Gay Marriage and AIDS

[Grey Day for Elcia]

There is no guarantee that these people would adopt the pattern of frequent casual sex which is likely to spread STIs.

A) is that mentality common among gay people? B) if it is, wouldn't that continue for the newly outed homosexuals? I mean, gay men are statistically more likely to contract AIDS and HIV, so wouldn't more men embracing their sexuality and coming out of the closet mean they are exposing themselves to a infamously infectious community? It would be nice if we could simply assume people would use condoms, but sadly AIDS exists because people aren't wearing them, especially among the poor and the homosexual.

I think you're overestimating the importance of marriage. Gay people (from my experience) are already looking for love just as much as heterosexual people who can already marry. It suddenly being legal wouldn't, in my opinion, make anyone who wasn't already going to be part of a committed relationship suddenly want to.

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.

Except no one said anything about banning anything. " 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."

I don't think you read the OP. I actually said: "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." Later adding: "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."

It has very little to do with actual marriage and everything to do with social stigma and demonizing a sexuality into silence.

Ccaptcha: bruce lee. lul.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

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

Am I a horrible, horrible person for mentally making a zombie joke when reading that? >_>

 

[Thaluikhain]

Heterosexual pairings rarely result in HIV spreading, only a fraction more than that of lesbian pairings, in any case.

That's not what I've been led to believe.

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

Oh, I understand that, it's just that the idea comes with a lot of unwanted baggage.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Heterosexual pairings rarely result in HIV spreading, only a fraction more than that of lesbian pairings, in any case.

That's not what I've been led to believe.

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

Oh, I understand that, it's just that the idea comes with a lot of unwanted baggage.

True. Kind of sad that a topic of great importance (AIDS and HIV aint no joke) is marred by backwards zealots.

 

[bobmus]

There is no guarantee that these people would adopt the pattern of frequent casual sex which is likely to spread STIs.

A) is that mentality common among gay people? B) if it is, wouldn't that continue for the newly outed homosexuals? I mean, gay men are statistically more likely to contract AIDS and HIV, so wouldn't more men embracing their sexuality and coming out of the closet mean they are exposing themselves to a infamously infectious community? It would be nice if we could simply assume people would use condoms, but sadly AIDS exists because people aren't wearing them, especially among the poor and the homosexual.

I think you're overestimating the importance of marriage. Gay people (from my experience) are already looking for love just as much as heterosexual people who can already marry. It suddenly being legal wouldn't, in my opinion, make anyone who wasn't already going to be part of a committed relationship suddenly want to.

A: It's common, in the same way lots of heterosexual people want to not be monogamous and just hook-up randomly.
B: As I said, people who would only come out because of gay marriage being legalised are likely to be less confident in their sexuality, and therefore less likely to enter this scene. Some will, but as I said, the overall effect would be negligible.

I never said it would be a big thing, just that a few people would be inspired to look for love in light of new laws on tolerance.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I never said it would be a big thing, just that a few people would be inspired to look for love in light of new laws on tolerance.

Do you think anyone who places so much importance on a legal title that before they could be married they didn't even want a monogamous relationship, is the kind of person of whom we could expect a fifty-year marriage?

I honestly don't think a single homosexual man or woman would suddenly become monogamous because they can one day walk down the isle. Maybe I'm blinded by my personal bias, but from my experience, the only gay people I've met that want to get married, are already committed to one another and have had their own commitment ceremony (I think that's what it was called).

I really should have another look for some statistics on this stuff. To Google!

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

No!

Hell no!

Sorry, I didn't quite catch your position on the matter

But seriously: thanks for your opinion. You've given me a lot to add to my Google research list.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

A lot of what we think about AIDS and the like is due to the moral panic that occured during the 80's about it. The term "Gay Plague" was common throughout that timeperiod. We are only starting to move on.

In all fairness, it was something of a plague within the gay community. Heterosexual people certainly became infected too (and still do) but due to lack of condom use and the much greater risk of infection via anal sex than vaginal or oral, homosexuals were, for a brief time, plagued.

Also: you called your sister genderless but use female words to refer to her. Why is that? I consider myself neither male nor female, but take on either role as the mood strikes me. Is this the case with her? If I might ask, of course. None of my business.

 

[DoPo]

This topic

Spoiler: NEEDS MORE SMBC

Anyway, I really doubt the HIV infections would suddenly rise if gay marriage is legalised.

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.

What do you mean? D&D is cool, you know...OK, not that cool. But yeah, after all, that wouldn't cause a sudden and sharp increase in mass homosexual orgies or anything. It would be a gradual increase. Besides, it's even easier to prevent AIDS if you're being open about it. So any of the people to come out after, will have the benefit of not only being accepted more, but being better informed. Common fucking sense[footnote]Yes, precisely![/footnote].

 

[Skratt]

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....

Thread over, there isn't much more that can be said past this.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

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....

Pretty much this.

Once again GDFE shows a lack of common sense. You do realise people who are married will only have 1 partner so they will be much less likely to be infected among other things?

Oh dear, you mustn't have read the OP. I actually stated several times that the actual marriage isn't the issue. If you had read, well, you'd know that.

Also: you think the ability to be legally married makes a difference to people? Not like committed gay couples exist now, right? "Oh, I can now legally marry? Guess I'ma only have one partner, 'cause I slept around all the time before." Lol. Heterosexual people can marry and none of them ever have sex out of wedlock, have an affair or get a divorce, huh? Nope.

Come now. If you're going to comment in a topic, at least take the time to read the OP like everyone else.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

This reduces the chance of infection for that proportion of people compared to now where there is no marriage at all.

That's right, there is no marriage. And? You trying to suggest gay couples don't stay together now? They need a marriage license to form a committed relationship? I can't wait to see you try to backflip on that one. You couldn't have stuck your foot in your mouth any harder, lol.

Think about what you say before you say it, please.

Also, again, this ins't about the marriage. If you really did read, you would see that mentioned several times already.