But why should I (or my employer) have to either pay higher premiums or cut back coverage for others to pay for the expensive medical conditions homosexuals have. Insurance isn't about spreading costs equally; it's about allocating costs according to risks. Male homosexuals have particularly high risks.
The thing is that it's an illusion that you can cut people out of the system. Either they're on corporate health insurance, or the state is paying the bills, but most likely they're already in the health insurance system because they're employed. If they're destitute and the state covers them, up go our taxes.
Homosexuals who are dying of AIDS are among the least likely to be getting married right now; who would marry them? Anyone willing to marry a dying man just to get him health insurance could just as easily be of the opposite sex.
I think the insurance issue is something of a red herring. I live in the Gay Marriage State and very few people at my company are getting these benefits. Having one coworker with a desperately sick kid would cost me as much or more than a homosexual with a 1 in whatever chance of having AIDS.