Really_

United States

#22 May 16, 2013
The Ultimate Kaptoz wrote:
Let's see I would say at birth and conception , I ask those same gays , When did they and their NAMBLA MEMBERS CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX WITH LITTLE BOYS AND BABY BOYS?. I ask those same gays, Those people in NAMBLA WHOM ARE GAY, WERE they then born a pedo? They were then born to have sex with little infants and little boys>? How about this question also I ask of those same radical out of the closet gays. Was a rapist born as a rapist?I mean since you gays are all on about people being born the way they are sexually and what they crave sexually and desire sexually.This would mean every rapist was born exactly as a rapist.Doesn't this mean the rapist and the NAMBLA people all born as they are now to do as they please, because they are suppose to have rights also like the supposed born gay people. If you denied them the right to rape and molest babies and children or to rape women and girls. Then you are descriminating against people born as they are.Then that gay child molester and gay rapist or straight rapist should be accepted in society as normal behavior, Sonce all were born the way they are.
Are your parents home?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#23 May 16, 2013
You know why you shouldn't worry about NAMBLA? Because it disbanded a fu**ing decade ago, you mother-grabbing bigot. If you want to keep young childen safe, take them away from fathers and stepfathers, who are the most likely to rape them. Ask the FBI and othe LEO's.
The Ultimate Kaptoz wrote:
why worry about gay men who spread aids m, why worry about NAMBLA whose members are gay men who target young baby boys and adolescent boys for sex, I guess we shouldn't be concerned at all right IMMAHOOSIER
Guy

Indianapolis, IN

#24 May 16, 2013
All of the gays I know are a bunch of flamboqant dramatic queers. Dude, if you are gay then so what? You don't have to make a spectical of it!
The Ultimate Kaptoz

Indianapolis, IN

#25 May 17, 2013
It did peter funny Not so long ago Like about 4 years ago Nancy Pelosi marched in a gay parade along side Nambla, No the other NAMBLA IS Disneyand Nickeloden , What better than to fondle little kids and teach them being gay is okay and groovy. Look how many former Disney kids now say they are bisexual or Gay. The same goes for the boys bands of the 90's How many are coming out Gay.Nambla is alive and kicking all over. Just like Acorn WHO CHANGED IT'S NAME AND HAS ABOUT 50 OTHER ENTITIES IT GOES BY. Nice try Nambla Peter Pan boy.
Linda Bledsoe

Pittsburgh, PA

#26 May 17, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You know why you shouldn't worry about NAMBLA? Because it disbanded a fu**ing decade ago, you mother-grabbing bigot. If you want to keep young childen safe, take them away from fathers and stepfathers, who are the most likely to rape them. Ask the FBI and othe LEO's.
<quoted text>
He has a point about gays spreading AIDS, but I still don't see why that matters. They are spreading it amongst their own social circles, and nature will eventually work through it. Now, I do think that insurance premiums should be exponentially higher for them, but that is a different discussion. ;)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#27 May 17, 2013
Sorry for being "flamboqant", whatever the fu** that might be. It clearly distresses you that not everyone is exactly like yourself.
Guy wrote:
All of the gays I know are a bunch of flamboqant dramatic queers. Dude, if you are gay then so what? You don't have to make a spectical of it!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#28 May 17, 2013
You're mistaking disney with the catholic church.
The Ultimate Kaptoz wrote:
It did peter funny Not so long ago Like about 4 years ago Nancy Pelosi marched in a gay parade along side Nambla, No the other NAMBLA IS Disneyand Nickeloden , What better than to fondle little kids and teach them being gay is okay and groovy. Look how many former Disney kids now say they are bisexual or Gay. The same goes for the boys bands of the 90's How many are coming out Gay.Nambla is alive and kicking all over. Just like Acorn WHO CHANGED IT'S NAME AND HAS ABOUT 50 OTHER ENTITIES IT GOES BY. Nice try Nambla Peter Pan boy.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#29 May 17, 2013
Then the rates for pregnant women should be exponentially higher, since their care costs a helluva lot more as a group than gay men.

BTW--how many gay men are having AIDS babies?
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
He has a point about gays spreading AIDS, but I still don't see why that matters. They are spreading it amongst their own social circles, and nature will eventually work through it. Now, I do think that insurance premiums should be exponentially higher for them, but that is a different discussion. ;)
Linda Bledsoe

Pittsburgh, PA

#30 May 17, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Then the rates for pregnant women should be exponentially higher, since their care costs a helluva lot more as a group than gay men.
BTW--how many gay men are having AIDS babies?
<quoted text>
I agree that the rates for women should also be higher because of the potential for childbirth. I fully expect that my lifetime healtcare costs will exceed that of a comparable male based solely off of my potential to give birth to children. As such, my premiums SHOULD be higher.

Same thing with gays. Their premiums SHOULD be higher because of their increased risk of AIDS, STDs, and ultimately a premature death.

Men can't have babies, so your question makes no sense.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#31 May 17, 2013
No, pregnant women should hve their rates increased, not those who don't bear children--it's the pregnancy that's the risk factor.

What percentage of women get pregnant? Only 5% of gay males, and virtually no lesbians, contract HIV.
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the rates for women should also be higher because of the potential for childbirth. I fully expect that my lifetime healtcare costs will exceed that of a comparable male based solely off of my potential to give birth to children. As such, my premiums SHOULD be higher.
Same thing with gays. Their premiums SHOULD be higher because of their increased risk of AIDS, STDs, and ultimately a premature death.
Men can't have babies, so your question makes no sense.
Linda Bledsoe

Fishers, IN

#32 May 17, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, pregnant women should hve their rates increased, not those who don't bear children--it's the pregnancy that's the risk factor.
What percentage of women get pregnant? Only 5% of gay males, and virtually no lesbians, contract HIV.
<quoted text>
I don't think you understand how premiums are priced. They can't look at every individual and price them all. It would be a burden that is unmanageable. They have to group people by risk categories and other attributes. Being gay and being a woman are both likely to generate greater medical expense over a lifetime when compared to an otherwise comparable straight male.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#33 May 17, 2013
Actually, I worked in insurance for years. That's my point--you can't take a small group of people and raise the premiums of everyone in that group, be they pregnant women or HIV+ people. Being gay does NOT mean higher premiums; only a small percentage of gay men are HIV+.
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you understand how premiums are priced. They can't look at every individual and price them all. It would be a burden that is unmanageable. They have to group people by risk categories and other attributes. Being gay and being a woman are both likely to generate greater medical expense over a lifetime when compared to an otherwise comparable straight male.
Linda Bledsoe

Fishers, IN

#34 May 18, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Actually, I worked in insurance for years. That's my point--you can't take a small group of people and raise the premiums of everyone in that group, be they pregnant women or HIV+ people. Being gay does NOT mean higher premiums; only a small percentage of gay men are HIV+.
<quoted text>
There are many other high risk behaviors that occur at a higher frequency amongst homosexual men. AIDS is not the only risk. Gays have a considerably higher rate of drug use, including alcohol and nicotine. There are many STDs in addition to AIDS that a homosexual is more likely to get. The list goes on and on. If you understood how insurance worked, you would understand this point of view on it. Saying you worked in the industry makes me immediately question you credibility because you don't seem to possess a basic understanding of the concepts. Or, maybe you are just trolling. I really don't know.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#35 May 18, 2013
Yeah, and blacks should be charged more because of the cholesterol from all that fried chicken, and diabetes from all that watermelon, right? Your stupid presumptions aren't the basis for reality. By sheer numbers, insurance companies are putting out millions more for hetero STD's, alcoholism, lung cancer, etc, than for gay men.

You question MY credibility? You don't even understand the basis for insurance--to spread liability across all policyholders. Gay men comprise a very small portion of the premium pool; gay men with HIV are a minuscule group indeed. In any health insurance pool, it's pregnant women who drive costs the highest.
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many other high risk behaviors that occur at a higher frequency amongst homosexual men. AIDS is not the only risk. Gays have a considerably higher rate of drug use, including alcohol and nicotine. There are many STDs in addition to AIDS that a homosexual is more likely to get. The list goes on and on. If you understood how insurance worked, you would understand this point of view on it. Saying you worked in the industry makes me immediately question you credibility because you don't seem to possess a basic understanding of the concepts. Or, maybe you are just trolling. I really don't know.
Linda Bledsoe

Pittsburgh, PA

#36 May 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Yeah, and blacks should be charged more because of the cholesterol from all that fried chicken, and diabetes from all that watermelon, right? Your stupid presumptions aren't the basis for reality. By sheer numbers, insurance companies are putting out millions more for hetero STD's, alcoholism, lung cancer, etc, than for gay men.
You question MY credibility? You don't even understand the basis for insurance--to spread liability across all policyholders. Gay men comprise a very small portion of the premium pool; gay men with HIV are a minuscule group indeed. In any health insurance pool, it's pregnant women who drive costs the highest.
<quoted text>
Companies pay out more for hetero STDs because there are more hetero policyholders. The AVERAGE payout is higher for homosexuals, and as such they should pay in more per individual. This is not a small group anymore, and as the fad of homosexuality continues to grow in popularity, the costs will continue to rise if they aren't paying appropriate premiums for their risk category.
Guy

Indianapolis, IN

#37 May 20, 2013
Flamboqant would be flailing arms and bent wrists and talking with a lisp.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#38 May 20, 2013
Insurance companies can't ask if you are homosexual. They can ask if you have tested positive for HIV. Since only 5% of gay men and virtually no lesbians are HIV+, they still aren't the drag on insurance premiums you seem to think they are.

Only a fu**ing moron would use the term "fad of homosexuality." It's not a fad.
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
Companies pay out more for hetero STDs because there are more hetero policyholders. The AVERAGE payout is higher for homosexuals, and as such they should pay in more per individual. This is not a small group anymore, and as the fad of homosexuality continues to grow in popularity, the costs will continue to rise if they aren't paying appropriate premiums for their risk category.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#39 May 20, 2013
Oh, like the real housewives of atlanta?
Guy wrote:
Flamboqant would be flailing arms and bent wrists and talking with a lisp.
Guy

Indianapolis, IN

#40 May 20, 2013
And yes, being a homo is an attention getting fad.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#41 May 20, 2013
A fad going back thousands of years...right...
Guy wrote:
And yes, being a homo is an attention getting fad.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Westfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: GW TECH PARTS 3 hr bynos mazadza 1
Why do most Blacks hate Whites? (Jul '13) 8 hr Hopeful 473
Does any one know Ira Joe Stouder that passed i... (Dec '09) 12 hr curious 6
krystal hayes ( wills) 12 hr mystery 1
Why do Blacks Hang Out at the Malls? 15 hr Dave 26
To the Sons of Silence MC , Indianapolis Clubhouse (Dec '13) 16 hr The Zombie 94
White Boi's wanna be black syndrome 18 hr Monica 3
Westfield Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Westfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:04 am PST

NFL10:04AM
Richardson was suspended for two Colts playoff games
ESPN10:58 AM
Colts won't commit to RB Richardson for 2015
Yahoo! Sports11:49 AM
League conducts nearly 40 interviews into 'deflate-gate'
Yahoo! Sports11:50 AM
NFL: No decision yet on deflated balls
NBC Sports12:54 PM
Grigson goes silent on NFL investigation into Patriots