Gay Marriage and AIDS

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Its all about awareness, the reason why it was so huge in the 80s/90s was because people were becoming aware

and lets not kid ourselves, HIV/AIDS doesn't discriminate but those who think homosexuals are in anyway special when it comes to the disease do discriminate

letting your partner know if you have a disease, having regular screenings and using protection lower the odds of contraction significantly


all gay marriage will do is bring the equality that america preaches but seldom practices

"Equal rights for everyone! Land of the free! Bring us your tired, cold and huddled masses!"*

...


...


...

[small][small]*Unless they're gay. Or Mexican. Or Chinese. Or come from any country in the middle east.[/small][/small]

 

[Stu35]

snip

Heterosexuality is already commonly accepted. So you're arguing... well, you're arguing as if you hadn't read or understood the topic at all :/

Quite the opposite. I am arguing to the fullest extent of your topic - you theorise that de-demonizing homseuxality (i.e. Treating it the same as heterosexuality) will cause an increase in HIV/AIDS.

I have countered by asking - if we treat homosexuality as we treat heterosexuality (as we damned well should), why on earth should that lead to trends of HIV/AIDS other than those experienced by heterosexuals? There is the mechanical issues that it's easier for gay men to catch HIV/AIDS, but even taking this into account, why have straight people not suffered from some kind of plague of HIV/AIDS? If indeed it's spread is encouraged by the acceptance of marriage - which straight people have ALWAYS had.

So... Yes, I have got the point. You're trying to dodge the counter-question by throwing up the same theories.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

You seemed to have missed the entire point... By a lot...

And every time someone makes a good point you ignore it which has been stated many times on this thread.

If he/she had made an at all relevant point, I would have listened, but they clearly haven't read the OP and are assuming anyone at all in the thread is arguing that more gay people being married would increase AIDS/HIV cases. Again, it's not the people being married at all; it's the effect of more people feeling comfortable enough to "come out," and more people actively involved in the gay community is more people exposing themselves to the risk.

So, yeah... If he/she actually said anything at all related to the actual OP and not their knee-jerk reaction to "zomg someone sed something bad about gay people," I'd be interested. Most people here have assumed I'm against gay marriage, have chosen to not read or think about the actual contents of the OP and then jump on in talking about people getting married. Some people haven't. That last person did.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

snip

Heterosexuality is already commonly accepted. So you're arguing... well, you're arguing as if you hadn't read or understood the topic at all :/

Quite the opposite. I am arguing to the fullest extent of your topic - you theorise that de-demonizing homseuxality (i.e. Treating it the same as heterosexuality) will cause an increase in HIV/AIDS.

I have countered by asking - if we treat homosexuality as we treat heterosexuality (as we damned well should), why on earth should that lead to trends of HIV/AIDS other than those experienced by heterosexuals? There is the mechanical issues that it's easier for gay men to catch HIV/AIDS, but even taking this into account, why have straight people not suffered from some kind of plague of HIV/AIDS? If indeed it's spread is encouraged by the acceptance of marriage - which straight people have ALWAYS had.

So... Yes, I have got the point. You're trying to dodge the counter-question by throwing up the same theories.

Because, as I've said a million times, if we as a community suddenly start treating gay people like actual human beings (as we should, yes) would that not cause men and women who haven't come out yet or ever acted on their feelings to do so? That means more people in the gay community, which means higher statistics.

Example: say there is 100 people in a room. 10 of them are openly gay. 5 of them are in the closet. 85 of them say nothing but bad things. Those 5 "hidden" gay people have no reason to come out, as they are scared of the judgement, of being bullied, of being beaten and disowned. Now, if those 85 decide it's okay to be gay, the 5 "hidden" gay people now feel safe enough to come out and that means there are now 15 people having homosexual sex, which, as we all know, is more likely to pass on HIV/AIDS.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

You seemed to have missed the entire point... By a lot...

And every time someone makes a good point you ignore it which has been stated many times on this thread.

If he/she had made an at all relevant point, I would have listened, but they clearly haven't read the OP and are assuming anyone at all in the thread is arguing that more gay people being married would increase AIDS/HIV cases. Again, it's not the people being married at all; it's the effect of more people feeling comfortable enough to "come out," and more people actively involved in the gay community is more people exposing themselves to the risk.

So, yeah... If he/she actually said anything at all related to the actual OP and not their knee-jerk reaction to "zomg someone sed something bad about gay people," I'd be interested. Most people here have assumed I'm against gay marriage, have chosen to not read or think about the actual contents of the OP and then jump on in talking about people getting married. Some people haven't. That last person did.

I made a relevant point and you cut my post in half, ignored my point and called me a liar. Others called you out on that and you ignored them.

I don't think I'm the only one you have done this to on the thread either.

I think you willingly ignored the point I was making--that I said a LOT more than just "har har, I'm Bi so I can say bad stuff aobut teh gays" as you had implied--in what was nothing painfully silly and pedantic. You knew full well what I meant when I said I didn't say I was bi. Yes, perhaps I should have said "I never said I was just bisexual." You wouldn't let that go and I refused to further engage you.

 

[jurnag12]

Alright, let's ignore for the moment that only a minority of homosexual men engage in regular anal sex (Because, apparently, not everyone finds having a dick shoved up their ass pleasant, regardless of sexual orientation), then how will gay marriage lead to an increase in cases?
If someone with HIV/AIDS married (and let's assume that said marriage is both happy, and faithful), then only one other person would be at risk of contracting it, and even then only if proper precautions aren't taken.
How could this be worse than the same person having no stable relationship (also somewhat strange, seeing as a strong, monogamous relationships will not be prevented by the legality of gay marriage in the area) and having multiple sexual partners, possibly under the influence of things such as alcohol, and thus with a greater chance of forgetting the aforementioned precautions?

EDIT: Being the idiot I am, I was going off on old and bad data. I actually checked it and it appears that the percentage of those who DO engage in it lies around 60% percent according to a 1997 survey from the Stop AIDS Project conducted in San Francisco.

 

[Stu35]

snip

Heterosexuality is already commonly accepted. So you're arguing... well, you're arguing as if you hadn't read or understood the topic at all :/

Quite the opposite. I am arguing to the fullest extent of your topic - you theorise that de-demonizing homseuxality (i.e. Treating it the same as heterosexuality) will cause an increase in HIV/AIDS.

I have countered by asking - if we treat homosexuality as we treat heterosexuality (as we damned well should), why on earth should that lead to trends of HIV/AIDS other than those experienced by heterosexuals? There is the mechanical issues that it's easier for gay men to catch HIV/AIDS, but even taking this into account, why have straight people not suffered from some kind of plague of HIV/AIDS? If indeed it's spread is encouraged by the acceptance of marriage - which straight people have ALWAYS had.

So... Yes, I have got the point. You're trying to dodge the counter-question by throwing up the same theories.

Because, as I've said a million times, if we as a community suddenly start treating gay people like actual human beings (as we should, yes) would that not cause men and women who haven't come out yet or ever acted on their feelings to do so? That means more people in the gay community, which means higher statistics.

Example: say there is 100 people in a room. 10 of them are openly gay. 5 of them are in the closet. 85 of them say nothing but bad things. Those 5 "hidden" gay people have no reason to come out, as they are scared of the judgement, of being bullied, of being beaten and disowned. Now, if those 85 decide it's okay to be gay, the 5 "hidden" gay people now feel safe enough to come out and that means there are now 15 people having homosexual sex, which, as we all know, is more likely to pass on HIV/AIDS.

So, lets recap... There are 10 gay people and 90 straight people in a room (for now).

Homosexuality becomes the Norm, 5 of the straights turn out to be gay and now there are 15 gay people and 85 straight people in the room.


So, lets say 2 of the 10 original gays had AIDS (20%), and 2 of the 90 original straights had AIDS(Roughly 2 and a bit%). The ratio of AIDS in the gays is much higher...

Then there were 5 more gays, chances of ANY them having AIDS in this (ridiculous) scenario of yours, is negligible, So, there are now 15 Gays, 2 of which have AIDS, there are 85 Straights, 2 of which have AIDS. The ratio of Straight people with AIDS has just gone up as these new people find their sexuality.

...

Right, I've addressed a point with others in this thread have already addressed using different arguments, and more more eloquent wording than me.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

snip

Heterosexuality is already commonly accepted. So you're arguing... well, you're arguing as if you hadn't read or understood the topic at all :/

Quite the opposite. I am arguing to the fullest extent of your topic - you theorise that de-demonizing homseuxality (i.e. Treating it the same as heterosexuality) will cause an increase in HIV/AIDS.

I have countered by asking - if we treat homosexuality as we treat heterosexuality (as we damned well should), why on earth should that lead to trends of HIV/AIDS other than those experienced by heterosexuals? There is the mechanical issues that it's easier for gay men to catch HIV/AIDS, but even taking this into account, why have straight people not suffered from some kind of plague of HIV/AIDS? If indeed it's spread is encouraged by the acceptance of marriage - which straight people have ALWAYS had.

So... Yes, I have got the point. You're trying to dodge the counter-question by throwing up the same theories.

Because, as I've said a million times, if we as a community suddenly start treating gay people like actual human beings (as we should, yes) would that not cause men and women who haven't come out yet or ever acted on their feelings to do so? That means more people in the gay community, which means higher statistics.

Example: say there is 100 people in a room. 10 of them are openly gay. 5 of them are in the closet. 85 of them say nothing but bad things. Those 5 "hidden" gay people have no reason to come out, as they are scared of the judgement, of being bullied, of being beaten and disowned. Now, if those 85 decide it's okay to be gay, the 5 "hidden" gay people now feel safe enough to come out and that means there are now 15 people having homosexual sex, which, as we all know, is more likely to pass on HIV/AIDS.

So, lets recap... There are 10 gay people and 90 straight people in a room (for now).

Homosexuality becomes the Norm, 5 of the straights turn out to be gay and now there are 15 gay people and 85 straight people in the room.


So, lets say 2 of the 10 original gays had AIDS (20%), and 2 of the 90 original straights had AIDS(Roughly 2 and a bit%). The ratio of AIDS in the gays is much higher...

Then there were 5 more gays, chances of ANY them having AIDS in this (ridiculous) scenario of yours, is negligible, So, there are now 15 Gays, 2 of which have AIDS, there are 85 Straights, 2 of which have AIDS. The ratio of Straight people with AIDS has just gone up as these new people find their sexuality.

...

Right, I've addressed a point with others in this thread have already addressed using different arguments, and more more eloquent wording than me.

You missed the part (on purpose) where the newly "outed" gay men now have sex with the previously out gay men, meaning better odds they well contract AIDS/HIV. If they had never come out and had sex with those men, their odds of getting the infection would be much lower. MUCH lower. Thus, now they are out, the rates go up.

"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." - http://www.avert.org/gay-sex.htm

 

[Stu35]

snip You missed the part (on purpose) where the newly "outed" gay men now have sex with the previously out gay men, meaning better odds they well contract AIDS/HIV. If they had never come out and had sex with those men, their odds of getting the infection would be much lower. MUCH lower. Thus, now they are out, the rates go up.

Okay, let me add the following to the story:

"They all live in Norway, and therfore were subject to a good, strong sex education programme in school, so the 5 newly outed gays all use condoms".


... Honestly, the only thing you're arguing, as far as I can tell, is better sex education for all, which I completely agree with.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

snip You missed the part (on purpose) where the newly "outed" gay men now have sex with the previously out gay men, meaning better odds they well contract AIDS/HIV. If they had never come out and had sex with those men, their odds of getting the infection would be much lower. MUCH lower. Thus, now they are out, the rates go up.

Okay, let me add the following to the story:

"They all live in Norway, and therfore were subject to a good, strong sex education programme in school, so the 5 newly outed gays all use condoms".


... Honestly, the only thing you're arguing, as far as I can tell, is better sex education for all, which I completely agree with.

Yes, there should be better sex education, because although it seems like common sense, gay men are still contracting and spreading HIV/AIDS more than straight men due to lack of condom use (wearing a condom reduces the likelihood of HIV contraction by a LOT).

I think you willingly ignored the point I was making--that I said a LOT more than just "har har, I'm Bi so I can say bad stuff aobut teh gays" as you had implied--in what was nothing painfully silly and pedantic. You knew full well what I meant when I said I didn't say I was bi. Yes, perhaps I should have said "I never said I was just bisexual." You wouldn't let that go and I refused to further engage you.

You illustrated my point, thank you. I admitted I should have focused on the effect of marriage and not the act and answered your thread again.

You cut that bit out, ignored it and called me a liar. I bring it up now and you still think I care about you being bi.

I don't know what you aren't getting in this scenario. You tried to paint me like someone using a sexual preference as a shield to damn another, going so far as to compare it to a racist asshole saying they "have a black friend." That's insulting and intentionally malicious. Rather than debate the issue at hand, you assumed I was against something I actively support. I don't care if you wanna pretend to take the high ground now, after that, I want nothing to do with you.

Enjoy your day/night.

 

[katsumoto03]

... You know gay people still have sex, right?

Plus, that would be like saying: "Gorsh. Imagine if we outlawed straight marrige. There would be almost no cases of syphilis! Hyuk hyuk"

 

[Kinguendo]

Because gay guys dont have sex outside of marriage... obviously(!)

Why would it see AIDs spike? Because they are in a committed relationship and because they are gay they now all have AIDs and would pass it on to all kinds of people? HOW?! Where would they have gotten AIDs? How wouldnt they know?! The question is super-stupid, does getting married mean you are more likely to catch an STI? It seems like that would mean you were less likely as you are locked into a relationship with 1 partner "til death do you part" and all that.

 

[thiosk]

I think we're talking about two entirely different "types" of homosexual here. Theres the monogamous type, and then theres the multitudes of partners type. Theres some overlap, but legalizing marriage will do nothing to change the various places where men can get together and have anonymous sex and then return to their wives or republican senate seats in the morning.