Gay Marriage ban linked to rise in HIV rate

[RobinL1962]

Just sharing information...don't shoot the messenger....


Gay Marriage Bans Linked To Rise In HIV Rate
ScienceDaily (June 7, 2009) — Bans on same-sex marriage can be tied to a rise in the rate of HIV infection, a new study by two Emory economists has found.



In the first study of the impact of social tolerance levels toward gays in the United States on the HIV transmission rate, the researchers estimated that a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises the rate by four cases per 100,000 people.

"We found the effects of tolerance for gays on HIV to be statistically significant and robust – they hold up under a range of empirical models," says Hugo Mialon, an assistant professor of economics.

"Laws on gay marriage are in flux and under debate," added Andrew Francis, also an assistant professor of economics, citing the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold a ban on same-sex marriage. "It's a hot issue, and we are hoping that policymakers will take our findings into account."

The study used data from the General Social Survey (GSS), which has tracked the attitudes of Americans during the past four decades. The economists calculated that a rise in tolerance from the 1970s to the 1990s reduced HIV cases by one per 100,000 people, and that laws against same-sex marriage boosted cases by 4 per 100,000.

"Intolerance is deadly," Mialon said. "Bans on gay marriage codify intolerance, causing more gay people to shift to underground sexual behaviors that carry more risk."

Outstanding law and economics paper of the year

Francis and Mialon previously did an analysis of the optimal penalty for sexually transmitting HIV. Published in March of 2008, the study was recently named outstanding paper of the year by the editors of the American Law and Economics Review.

The two researchers developed a game theory model for sexual behavior, which demonstrated that laws in some states regarding the sexual transmission of HIV are generally inefficient at slowing the spread of the disease.

In Georgia, for instance, failing to inform a partner that you are HIV positive prior to having sex is a felony punishable by up to 30 years in prison. The same penalty can apply even if the person who is HIV positive uses precautions such as a condom during sex, and even if the sexual partner does not contract HIV. The law does not apply, however, to people who do not know that they are HIV positive and transmit the virus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[xman]

In Georgia, for instance, failing to inform a partner that you are HIV positive prior to having sex is a felony punishable by up to 30 years in prison. The same penalty can apply even if the person who is HIV positive uses precautions such as a condom during sex, and even if the sexual partner does not contract HIV. The law does not apply, however, to people who do not know that they are HIV positive and transmit the virus.

Wow, that's really what we need now in a time where more and more new infections occur. So it's better to not get tested for not knowinlgy transmit the virus. Excellent esample for how the law should be. HIV positive people in Georgia can plan to go in clinic and castrate themself since they're no more allowed to have sex.

To all the positive americans, put your tools at rest.

[odyssey]

Not that surprising. People in committed relationships (hopefully) sleep around less, thus, less transmission. By not allowing same-sex couples to marry, states are fundamentally rejecting and preventing couples from forming a committed relationship in some cases. I'm really not shocked. If same-sex partners could get married just like heteros, maybe there'd be fewer sexual partners per person, and the rate of HIV would go down.

[freewillie99]

Why is this in the Research Forum?  Sounds like Off Topic to me.

[Ann]

Free,

It's in the Research forum because it's an article about the findings of a research study concerning something that has been shown to influence hiv transmission rates. This is totally the correct forum for the subject matter.

And very interesting it is too. Makes sense to me for a number of reasons.

Ann

[madbrain]

Wow, that's really what we need now in a time where more and more new infections occur. So it's better to not get tested for not knowinlgy transmit the virus. Excellent esample for how the law should be. HIV positive people in Georgia can plan to go in clinic and castrate themself since they're no more allowed to have sex.

To all the positive americans, put your tools at rest.

Err, the law you quoted doesn't say you can't have sex, it just says you have to disclose your status. The penalty for not doing so seems extremely harsh, however.

[xman]

Please read carefully:

The same penalty can apply even if the person who is HIV positive uses precautions such as a condom during sex, and even if the sexual partner does not contract HIV.

This means that if I have sex with a negative partner, the condom broke and he get infected I'm at risk to end in jail. How do you proof disclosure? You need to have a signed document from the negative partner in which he agrees to have sex with you!

[Miss Philicia]

Ah, I get it.  If only the queers could get married they'd stop doing meth and barebacking.  It's all so simple!

[bocker3]

So, I think that it's not so much the Gay Marriage ban as it is the constant negative depiction of same-sex relationships.  Sure the marriage ban is an EXAMPLE of this -- but so are things like the ban of gays openly serving in the military, the constant linking of gays to "recruiting" and/or molesting children, the depiction of homosexuality as deviant, etc......   
I wonder if HIV infection rates have gone down in Mass or CT or will go down in ME, IA, or NH?  I doubt it, because homosexuality is still looked on as a "lesser than lifestyle".

Allowing gays to marry will not magically stop unsafe sexual behavior and will no more likely create more monogamy than currently exists.  I can't imagaine their are committed couples who screw around outside that will suddenly stop, simply because of a marriage license.

Mike

[madbrain]

Please read carefully:
This means that if I have sex with a negative partner, the condom broke and he get infected I'm at risk to end in jail. How do you proof disclosure? You need to have a signed document from the negative partner in which he agrees to have sex with you!

I assume you meant prove. I think if it ever got that far, emails, online profiles, personal ads, chat logs, maybe even voice mails, if they contain your HIV status, would help. If you disclose in person, then it's more difficult to prove. For that case, you might carry a pocket voice recorder, and record your disclosure. I bet that would stand up in court too. I tend not to disclose in person anyway because the reaction is rarely good. It's better to disclose earlier IMO - less time wasted.

And yes I have been in the situation where a condom broke, once. My disclosure was not questioned, PEP was administered, and HIV was not transmitted.

[dixieman]

Miss Philicia Ah, I get it.  If only the queers could get married they'd stop doing meth and barebacking.  It's all so simple!

Miss Philicia makes a good point... the marriage crap is a cop-out... its called personal responsibility... I doubt that it would make a difference as this study suggest... sounds nice but, I don't buy it...

[a2z]

Please read carefully:
This means that if I have sex with a negative partner, the condom broke and he get infected I'm at risk to end in jail. How do you proof disclosure? You need to have a signed document from the negative partner in which he agrees to have sex with you!

I don't know why I just saw this.

One thing you may want to know about the US justice system is that if its a criminal matter, innocence is assumed until proven otherwise.  In other words, the poz party would not have to provide a signed document... the neg party would have to prove (to the judge or jury's satisfaction) the poz party didn't disclose, either by admission of the poz party or recording (very possible in these amateur porn days) or some other means. 

[Dennis]

Sorry. I don't buy the idea of gay marriage decreasing the rate of HIV infection. Gay marriage or not, if you love the person you are with, you won't stray. And if you do, you'll do it safely. Marriage alone does not instill upon someone the trait of fidelity.

[madbrain]

Sorry. I don't buy the idea of gay marriage decreasing the rate of HIV infection. Gay marriage or not, if you love the person you are with, you won't stray.

That's assuming you define your relationship as a monogamous one in the first place. The term "stray" doesn't have any meaning otherwise. Not every couple defines their relationships that way.

And if you do, you'll do it safely. Marriage alone does not instill upon someone the trait of fidelity.

There are open marriages too. And not just in the gay community.

[Dennis]

You are correct. However, open relationships are more the exception than the rule. Although I sometimes question that in the gay community.

The study was citing how the legalization of gay marriage would reduce the number of partners one would have. So, your observation regarding open relationships is another reason that discredits this theory.

That's assuming you define your relationship as a monogamous one in the first place. The term "stray" doesn't have any meaning otherwise. Not every couple defines their relationships that way.

There are open marriages too. And not just in the gay community.