Good news and finally good to see some common sense!
Maybe the logic is a little unusual…but hey, I’ll take it! Thanks Taiwan, and good luck with your push for equality.
I think the logic behind this is totally bonkers & may backfire as it depicts gay men in a negative stereotypical way, which just re-afffirms what the religious bigots think about gay men & HIV. The notion that HIV / STI infections only occur outside of marriage is rediculous, HIV does not dicriminate on the basis of sexuality, marriage status, ethnicity etc.
This is an attempt to put a monetary value on the benefits of marriage equality at the expense of singling out the cost of HIV treatment & care. Whilst I am all in favour of marriage equality I am also in favour of health equality, singling out HIV treatment costs for gay men does not seem to be very equitable to me!
I wonder how much Taiwan spends on HIV & STI prevention campaigns each year?
Unfortunately, HIV does discriminate on the basis of sexuality and ethnicity. According to the CDC’s statistics, gay men in the USA are 300 times more likely to get HIV than straight men, and blacks are 50 times more likely to get HIV than whites.
I’m gay myself and totally support the provision of equal rights, but there’s no point in denying statistical reality. In fact, I’d go further: gay men, as a community, need to take on collective responsibility for preventing HIV. We need to be honest about the fact we are a high-risk population and work together to prevent more lives from being lost.
Second, why can’t we put a monetary value on the benefits of equal rights? There is a clear benefit for promoting responsible sexual behavior and it would be irresponsible not to look at all the dimensions of the problem, including the overall financial benefit.
A virus is just looking for a host which in the case of HIV is the Human T Lymphocyte immune cells; you are confusing the prevelance of HIV amongst certain groups with the ability of HIV to infect anyone. I totally agree that the MSM community need to take responsibility and have honest conversations about the risk that HIV poses to them. You also seem to suggest that it is only gay men that enage in irresponsible sexual behaviours & that straight guys are all virtuous and never engage in irrepsonbile sexual behaviours. Surely this is waht bigots argue!
The point I am making is that Marriage Equality should not be dependant on how much money can be saved on healthcare costs, but on the principle that if two individuals wish to marry they should be able to do so regardless of the potential financial implications. This is clutching at straws, throw the kitchen sink of arguments at Equal Marriage, never mind if it continues to perpertuate negative stereo-types about gay men & PLWHIV.
That is the kind of stupid, bad-faith argumentation that makes me hate the internet. People who respond to solid statistical facts and valid generalizations as though they’re absolute binary claims. The response to “Gay men have 300 times higher risk of HIV” is not “Oh, so ONLY gay men ever get HIV do they?”. No, and saying that just makes you look like an idiot, to be honest.
And who cares what bigots argue? That’s irrelevant to whether the facts are true or not. The FACT is that gay men are at much higher risk of contracting HIV than other groups of the population. For all your blather about biology, there is a much greater propensity for HIV transmission via rectal mucosa, which is compounded by gays tending to have more unprotected anal sex and also by blacks having a more transmissive CCR5 coreceptor genotype.
I am not denying the statistical evidence at all in fact I am often criticised for my use of statistical evidence, gay men are at greater risk of contracting HIV, BUT how does this equate for the argument for Equal Marriage? The “health benefits” of marriage have been seized upon & it looks like a desperate attempt to win the argument for equal marriage, which I beleive only plays into the hands of those who oppose it.
The idea that HIV transmission rates will consistently drop as a result gay men being able to get married is rather flawed – there is a greater viral load within the gay community which will continue to fuel onward transmission regardless of marriage status. Some gay men already make the mistake when being part of a couple stop using condoms prior to testing, only to find out later that 1 or both partners is HIV+ . HIV transmission is about behaviour as you rightly acknolwedge, behavioural change as a result of being married will not impact greatly on new infections
“Oh, so ONLY gay men ever get HIV do they?”. No, and saying that just makes you look like an idiot, to be honest.”
Frizzled this is your interpretation of what I have posted here…………….I think you will find that I clearly understand that HIV does not discriminate, something you have questioned, so it would seem you are the confused party here & have now resorted to calling me an idiot – very sensible debating, but to be expected here on PN.
I still do not see the argument for highlighting the cost associated with HIV treatment as a valid reason to back equal marriage, it is a red herring & one that those who oppose marriage equality will make mileage out of.
I would treat this more as one of the well documented health benefits of marriage, which in general terms also apply to straight men – who live on average longer than (single) straight men. Other obvious benefgits, less likelhood of heavy smoking, drinking and use of recreational drugs – not to mention having a huisband/wife to nag you out of unhealthy habits (it certainly did for me).
Actually it’s the religious bigots who don’t have a leg to stand on claiming the gay people are feckless and irresposnible on the one hand and then denying us equal access to the main social institution intended to promote stability.
That’s a bit like accusing people of being illiterate and using that as a pretext to deny them access top schools…
But marriage has a negative impact on the health of straight married women.
Straight men benefit from marriage and live longer than single men.
Straight women benefit from being unmarried and live longer than married women.
Trying to link marriage with health is completely unnecessary.
Equal civil rights are not decided on their health benefits.
I said that this was one of many factors. And the claim that married women fare less well – which has been disputed anyway, would not really have much bearing on a marriage between gay men – though it would be interesting to see what the average effects on Lesbian health would be.
By all means make the equality points. However it seems crazy not to look at the social benefits of marriage as well. After all marriage would not exist at all – at least as a state privileged by the state, if there was not a majority consensus that society as a whole benefited from it.
The social benefits of marriage among straight people only applied in the past to men (and even nowadays marriage is better for straight men than it is for straight women.)
Marriage has until the 20th century been a means of men continuing their bloodlines/family name; having an unpaid servant and consolidating their family wealth.
You seem to have a very rose-tinted view of what marriage traditionally has been.
These days it can be regarded as a business contract that has financial benefits for those involved in it.
Getting married does not affect social behaviour. 50% of straight marriages end in divorce after all.
Seems eminently logical to me.
One of the (many) arguments for marriage equality is that, by promoting monogamous permanent relationships it should significantly reduce the opportunities for STDs to spread.
Our civil rights should not be dependent on being in a monogamous permanent relationship.
And remember that many people marry for reasons other than love.
Marrying for love is a nice theory but until very recently people married for money, stability, influence and security.
Any many still do – those marriages are just as valid and worthwhile as a love marriage (and will probably last longer.)
Well that’s what marriage is, irrespective of sexual orientation.
If anyone, gay or straight, doesn’t want the strings attached then the answer is simple – don’t get married.
And as for people who marry for “influence”. Please, save that for the Borgias…
Getting married for a green card is as valid and as legal as getting married for love.
You do realise that don’t you?
Marriage is a business contract that impacts people’s personal lives.
It is only since the 1930′s that marriage became about ‘love’. It was never thus before.
I want gay people to be able to marry on a whim and get immediately divorced if they want to.
After all that is what equality means
I don’t think using a marriage just to get a green card is quite as easy as or as accepted as you think.
And as for your views about marriage pre 1930s well I think you’ve been reading too many stories about the decadent aristocracy. Why are almost all 19th century novels about love and marriage?
I don’t see this as a gay / straight issue. There will be plenty of straight people who share your rather free and easy approach to marriage, but I think that if temporary marriages for all sorts of reasons became the norm, society would no longer have much reason to give it special status. You’d end up with marriage purely as in effect a privvate contract.
Fine campaign for that if you want. But don’t treat this as a specifically gay rights issue.
Getting married for a green card is actually a lot easier than you think. It just takes a little planning.
Also it is a fact that traditionally marriage has been FAR better for men than it has for women. I look at my own parents and can see that.
Those 19th Century novels (written by Jane Austen and the Brontes and the like) were predominantly about love and marriage because women were not allowed to inherit property (and whose employment opportunities were virtually non-existent); therefore a ‘good’ marriage i.e. a marriage where the husband was rich was massively important and all consuming for women ofna marriageable age (and not just for rich people).
Nowadays the reality is that marriage is becoming a temporary business contract. Look at the divorce rate as evidence for that.
As marriage is primarily a business contract it is unfathomable that same sex couples be denied accces to it.
I found this survey ited on huffington post – though annoyingly it doesn’t say which survey:
“The link between marriage and longevity is much stronger among husbands than wives, however. A 2007 study that looked at death rates among European people over age 40 found that the rate was twice as high in unmarried men as in married men. The disparity in death rates was far more modest between unmarried and married women.”
Obviously marriage is has changed in many ways but most people in the Uk still set out with the aim of it being for love and for life.
I’m not sure what the “50% of marriages ending in divorce” actually means in practice. E.g. does it include 2nd and 3rd marriages which are disproportionately more likely to end in divorce.
And a 50% failure rate, while not good still suggests that roughly half of all people who marry have found someone they are happy to spend the rest of their lives with. That is a hell of a lot higher as a % than for other types of relationship.
“Head of Taiwan’s Centre for Disease Control says marriage equality will help prevent spread of STDs”
So would capital punishment!
Do you still beat your wife?
I really do wish Journalists would use the correct terms when reporting on items like this. The term Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) has been replaced by Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI).
Since when has AIDS been able to spread – “restrict the spread of HIV and AIDS”
This is sloppy reporting & the incorrect use of terminology! This is shameful, PN really does need to stop using incorrect terminology – I suggest the Editor refer to NAT for guidelines on the reporting of HIV related stories.
Very disappointing indeed.
Well I also wish PN would stop using the AWFUL expression ‘coming out for marriage equality’.
Coming out of the closet is a brave step taken by gay people the world over.
Being in favour of marriage equality simply means being a decent human being. There is no bravery required.
We should take it s a foregone conclusion that everyone is in favour of marriage equality. And if someone sayas they are against it (for whatever reason) they should be treated as a social pariah and a freak and a bigot.