Gay Marriage and AIDS

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I was thinking, given that it is a sad reality that homosexual men are much more likely to have and in effect pass on HIV/AIDS, would mass legalization of gay marriage see a spike in the number of reported cases of the illness? The theory being that the de-demonizing (totally not a word, but whatever) of homosexuality and the awareness of a more general acceptance would cause more men (and women) to openly express themselves and feel less trepidation about embracing their sexuality. Given that homosexual sex, namely anal sex, due to the thin walling of the anus cavity, has a much greater likelihood of small tears and blood leakage forming than vaginal or oral sex, more gay sex would indeed pertain to more incidents, yes?

I would be interested to see a time lapse of the number of reported cases of HIV/AIDS in different areas before and after gay marriage was made legal there. But I don't think such a thing exists.

Note: I'm not against homosexuality (my gender is about as liquid as water, I'm bisexual and my primary attraction is to transgender females, lol) and think gay marriage should be allowed from sheer common sense. I'm just wondering if this sort of increase would occur.

Captcha: "get your goat." Um... Okay?

 

[Rawne1980]

I'm going to bite even though this is a close running second for silliest question of the year award.

See here is the thing....

They are still having sex even though they aren't married....

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

While it's a possibility, I would assume that common sense would rule the day. The common sense being partners entering a relationship should get regular screening for STDs and use of condoms when engaging in intercourse is advised.

Note: This holds true for heterosexual relationships as well as homosexual relationships. In the end, following common sense can reduce the chances that an STD is transmitted.

And, just because they're not married, it doesn't mean they're not having sex.

Sadly, AIDS and HIV is surprisingly common in the homosexual population. Some say it's due to promiscuity, but I have no idea why it's so much more prevalent there than heterosexual people. Anal sex is indeed more risky, but it seems to be much too high for that to explain it away--I mean, anal sex isn't some amazing rarity enough among straight pairings to account for it, is it?

I'm going to bite even though this is a close running second for silliest question of the year award.

See here is the thing....

They are still having sex even though they aren't married....

Yes, but wouldn't more general acceptance encourage more open behavior? For example, if playing D&D became "cool," wouldn't the people who pay D&D do it more and more openly? Wouldn't people who have thought about it, but never done it, also feel brave enough to give it a go? Many people fear "coming out" or even acting on their feelings at all. Gay people are still beaten, abused, disowned and murdered, sadly.

 

[Comando96]

I'd think marriage would encourage monogamy, so less spreading?

At least I would think so.

This was my first thought. If you officially couple a... couple, together this would increase the likelihood of them having a single partner and therefore the spread of STD's would reduce in the gay community.

Personally I just think more education is needed and, once a social acceptance of Gay people being allowed to live is established then remind them that Condoms still need to be used unless you have been with your partner for a while and both of you are "clean".

I mean demonizing a social group does nothing beneficial and creates a taboo surrounding the area and within this taboo important information is lost. The only reason that the homosexual community is plagued by HIV is more unprotected sex occurs compared to heterosexual relationships. There is no magic "GOD's will" in play here, simple lack of information.

 

[WolfThomas]

id think marriage would encourage monogamy so less spreading?

at least i would think so.

This pretty much.

While it's a possibility, I would assume that common sense would rule the day. The common sense being partners entering a relationship should get regular screening for STDs and use of condoms when engaging in intercourse is advised.

Note: This holds true for heterosexual relationships as well as homosexual relationships. In the end, following common sense can reduce the chances that an STD is transmitted.

And, just because they're not married, it doesn't mean they're not having sex.

Sadly, AIDS and HIV is surprisingly common in the homosexual population. Some say it's due to promiscuity, but I have no idea why it's so much more prevalent there than heterosexual people. Anal sex is indeed more risky, but it seems to be much too high for that to explain it away--I mean, anal sex isn't some amazing rarity enough among straight pairings to account for it, is it?

Simply from a mechanical standpoint HIV infection can spread more effectively in the gay community when those infected with it act in both the top and bottom role with multiple partners (receive and give basically).

HIV infection works out roughly like this with straight men it's harder to catch from sex, but easy to spread when they have caught it. This is because they're only in contact with the infected person's fluids briefly. Where as when they are infected they are leaving it in the partner. So it's the opposite with women it is easier to catch because the bodily fluids stays in them longer, harder to spread because of the brief contact with the male.

But a gay male who does both (not necessarily all gay males) can catch it easily from receiving anal sex and spread it easily by give anal sex. HIV rates are usually quite low in Lesbians (though not unheard of).

That's the difference.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Marriage doesn't hold a relationship together, it's the other way around.

That's... kind of deep, lol. I might use that in conversation

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

HIV infection works out roughly like this with straight men it's harder to catch from sex, but easy to spread when they have caught it. This is because they're only in contact with the infected person's fluids briefly. Where as when they are infected they are leaving it in the partner. So it's the opposite with women it is easier to catch because the bodily fluids stays in them longer, harder to spread because of the brief contact with the male.

But a gay male who does both (not necessarily all gay males) can catch it easily from receiving anal sex and spread it easily by give anal sex. HIV rates are usually quite low in Lesbians (though not unheard of).

That's the difference.

Is there truth to that? I think that would make much more sense. I always thought it was just a condom thing. Why wear a condom if your partner says they're clean and no matter how much you fuck them you can't get them pregnant?

--------------------

The only way I could see this as a worry is if some gays want to "wait for marriage" to have sex. Which considering how wonderful they have been treated by the church is a laughable argument.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

HIV infection works out roughly like this with straight men it's harder to catch from sex, but easy to spread when they have caught it. This is because they're only in contact with the infected person's fluids briefly. Where as when they are infected they are leaving it in the partner. So it's the opposite with women it is easier to catch because the bodily fluids stays in them longer, harder to spread because of the brief contact with the male.

But a gay male who does both (not necessarily all gay males) can catch it easily from receiving anal sex and spread it easily by give anal sex. HIV rates are usually quite low in Lesbians (though not unheard of).

That's the difference.

Is there truth to that? I think that would make much more sense. I always thought it was just a condom thing. Why wear a condom if your partner says they're clean and no matter how much you fuck them you can't get them pregnant?

--------------------

The only way I could see this as a worry is if some gays want to "wait for marriage" to have sex. Which considering how wonderful they have been treated by the church is a laughable argument.

As I said, it's not an issue of the actual marriage, but of general acceptance.

"Yes, but wouldn't more general acceptance encourage more open behavior? For example, if playing D&D became "cool," wouldn't the people who pay D&D do it more and more openly? Wouldn't people who have thought about it, but never done it, also feel brave enough to give it a go? Many people fear "coming out" or even acting on their feelings at all. Gay people are still beaten, abused, disowned and murdered, sadly."

As, sadly, gay men having sex equals greater chance of HIV/AIDS, more men having gay sex would mean more HIV/AIDS, yeah?

As to your first point: always, always, always wear a condom. Always. I think (I can't quote) that one if four people with HIV don't know they have it. Also, people lie. Why is this not in everyone's head? Lol.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

HIV infection works out roughly like this with straight men it's harder to catch from sex, but easy to spread when they have caught it. This is because they're only in contact with the infected person's fluids briefly. Where as when they are infected they are leaving it in the partner. So it's the opposite with women it is easier to catch because the bodily fluids stays in them longer, harder to spread because of the brief contact with the male.

But a gay male who does both (not necessarily all gay males) can catch it easily from receiving anal sex and spread it easily by give anal sex. HIV rates are usually quite low in Lesbians (though not unheard of).

That's the difference.

Is there truth to that? I think that would make much more sense. I always thought it was just a condom thing. Why wear a condom if your partner says they're clean and no matter how much you fuck them you can't get them pregnant?

--------------------

The only way I could see this as a worry is if some gays want to "wait for marriage" to have sex. Which considering how wonderful they have been treated by the church is a laughable argument.

As I said, it's not an issue of the actual marriage, but of general acceptance.

"Yes, but wouldn't more general acceptance encourage more open behavior? For example, if playing D&D became "cool," wouldn't the people who pay D&D do it more and more openly? Wouldn't people who have thought about it, but never done it, also feel brave enough to give it a go? Many people fear "coming out" or even acting on their feelings at all. Gay people are still beaten, abused, disowned and murdered, sadly."

As, sadly, gay men having sex equals greater chance of HIV/AIDS, more men having gay sex would mean more HIV/AIDS, yeah?

As to your first point: always, always, always wear a condom. Always. I think (I can't quote) that one if four people with HIV don't know they have it. Also, people lie. Why is this not in everyone's head? Lol.

Oh I know, but I can see why some people wouldn't. I myself can't stand having sex with a stranger even with protection... just too intimate to not be emotionally involved. But hell I'm sure a lot of people would be all over the whole no baby thing.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Er, you mean more gay men would have sex if gay marriage was allowed, due to less social stigma? That is, they would feel safer coming out?

Well, I guess.

By that logic, though, more lesbians would come out, who are extremely unlikely to pass HIV/AIDS to their partners. So any increase in HIV/AIDS for men would be more than counter balance by the decrease for women, you'd expect.

...

In any case...yeah, regardless of your intent, this isn't too far from those "We have to ban gayness because...um...AIDS!" arguments.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

HIV infection works out roughly like this with straight men it's harder to catch from sex, but easy to spread when they have caught it. This is because they're only in contact with the infected person's fluids briefly. Where as when they are infected they are leaving it in the partner. So it's the opposite with women it is easier to catch because the bodily fluids stays in them longer, harder to spread because of the brief contact with the male.

But a gay male who does both (not necessarily all gay males) can catch it easily from receiving anal sex and spread it easily by give anal sex. HIV rates are usually quite low in Lesbians (though not unheard of).

That's the difference.

Is there truth to that? I think that would make much more sense. I always thought it was just a condom thing. Why wear a condom if your partner says they're clean and no matter how much you fuck them you can't get them pregnant?

--------------------

The only way I could see this as a worry is if some gays want to "wait for marriage" to have sex. Which considering how wonderful they have been treated by the church is a laughable argument.

As I said, it's not an issue of the actual marriage, but of general acceptance.

"Yes, but wouldn't more general acceptance encourage more open behavior? For example, if playing D&D became "cool," wouldn't the people who pay D&D do it more and more openly? Wouldn't people who have thought about it, but never done it, also feel brave enough to give it a go? Many people fear "coming out" or even acting on their feelings at all. Gay people are still beaten, abused, disowned and murdered, sadly."

As, sadly, gay men having sex equals greater chance of HIV/AIDS, more men having gay sex would mean more HIV/AIDS, yeah?

As to your first point: always, always, always wear a condom. Always. I think (I can't quote) that one if four people with HIV don't know they have it. Also, people lie. Why is this not in everyone's head? Lol.

Oh I know, but I can see why some people wouldn't. I myself can't stand having sex with a stranger even with protection... just too intimate to not be emotionally involved. But hell I'm sure a lot of people would be all over the whole no baby thing.

I agree on that. I just wouldn't feel safe being that vulnerable to a stranger. Also, in my eyes, it makes sex more special of it's something you keep for a true love. I don't care about marriage and will probably never be married, but, to me, saving sex as something of a "gift" and experience to share with someone you really love is much better than sex for fun. Kind of like if you gave everyone you knew $5; after a while, giving someone you actually really care about $5 wouldn't seem all that amazing, lol.

 

[bobmus]

Well there'd be an increase in the amount of openly gay people, but also an increase in the percentage of the gay community in a monogamous relationship. I think the two would pretty much balance each other out.
Like any other STIYes, I know it's not a 'true' STI, HIV is going to be spread by the people having lots of sex without using protection, and any law you make regarding marriage isn't going to affect these people much at all.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Er, you mean more gay men would have sex if gay marriage was allowed, due to less social stigma? That is, they would feel safer coming out?

Well, I guess.

By that logic, though, more lesbians would come out, who are extremely unlikely to pass HIV/AIDS to their partners. So any increase in HIV/AIDS for men would be more than counter balance by the decrease for women, you'd expect.

...

In any case...yeah, regardless of your intent, this isn't too far from those "We have to ban gayness because...um...AIDS!" arguments.

The lesbians coming out wouldn't do anything to counterbalance the increase in reported AIDS/HIV cases. If 100 women continue not having AIDS, that means nothing to the gay men developing the condition. Heterosexual pairings rarely result in HIV spreading, only a fraction more than that of lesbian pairings, in any case.

As to your second remark: this is very far from that, because I never said anything about "banning" homosexuality. It's just a thought.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Well there'd be an increase in the amount of openly gay people, but also an increase in the percentage of the gay community in a monogamous relationship. I think the two would pretty much balance each other out.
Like any other STIYes, I know it's not a 'true' STI, HIV is going to be spread by the people having lots of sex without using protection, and any law you make regarding marriage isn't going to affect these people much at all.

But monogamous couples that are gay won't suddenly not break up and have sex with other people just because they can get legally married. Marriage doesn't increase the amount of devoted pairings, it just gives a title to already devoted pairings.

The way it seems to me, the following are the only possible results:

Gay couples that are already monogamous get married, remaining monogamous.

Gay people who aren't monogamous don't get married and remain so.

People who feel safer and more free to "come out" do so, resulting in them engaging in homosexual relationships for the first time.

It would all be solved, like you said, if everyone wore a condom every time, but for one reason or another, AIDS/HIV is still prevalent among homosexuals--much, much more so than heterosexuals or lesbians. Thus, more homosexuals feeling comfortable enough to come out will mean more people exposing themselves to a community with a greater risk of infection.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

snip

Actually that parts exciting to me. The total loss of control and danger involved. Its a fricken high.

However I've never been able to fulfill it because of my unnatural fear of babies and STDs. lol its brought on some really awkward situations considering I'll get to a certain point and then something just "switches over" like a "Oh shit!" switch.

Thank god I'm married and that crap is over with.

 

[bobmus]

Well there'd be an increase in the amount of openly gay people, but also an increase in the percentage of the gay community in a monogamous relationship. I think the two would pretty much balance each other out.
Like any other STI, HIV is going to be spread by the people having lots of sex without using protection, and any law you make regarding marriage isn't going to affect these people much at all.

But monogamous couples that are gay won't suddenly not break up and have sex with other people just because they can get legally married. Marriage doesn't increase the amount of devoted pairings, it just gives a title to already devoted pairings.

The way it seems to me, the following are the only possible results:

Gay couples that are already monogamous get married, remaining monogamous.

Gay people who aren't monogamous don't get married and remain so.

People who feel safer and more free to "come out" do so, resulting in them engaging in homosexual relationships for the first time.

It would all be solved, like you said, if everyone wore a condom every time, but for one reason or another, AIDS/HIV is still prevalent among homosexuals--much, much more so than heterosexuals or lesbians. Thus, more homosexuals feeling comfortable enough to come out will mean more people exposing themselves to a community with a greater risk of infection.

It's difficult to measure or predict the effect allowing gay couples to marry would have upon the community at large, but I think it's safe to say a few people at least would be more interested in finding someone special now they could marry.
However, even if these numbers are lower than that of the people who now feel more comfortable about going out, there is no guarantee that these people would adopt the pattern of frequent casual sex which is likely to spread STIs. In fact, I'd argue the opposite, as these are people who have only come out because they can now get married and face some more acceptance.
In any case, the increase in HIV prevalence would be negligible, especially as infection rates globally are declining with increased awareness.

 

[Powereaver]

Im with the people who say a) sex wont just appear because they are getting married and b) there is sexual protection so again not a big deal... on these sorta thoughts we might as well ban hetero marriage for the same things because theres risks of STD's in either option.

 

[WolfThomas]

Is there truth to that? I think that would make much more sense. I always thought it was just a condom thing. Why wear a condom if your partner says they're clean and no matter how much you fuck them you can't get them pregnant?

This study (figure 2 in particular) shows that HIV infection rates are significantly higher in the "versatile" group (men who alternate both top and bottom roles):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779498/


But it is common sense too, more contact with infected bodily fluids, the greater the risk.