one day practicing family law as I want to :D

U.S. to save $1B with gay marriage
Andrew Noyes, PlanetOut Network
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 / 11:41 AM


Allowing same-sex couples to marry would have a positive impact on the U.S. federal budget to the tune of an additional $400 million per year until the end of this decade, the Congressional Budget Office announced Monday.

Such an allowance would boost federal income tax revenues mainly due to the alleviation of the so-called "marriage penalty" income tax -- a glitch in the tax code that prior to last year's tax-cut legislation, imposed a penalty on newlyweds. Receipts from other taxes, particularly payroll taxes, would be unlikely to change significantly.

Social security payments would also rise over time, as would spending on spousal health insurance benefits for federal workers, if gay couples were allowed to legally marry, the report affirms. However, spending on Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income would fall, CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin wrote in a letter to Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, who requested the analysis.

The net impact would be a federal budget savings of nearly $1 billion per year, assuming that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government, he reported.

"The CBO report adds to the growing weight of studies showing that same-sex marriage makes sense from an economic perspective," noted economist Lee Badgett of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS).

"Although most attention has focused on the benefits of marriage, this report reminds us that marriage involves responsibilities, too," Badgett said. "Strengthening same-sex couples' legal standing will reduce demands on federal and state budgets."

The budget office's findings parallel the conclusions of recent studies executed by IGLSS and the University of California Los Angeles' Williams Project about the impact of granting marriage and domestic partnership rights at the state level. A recent study showed that California would have a net savings of $22-25 million yearly if same-sex couples could marry.

Meanwhile, a report by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) released a day after the CBO analysis found that American businesses would see very little impact on their benefits costs if same-sex couples were permitted to marry.

The HRC report concludes that most businesses would have no employees who would marry a same-sex partner -- thus putting an end to claims by gay marriage opponents who allege that allowing same-sex couples to marry would be a financial drain on corporate America, said Kim Mills, HRC's education director.

"Rather than relying on stereotypes about gay and lesbian couples, the CBO used the best data available on same-sex couples from Census 2000 to calculate their estimates," Brad Sears, Williams Project executive director, said in a press release. "Applying the census figures to individual states' budgets would show many millions more in savings if same-sex couples could marry."

The Human Rights Campaign also weighed in on the CBO analysis shortly after its release. "Congress' own analysis shows America would benefit from equal protection," HRC President Cheryl Jacques said. "Now it's clear that giving all American families equal protection wouldn't harm the bottom line."

"On balance, legalization of same-sex marriages would have only a small impact on federal tax revenues," Holtz-Eakin told Chabot in the letter. Chabot chairs the House subcommittee on the Constitution, which is slated to hold a hearing on same-sex marriage on Thursday.

No. I just had tea with her. She confirmed that she stole it.

-Rudey
--And then I touched her boobies

I just wanted to know if you had anything to support that argument.

The data I found on the CDC website was a little dated, but the trends weren't really changing.

From the period of 1985 through 1997, there were 295,355 new cases of HIV infection due to men having sex with other men. That accounts for MORE THAN HALF of all new cases of HIV reported. The overall number was 584,618. You might be able to lump in the category of those who weren't sure whether they were infected from homosexual contact or injected drug use which was 37,514.

In that whole period, just so you know, there were 50,356 new cases of HIV/AIDS reported by heterosexuals.

It's no contest.

Here's the link:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus98.pdf

The chart is on page 272 of that report. It's a pdf so it takes awhile to load -- consider yourself warned :D

No, I meant as far as the impact that gay marriages would have on insurance costs due to HIV-related illnesses. I'm quite familiar with what the CDC has to say.

Many workers' spouses with preexisting conditions are still granted medical insurance depending on the insurance company's contract with their employer. There are according to the data far more homosexual cases than heterosexual cases of HIV/AIDS.

I don't see why that is a stretch for you?

Again, I didn't say it was a strong argument. I just said it was the only rational one I could come up with -- in other words, the only argument that was not religion/morality related (because I think that shouldn't play a role in policy making).

PlanetOut Network... an unbiased source :D

It's not a stretch. Originally, I thought you were finding this from a news source with which I wasn't familiar. Now I see that you are inferring the argument.