Gay marriage legal in MD

[MMDad]

Finally got the data. 2003 is the last year that the data is finalized. That year, influenza was the seventh leading cause of death in the US, with 65,163 deaths. AIDS didn't make the top 15.

If you really think this is a public health matter, you would be attacking at least one of the top 15 killers in the U.S. The truth is, AIDS is not a serious public health issue unless you are on either lunatic fringe, as a damnation type zealot or a "everybody is gay inside" Kennedy.

There are serious public health threats that blood tests before marriage could ameliorate, but why would we give the government that authority?

 

[Esprix]

There are serious public health threats that blood tests before marriage could ameliorate, but why would we give the government that authority?

I'm actually curious why the blood test requirement existed in the first place, and why it's all but stopped today. I'll have to do a little digging.

Esprix

 

[MMDad]

Hey, and let's not forget all the other diseases out there - hepatitis (A, B & C), mono, strep, and on and on and on. You are FAR more likely to contract any of those than HIV. Then I guess we'll need to start screening people for cancer, heart disease, liver problems, and the like. After that, perhaps alcoholism and drug use, smoking, and then maybe swearing.

Hmmm. This is getting complicated, isn't it?

Esprix

Sorry, but you aren't helping yourself by just naming diseases without data and facts. I agree with your principle - that homosexuality is not a public health risk - but stick to facts or you become incredible.

 

[Esprix]

Sorry, but you aren't helping yourself by just naming diseases without data and facts. I agree with your principle - that homosexuality is not a public health risk - but stick to facts or you become incredible.

My point is, there's no reason to test for HIV to get a marriage license, and I can't understand why some people think there is.

Esprix

 

[bcp]

Hey, and let's not forget all the other diseases out there - hepatitis (A, B & C), mono, strep, and on and on and on. You are FAR more likely to contract any of those than HIV. Then I guess we'll need to start screening people for cancer, heart disease, liver problems, and the like. After that, perhaps alcoholism and drug use, smoking, and then maybe swearing.

Hmmm. This is getting complicated, isn't it?

Esprix

lets see, to work in a food type industry, I belive you do have to be tested for hepatitis. so, whats your point there? and the law is in place to wash ones hands after using the facility to reduce the chance of hepatitis being transmitted from waste.
Test positive for Hepatitis, and you dont work around the food. A useless argument in this instance.

now, why would we worry about cancer, heart disease, liver problems (except hepititis) when they are not going to be spread from person to person? throwing those in were useless in your argument.

alcoholism and drug use, smoking, and then maybe swearing.
Im sure you are aware that employers are allowed and frequently do use testing to make sure their employees are not abusing alcohol and drugs, so these two dont fall into your argument in a useful way.

smoking, are you aware that there are laws that protect the non smoker from the smoker? again,, not much use in the argument on your part.

Swearing.. Stand on the corner in public somewhere and just start swearing at people as they walk or drive by.. the judge will explain to you why this also fails any use in your above argument.


please do try a little harder if you can.

 

[MMDad]

I'm actually curious why the blood test requirement existed in the first place, and why it's all but stopped today. I'll have to do a little digging.

Esprix

The answer lies in the treatability of STD's back when these laws were made. Since they had a risk of fatality back then, it was reasonable given the morals and ethics of the time. They assumed that the wedding night would be the first sexual contact, so screening would prevent transmission. Kind of like how teaching abstinence would prevent all STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion.

The limited genetic screening, such as sickle cell, was added later as available, but eventually most states realized it was not cost efficient. I suspect that the only reason any states still test is that there have been no effective challenges. Yet.

 

[MMDad]

My point is, there's no reason to test for HIV to get a marriage license, and I can't understand why some people think there is.

Esprix

I understand your point, but if you say anything wrong here you will be picked apart. Stick to facts and only idiots can argue.

 

[Esprix]

please do try a little harder if you can.

Interesting post, but perhaps you could try a little harder and explain to me what any of that has to do with marriage?

Esprix

 

[bcp]

What it has to do with marriage is that the partners deserve the right to know if they are marrying into a disease that is most likely going to kill them.
the unfortunate reality is that most people that transmit AIDs as well as other STDs, have no clue that they have them at the time.

To just assume that you are safe is a very large problem and has a great deal to do with the spread of the disease.

mandatory testing would go a long way in the elimination of the virus.

 

[MMDad]

What it has to do with marriage is that the partners deserve the right to know if they are marrying into a disease that is most likely going to kill them.
the unfortunate reality is that most people that transmit AIDs as well as other STDs, have no clue that they have them at the time.

To just assume that you are safe is a very large problem and has a great deal to do with the spread of the disease.

mandatory testing would go a long way in the elimination of the virus.

Are you really gullible enough to think that the homosexual community enters into marriage before having sex? That's rare in the hetero community! Please come up with a better argument that that!

 

[vraiblonde]

What it has to do with marriage is that the partners deserve the right to know if they are marrying into a disease that is most likely going to kill them.

Marriage blood tests aren't to see whether you're going to kill each other by having sex. As MMDad already pointed out, it's probably too late for that.

The reason they do a blood test is to see if you have any genetic disorders that you're going to pass on to any children from the union. And that's a moot point in the gay marriage debate for obvious reasons.

 

[vraiblonde]

The heterosexual community is just as in danger of getting HIV as the gay community, because it has to do with the exchange of bodily fluids, which know no orientation.

Wrong.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2004SurveillanceReport.pdf

Scroll down to Pg. 17, Table 8, then tell me who the VAST majority of people with AIDS are - men. And gay men top the list, with IV drug using men second after hetero women who had sex with...men (who I suspect are either bi or drug users - the AIDS came from somewhere).

Notice that there are no stats for lesbian women? That's because they're not in a risk category.

Table 9 shows that out of all men with the AIDS virus, 86% of them are either gay or IV drug users or both. Out of the women, 71% of them got the virus from a man.

 

[Tonio]

Scroll down to Pg. 17, Table 8, then tell me who the VAST majority of people with AIDS are - men. And gay men top the list, with IV drug using men second after hetero women who had sex with...men (who I suspect are either bi or drug users - the AIDS came from somewhere).

That's true of the U.S. But in Africa, where AIDS is much more prevalent, the disease is primarily a woman's disease:

http://globalhealth.org/view_top.php3?id=227

Many women (in Africa), particularly married women, cannot control the circumstances under which sex takes place. Research in several countries shows that for far too many young girls, the first sexual experience is coerced or forced. Married women are especially unable to negotiate sex or condom use with their husbands who may have extramarital partners. Some research indicates that married women are in fact more at risk for HIV than unmarried women because they are more frequently exposed to intercourse within marriage.

 

[MMDad]

That's true of the U.S. But in Africa, where AIDS is much more prevalent, the disease is primarily a woman's disease:

http://globalhealth.org/view_top.php3?id=227

Here's your new siggy:

"nobody can bring irrelevance to a debate as well as Tonio" - MMDad

 

[Kain99]

Wrong.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2004SurveillanceReport.pdf

Scroll down to Pg. 17, Table 8, then tell me who the VAST majority of people with AIDS are - men. And gay men top the list, with IV drug using men second after hetero women who had sex with...men (who I suspect are either bi or drug users - the AIDS came from somewhere).

Notice that there are no stats for lesbian women? That's because they're not in a risk category.

Table 9 shows that out of all men with the AIDS virus, 86% of them are either gay or IV drug users or both. Out of the women, 71% of them got the virus from a man.

Dayum those stats will scare ya straight.

 

[vraiblonde]

Dayum those stats will scare ya straight.

Yeah, and they'll scare ya drug-free, too.








Anyway, my BIL says that anyone who protects themselves typically doesn't have to worry about it. And he picks up any Latino cabana boy that gives him a wink and he's still healthy, so I figure he oughta know.

 

[Tonio]

Here's your new siggy:

"nobody can bring irrelevance to a debate as well as Tonio" - MMDad

Not bad!

Seriously, I was trying to refute Espirix's point about the heteros being just as statistically likely to get AIDS, and answer Vrai's stats about AIDS in the U.S.

 

[MMDad]

Not bad!

Seriously, I was trying to refute Espirix's point about the heteros being just as statistically likely to get AIDS, and answer Vrai's stats about AIDS in the U.S.

I knew what you meant, but if I weren't sarcastic, you would lose all of the respect that you don't have for me. Since we're talking about gay marriage in MD, it's stretching to use US data, but it's the best available.

 

[Hessian]

I like it when forumites hit the stats...

Some of that data was very thought provoking.

Let me pull out just one observation:
If 20% of the people are carrying HIV without knowing it....
(and HIV naturally turns into full blown Aids...which naturally leads to death...)
Then isn't it the Government's business to step in and require testing (like the hepititis issue) for anyone entering a relationship who's behavior puts them at a much higher risk of fatal infection?

The statistics for gay men show multiple "fluid" exchanges long before the "settle down" with one partner.--thus High likelyhood of STD's and even AIDS.
Isn't there any curiousity in the gay community regarding what "bugs" are being exchanged?

If I were young and about to marry a women who has a loose reputation...I think I'd like to know what medical treatment I'm gonna need in the next 6 month.

 

[MMDad]

Some of that data was very thought provoking.

Let me pull out just one observation:
If 20% of the people are carrying HIV without knowing it....
(and HIV naturally turns into full blown Aids...which naturally leads to death...)
Then isn't it the Government's business to step in and require testing (like the hepititis issue) for anyone entering a relationship who's behavior puts them at a much higher risk of fatal infection?

The statistics for gay men show multiple "fluid" exchanges long before the "settle down" with one partner.--thus High likelyhood of STD's and even AIDS.
Isn't there any curiousity in the gay community regarding what "bugs" are being exchanged?

If I were young and about to marry a women who has a loose reputation...I think I'd like to know what medical treatment I'm gonna need in the next 6 month.

I understand your point, and in ideal world it would be perfect. Of course, in a perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary.

The concept of marriage being the beginning of a sexual relationship is obsolete. Unfortunately, it is now the exception rather than the rule. Pre-marital testing may have been relevant at one time, but it no longer is. It would be great if we could acheive that ethical and moral level, but as humans we never have, and we are not likely to acheive that morality before the rapture.