Gay marriage legal in MD

[Esprix]

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.

Is that something you really want to make the government responsible for? That's sticking their nose into the private life of couples everywhere where it's not warranted, IMHO.

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

Since marriage involves the sexual relations between two people, I have no idea why having those two people tested for HIV would "go a long way in the elmination of the virus." We need to provide safe, reliable testing and responsible information and assistance for people who are sexually active outside of a monogamous relationship to stem the curb of the virus.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

Scroll down to Pg. 17, Table 8, then tell me who the VAST majority of people with AIDS are - men.

Where did I say it wasn't men? I thought I was pretty clear about the prevalence of men vs. women. I was talking about your statistic that 99% of HIV/AIDS patients were gay men or drug users, whereas the statistics seem to point out that 20% of people got it through heterosexual contact (regardless of whether they're men or women) or by some other method.

Again, I don't care if you're straight, gay, bi, male, female, whatever, BE SAFE and don't do stupid things. Hopefully we can agree on that!

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

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 never said that heterosexuals were as statistically likely to get HIV/AIDS as homosexual men; I only said that, according to statistics, 20% of patients get it from heterosexual contact or some other method, not 1% as Vrai seemed to be saying, and that we ALL need to be concerned about our health and welfare.

I'm happy to stick to the facts, no problem there.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

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

I, for one, appreciate you bringing this up. HIV/AIDS has never been a US-only problem, and it's always good to take a step back and see how this disease hurts the entire world (as every disease hurts all of us). It doesn't matter who has it or how you got it - I hope a cure is found and it can be stopped from killing more people everywhere.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

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?

No, in my opinion, if we're talking about a marriage license.

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?

Sure there is, but I believe that's between me and my partner, and not the government's business.

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.

So you talk that out with the woman you're going to marry and make your decisions. Why involve the government?

Again, I'm only talking from a marriage license point of view.

Esprix

 

[vraiblonde]

I was talking about your statistic that 99% of HIV/AIDS patients were gay men or drug users

"99%" is a generic term I use for "the majority". I also say "6 bazillion" or "27 million" as well.

You're such a guy.

 

[Esprix]

"99%" is a generic term I use for "the majority". I also say "6 bazillion" or "27 million" as well.

You're such a guy.

Can't help it - God made me that way.

Esprix

 

[RoseRed]

Esprix...

Have you found a job yet?

 

[Hessian]

It IS the governments business...

because Gays demanded it back in the 80's!
Remember the condemnation of Reagan by the homosexual zealots demanding outrageous funding to study, isolate and find a cure???
Remember how the government squirmed and caved in...giving it far more funding than diseases that were killing more people?

Now we say...keep the government out of our lives?
Oh? how fickle.

If my tax $$ is going to agencies to solve your problem...I have a right to say: OK...so get into peoples private lives if it is going to try to stop a growing menace.


What if it mutates (again!)?...how long would we have to wait while the Government plays catch-up? You've got tens of thousands of little incubators out there and you're telling the government "its none of your business."

you want the funding? drop your drawers.

 

[Esprix]

because Gays demanded it back in the 80's!
Remember the condemnation of Reagan by the homosexual zealots demanding outrageous funding to study, isolate and find a cure???
Remember how the government squirmed and caved in...giving it far more funding than diseases that were killing more people?

Now we say...keep the government out of our lives?
Oh? how fickle.

If my tax $$ is going to agencies to solve your problem...I have a right to say: OK...so get into peoples private lives if it is going to try to stop a growing menace.


What if it mutates (again!)?...how long would we have to wait while the Government plays catch-up? You've got tens of thousands of little incubators out there and you're telling the government "its none of your business."

you want the funding? drop your drawers.

And, again, staying on topic, how is this at all relevant to getting a marriage license, when it involves only 2 people, who have presumably talked about their lives before deciding to live them together, and who will ostensibly not be having sex outside of that marriage? If you think blood tests should be reinsituted as a requirement for a marriage license for the sake of public health, you're not making a very good case.

Again, I'm just as curious why they stopped requiring them, but I haven't had time to do any research (out trying to do my part to bring down western civilization, don't you know - it's hard work!).

Esprix

 

[vraiblonde]

Again, I'm just as curious why they stopped requiring them,

If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say it's because the blood tests were to prevent people from procreating genetically defective children. Now that more and more people are having children out of wedlock, it probably doesn't seem so important anymore.

 

[MMDad]

If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say it's because the blood tests were to prevent people from procreating genetically defective children. Now that more and more people are having children out of wedlock,
it probably doesn't seem so important anymore.

From my earlier post. I would like to hear any rebuttal.

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.

 

[vraiblonde]

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.

That could be too :shrug:

 

[Esprix]

OK, did a little research on marriage licenses and blood tests. (Who said the intarwebs isn't educational?)

First, it seems that marriage licenses were first issued by the state as a way to prevent interracial marriages - if you weren't both of the same race, you had to get permission from the state (a license). Eventually the practice spread to every couple, and in the 1940's (I think) a national law was enacted and every state adopted the policy.

Now we get to blood tests. I found the following interesting article:

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/35320/35323/361888.html?d=dmtHMSContent

To summarize, blood tests were not given to check for blood type compatibility or to see if you are related; they were given to test for syphilis and rubella to prevent transmission to partner or to future children (and, they thought, to the rest of the population), and started in the 1930's and 40's.

So why abandon them?

There appears to be relatively little impact on either disease, especially considering the inconvenience and expense of testing all people planning to marry. Perhaps when sexually transmitted diseases were more common among couples planning to marry, screening made more sense. And, although the problem of sexually transmitted disease has certainly not gone away, studies since the 1970s have demonstrated remarkably few new cases of syphilis detected by premarital blood testing. According to a study in California, only 35 cases were detected among 300,000 persons tested in 1979. This translated into a cost of $240,000 for each case detected!

In addition, testing before marriage doesn't preclude getting an STD after marriage, plus both rubella and syphilis are routinely checked during pregnancy anyway.

The following states still require blood tests:

1. Connecticut — A syphilis test is required for men and women; a rubella test is required for women.
2. Georgia — A syphilis test is required for men and women; a rubella test is required for women.
3. Indiana — A rubella test is required for women.
4. Massachusetts — A syphilis test was required for men and women; and a rubella test was required for women. However, these requirements were eliminated in early 2005.
5. Mississippi — A syphilis test is required for men and women.
6. Montana — A rubella test is required for women.
7. Oklahoma — A syphilis test is required for men and women.
8. Washington, D.C.

In the case of Massachusetts, which recently dropped the requirements for premarital blood testing, officials stated that the detection rates for syphilis and rubella were nearly zero.

The article does mention that some screening has also included tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and HIV, but the HIV testing "did not last long at least in part because of very low detection rates."

Interesting, no?

Esprix

 

[Hessian]

Very interesting....that is a good find.
I would think that with today's technology, a blood test should..
a) be noticeably cheaper
b) cover a variety of other diseases
c) be of interest to universities & hospitals as they anticipate needs of the next generation.

so,...why is it fading instead of increasing?

 

[Esprix]

Very interesting....that is a good find.
I would think that with today's technology, a blood test should..
a) be noticeably cheaper
b) cover a variety of other diseases
c) be of interest to universities & hospitals as they anticipate needs of the next generation.

so,...why is it fading instead of increasing?

Since they're discontinuing them as late as early 2005, it looks like today's technology is irrelevant to why they don't do them. I'd guess that other preventative measures - education, other medical resources, etc. - make the blood test in order to get a marriage license redundant, as evidenced by the fact that they find virtually no cases when they do them (which seems to be why they've discontinued them).

Esprix