Replies

No one is forcing them to engage in highly risky, deviant behaviors. What happens to them is because they brought it on themselves. And they are bringing death to the entire population by spreading disease outside their (deserving) group.

No one forces people to drink and drive either and they kill more folks than people with AIDS do in America. Would you root for their deaths, as well as those that they kill? Presumably not.

Yet that is precisely what the lady lawyer is doing when it comes to homosexuals.

This is the same logic the pro-drug crowd uses, and it is just as irrelevant here. The sample sizes are in no way comparable. I saw somewhere that the life expectancy of a homosexual is in the 40s. Would that number hold up for people who drink? Didn't think so.

No one forces people to drink and drive either and they kill more folks than people with AIDS do in America. Would you root for their deaths, as well as those that they kill?

If the people inclined to drink and drive only hurt themselves, I would not shed a tear. It is the fact that they, through their risky behaviour, take innocent people with them that is the issue. No one would "root for" innocent people to die because of the risky behaviour of someone else ... that is the entire point.

No one forces fags to engage in risky behaviors, and if their behavior results in their death alone, so be it. It is the innocent people that suffer because of the spread of HIV thru blood transfusions and bi-sexual sex. "The Lady Lawyer" is absolutely correct ... if the people engaging in the risky behaviour die, then it is a benefit to all the innocent people that will no longer be infected due to the risky behaviour of the "drunk drivers".