Gay Marriage and AIDS

[Vegosiux]

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?

You do realize that being gay does not make you more AIDS-susceptible, right?

The thing is that gay people on average have more sex partners according to some studies (that I never bothered to read because I don't care about how many people others fuck), so it makes sense.

So if anything, gay marriage would decrease the reported cases, assuming the people in question stop sleeping with others.

 

[demoman_chaos]

-snip-

Sadface.

Here are some truths. Gays do not have a higher risk of AIDS, considering what the disease actually is. AIDS means you have no immune system, which comes from a LOT of differencet factors recently lumped together. If you are malnourished, you are very likely to have a weak immune system and thus AIDS. Live in a bubble of disinfectant where you can't face germs and build immunity, AIDS. Take AIDS medication which is generally a cell terminator, you get AIDS.

All the people in Africa with AIDS did not get it from the lack of condoms, they got it from the lack of food and decent water. Many diseases can lead to a weak immune system. By definition, my little sister had AIDS when she had her kidney transplant since the medication suppressed her immune system to keep it from attacking the new kidney.

 

[Eamar]

snip

I don't think bisexual means what you think it means... it has nothing to do with a 50/50 split in preferences, it just means you're attracted to both males and females (and not necessarily at the same time, as some people seem to think).

Please do some research before you accuse me of "bullshitting." I'm pretty sure I'm more aware of my own sexual preferences than you are.

EDIT: and for the people who are confused, it's anal sex, not homosexuality in and of itself that is the high risk activity. Gay men are more likely to be having anal sex than straight people (though not every gay man does anal, and plenty of straight people do, of course), and to have it with multiple partners over the course of their lifetime, who are themselves more likely to have had anal sex with multiple partners who have had anal sex and... yeah. That's why it's more likely.

The reason anal sex is higher risk is because it's much more likely to result in micro-tears in the anal wall, which is thinner than the vaginal wall or mouth and does not self-lubricate like those orifices do, and that leads to contact with blood, which can spread HIV/AIDS.

Condoms would solve a whole lot of this, of course.

 

[agrajagthetesty]

Unless you're an it, I'm pretty sure you're male or female unless I missed a new gender type being created?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=genderqueer

http://genderqueerid.com/what-is-gq

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Huh. And here was me thinking married people have less sex, or so the television tells me.

 

[Sandytimeman]

Gay men really DO have more chance to pass on HIV? I thought that was a myth. . .

It is a myth, please educate yourself.

http://www.cshor.org/aids-is-something-only-gay-people-encounter.php

 

[Sandytimeman]

Gay men really DO have more chance to pass on HIV? I thought that was a myth. . .

It is a myth, please educate yourself.

http://www.cshor.org/aids-is-something-only-gay-people-encounter.php

I was right and I'M the one who has to educate myself?

"I thought" to me sounds past tense,I thought you let the crazy OP convince you that it was true sorry. I spend all day with people telling me what gay people do and don't do. (and being gay and them always being wrong) Its exhausting and frustrating some days T_T

 

[Dastardly]

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?

Here's my take:

1. You might see a spike in the number of reported cases. This could very well be because more people would report it. There are probably plenty of folks who keep it secret, or don't even get tested at all, for fear that even getting tested would somehow "out" them. An increase in reported cases doesn't always mean in increase in incidence.

2. The primary reason AIDS has its stigma is because it is so attached to homosexuality in the public consciousness. If homosexuality were socially "decriminalized," that could help to raise AIDS awareness among straight folks, too.

3. Let's say, hypothetically, that an area's population with AIDS were exclusively homosexual. And that homosexuality was still as "taboo" as it is in some places now. It'd be more likely for some of those homosexual people to engage in heterosexual "cover" relationships to hide their orientation, thus increasing the likelihood of it "crossing over" to the heterosexual population. Basically, everything spreads faster when it's forced underground.

 

[frizzlebyte]

I'd think it would actually decrease the number of cases. If you look at societies where sexual practices (heterosexual or otherwise) were severely repressed or delegitimized, you tend to see a rather large number of venereal disease, due to an "underground" of sex-related services and activities.

For example, I've heard (on the History Channel, I believe) that it is estimated that somewhere between 60% - 80% of Victorian-era British men had some form of VD, due to frequent access to brothels and whatnot.

For a more modern example, when they legalized prostitution in India, the total cases of VD dropped like a stone (I want to say by about half, but I'm not sure). The reason is that they get access to healthcare, and can refuse service (no pun, just couldn't think of any other term for it) to anyone they feel threatens their health.

 

[NightHawk21]

Technically gay people have the same rights--everyone can marry the opposite gender

But yeah, would be nice if we could marry whoever we loved, regardless of gender (so long as they are an adult). It's one of those issues like racism, that just makes you wonder how anyone thinks differently from you. I'd love to actually see a proper debate between a pro-gay marriage group and an anti-gay marriage group. The only possible thing I think the anti group could come up with is that gay men are more likely to have and to spread HIV/AIDS, but that's hardly a reason to stop every gay man or woman from marrying their loved one. Kind of like if one white guy got in a car accident and they made it illegal for all white men to drive--no need to punish the innocent and such.

Whoa Whoa Whoa, hold the hell up. Grey I already called you a troll and I'm pretty sure people have pointed out that you have a) no proof for these statements, and b) you're ignoring a lot of posts made in this thread that which address your arguments. That said that bolded part right above here (^) is getting pretty close to hate speech.

What? That's not hate speech. Why would I hate gay men when I am psychically male (mentally I'm neither gender) and have myself dated men? It's a known fact that homosexual men are more likely to have HIV/AIDS than heterosexual men (lesbians are very unlikely to contract them, due to the nature of their sex) because anal sex is a lot more risky than vaginal sex; the walls of the anus are quite thin and prone to tearing during sex, thus meaning a higher likelihood of blood on blood contact.

"In many countries, men who have sex with men have been heavily affected by HIV and AIDS. HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men has been found to be as high as 25% in Ghana, 30% in Jamaica, 43% in coastal Kenya and 25% in Thailand. In the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many parts of Western Europe, more people have become infected with HIV through male-male sex than through any other transmission route." - [link]http://www.avert.org/gay-sex.htm[/link]

That's no more hate speech than saying women are more likely to have breasts than men, lol.

Yes, homosexual men are more likely to have HIV, but that is due to the smaller number of homosexual males as opposed to straight males. I'm also aware of the transmission process, and you should be aware that anal sex is by no means exclusive only to the gay community. In addition, a lot of these risks can be mitigated by safe sexual practices. As for why I said it was getting close to hate speech is because a)it discriminates against an entire population based on about 20% of the community, and b)the way in which you worded it makes it seem like they are purposefully spreading the disease, which is a sensitive subject what with that being a crime and whatnot.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

OK, so bodily fluids isn't what carries HIV. Blood spreads HIV. Only blood. It's a virus that lies within a person's white blood cells. Sperm does not carry it, but I think there might be some in feces since that contains broken down blood cells. The reason gay men catches it more frequently is that anal sex is more likely to cause tears and contact with blood than when a man and a woman has sex (though that happens too).

Please learn the actual theory behind something before you try to correct someone.

 

[ElPatron]

Wait.

There are enough gay people to trigger a spike in the whole population? I didn't know that.

Anyway, as a factor alone I don't think it would make a big difference.

OK, so bodily fluids isn't what carries HIV.

Really? Because I did a search and vaginal fluids, semen, pre-seminal fluids and breat milk have high concentrations of HIV.

Was there a recent breakthrough or something?

This topic

Spoiler: NEEDS MORE SMBC

Sorry for tackling that comic but the author ignored two important things:
- You can't own an assault rifle in the US unless you're willing to pay about 15,000 bucks and go trough a thorough background check by the ATF.
- A seven day waiting period doesn't count as a "license".

 

[Leadfinger]

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?

Your facts aren't correct. In most regions of the world the group with the highest rates of HIV is people who have heterosexual intercourse.(According to the CDC)

 

[Maze1125]

Gay men really DO have more chance to pass on HIV? I thought that was a myth. . .

It's complicated issue. In any individual encounter, homosexual men are no more likely to pass on HIV than a heterosexual couple.
But the key difference is that, with a male homosexual couple, both people can be on the receiving end of penetration, while in a heterosexual couple, only one can.
This means that male homosexuals can pass HIV exponentially amongst their population, while heterosexuals can only pass it linearly.

The "upside" of this, however, is that female homosexuals, for the most part, cannot pass HIV amongst themselves at all.

 

[Maze1125]

OK, so bodily fluids isn't what carries HIV. Blood spreads HIV. Only blood. It's a virus that lies within a person's white blood cells. Sperm does not carry it, but I think there might be some in feces since that contains broken down blood cells. The reason gay men catches it more frequently is that anal sex is more likely to cause tears and contact with blood than when a man and a woman has sex (though that happens too).

You're quite mixed up there.
If a person has HIV, then the virus exists in the majority of their bodily fluids.
However, the HIV virus is very weak, and so someone without it can have as much contact with those fluids as they like, even ingest it, and not catch the virus, as it'll die before it can do anything, unless the fluid in question ends up in their blood, at which point the virus in the conditions it needs to survive and propagate.

So, yes, blood is involved, but it's the blood of the person without the virus that matters, not the blood of the person with the virus.

Please learn the actual theory behind something before you try to correct someone.

You may wish to ensure that you yourself have everything straight before you say things like that in future. Otherwise it can reflect badly upon you.

 

[J-meMalone]

Gay men really DO have more chance to pass on HIV? I thought that was a myth. . .

It is a myth, please educate yourself.

http://www.cshor.org/aids-is-something-only-gay-people-encounter.php

That site says NOTHING about whether or not gay men have a higher chance to pass on HIV, just that it isn't exclusive to the gay community, which isn't what he suggested.

From my understanding, the disease is most likely to be passed on through anal sex due to a much higher chance of tearing compared to other kinds of sex. Gay men are the most likely group to partake in anal sex, and so in that sense they do have a higher chance of passing on HIV. Of course that doesn't make it exclusive to gay men since the disease can easily be passed through other forms of sex also.

Interestingly, I seem to remember reading that sex between two women is the least likely to pass on HIV, but don't quote me on that...